at what age is a sub-5 mile impressive

Fourteen and younger and forty and older for a male. For females, sub-5 is always impressive.

9 and 62

I'd put it closer to 35 than 40. It's not that one's body declines to the point where sub 5 becomes physically impressive, it's that the time required to maintain sub 5 shape becomes more limited as one advances in their chosen career, raises children, and deals with whatever life throws your way.

Sub 5 is impressive for any age. Sub 5 requires a pretty good combination of speed and endurance.

I’d argue even sub 6 is impressive for any age

Maybe for Runner's World.

From my 35 years of experience in running and coaching I would say that for males 13/14 year old or middle school runner running sub 5 is pretty impressive, and after 40 if you can still run a sub 5 then yea that is pretty good going.

For females 15/16 and sub 5 is very good and really at any age after that as it isn't easy to do.

Now what is more impressive sub 5 min mile or sub 17 5k that is another one to think about.

I am a high school junior and my classmates are still impressed by my 4:58. Especially girls lol. I once read a post that said "it doesn't matter how far below you get below 5, as long as someone hears a 4 at the beginning they'll yell "this guy ran a four minute mile!!"

Any age.

SteakSauce wrote:

I am a high school junior and my classmates are still impressed by my 4:58. Especially girls lol. I once read a post that said "it doesn't matter how far below you get below 5, as long as someone hears a 4 at the beginning they'll yell "this guy ran a four minute mile!!"

Definitely true, I have gotten the "4 minute mile" treatment myself. Always leaves me shaking my head and smiling.

I competed against a 49 year old guy who ran a 4:16 1500m last summer, so that equals a 4:33 mile.

I'm ten years younger, ran a 4:27 1500m that day, but a lot of masters runners are faster than me on the 1500m. I'm more of an 800m guy.

52.

I think a 430 mile is impressive for a HSer. 17yomale 430 mile age grades to a 86.2%. 52 yo 4:59 mile is about the same

14/40 wrote:

Fourteen and younger and forty and older for a male. For females, sub-5 is always impressive.

Humblebrag: engaged.

It's interesting (not really, see: humblebrag) that I was 14 when I broke 5 minutes. I stopped running (girls, other sports) and didn't pick it back up again until I was in my 40s. Once again, I was able to break 5 minutes.

My calves felt like they were going to explode though. It's funny how frail the human body is, especially as age sets in and every little unplanned movement has an uncomfortably high chance of causing grievous injury

1979 wrote:

I competed against a 49 year old guy who ran a 4:16 1500m last summer, so that equals a 4:33 mile.

I'm ten years younger, ran a 4:27 1500m that day, but a lot of masters runners are faster than me on the 1500m. I'm more of an 800m guy.

That's an extremely generous conversion.

Probably closer to a 4:36-37 mile, but still very impressive.

RelativityOfAge wrote:

I was thinking about how impressive a sub-5 mile is for different age groups. In other words, as a male runner ages, at what point does sub-5 become impressive? (This is inspired by the 'what 5k time is respectable' thread.) By 'impressive' I mean more than respectable, as I think sub-5 is respectable for most people.

I would definitely be impressed by sub-5 at 50 years old. I think 45 years old would still be impressive. I'm not sure about 40 years old, though. What do you all think? Input from masters runners would be most appreciated.

On the other end of the spectrum, I'd say that sub-5 at 15 years old or younger is impressive as well.

Sub 5 at 5

Sub 5 at 60

I think the question needs some context. Relative to the mean and standard deviation of the general public, it is incredibly impressive at any age. As an indicator of whether a runner will be highly competitive in their age group at a regional level, we are probably talking 45-50 years old and up. if you aren't impressed with a 35 year old running sub 5, I don't think it's warranted by age 40.

12 and 50.

My age. I'm 67.

FormerTree wrote:

I think the question needs some context. Relative to the mean and standard deviation of the general public, it is incredibly impressive at any age. As an indicator of whether a runner will be highly competitive in their age group at a regional level, we are probably talking 45-50 years old and up. if you aren't impressed with a 35 year old running sub 5, I don't think it's warranted by age 40.

OP here - sorry, I should have specified that I was referring to runners who are actively training and seeking competition, such as HS, College, and Masters track runners, as well as folks doing road races.

To reiterate, I'm mostly asking about the point at which the aging process is far enough along to make a sub-5 mile not just respectable/decent, but actually impressive.

45. It is still very reasonable but very few people have the dedication to train and eat properly at that age.