4 Hours is good time for men. 4:20 for women. I would guess 80% of Americans just don't have the body type to run that. We're all thinking about moderately fit people who are already running but have you really seen the general population?
-
150
-
Moo G wrote:
4 Hours is good time for men. 4:20 for women. I would guess 80% of Americans just don't have the body type to run that. We're all thinking about moderately fit people who are already running but have you really seen the general population?
Oprah ran 4:29. I know I'm body shaming Oprah here but she does not have the body of runner, much like I do not have the body of The Rock.
24 -
I thought there was a theory that she didn't really run the whole distance. That she was picked up and dropped off near the finish.
82 -
No Dude wrote:
WhatABunchOfJerkOffs wrote:
I want to punch every poster here so far. Trolling, smug, toxic bros, and/or arrogant are all of you, especially you OP. So, for you, 0/10.
Whatever. I had coaches in middle school and high school tell me that I wasn't an athlete. I don't think I could have even broken 65 in a 400m as a healthy 18 year old. I ran 3:17 after a year and half of training and topping out at a 55 mile week. I can't dunk, I can't bench 150 lbs. My natural body shape sucks. All it took was time and effort to run nearly 3:15. Most people don't want to work that hard. It's not arrogance.
I know a guy who ran 2:38 (and ran for Big Ten School) on a mere 35 miles a week. That should tell you the true divide between a non-talented unathletic runner like myself and somebody who ran for top collegiate program.
65 seconds would be top 10% at your school.
50 -
not a troll wrote:
I run marathons in the 2:35-2:45 range as a 40 year old male. I'm not that good myself, maybe decent. I think of myself as slightly above average even though "average" is probably 4:00 for males and 4:30 for females. But those are embarrassingly slow times. If someone tells me that I'm like sure.
But what times should I be impressed with? or feign it? (yeah I'm just a jackass who only thinks times faster than mine are impressive). If someone says they ran a 2:5x I'm thinking that's decent though I'd hate that myself. When they say 3:0X my ears close off and at 3:3x I'm like so you even trying bro (or gal). I think most ppl I know who train seriously/semi seriously run from 2:18 - 2:5x so my perspective is a bit warped.
My family always thinks my times are like record breaking but to me they're just good but okay.
You are a troll. You are definitely not 40 because no one my age uses the texting abbreviations that you use, “bro”. And the “range” of 2:35 to 2:45 is a huge jump. Someone who legitimately ran a 2:35 is going to say they run a 2:35 because they realize just how much more work it took to get there from 2:45. You haven’t sniffed those times or you would know that.
So 0/10 on the backstory.
As to the question, I’m impressed if someone trained hard and got the most out of their talent/body. That typically translates to sub4 for first time recreational runners. 3:30 for fitter guys and gals, and sub 3 for the age groupers. For perspective, I’m actually 40 and have a 2:49 PR.
302 -
I looked up average marathon times and found average male 4:13, female 4:42. But another, maybe newer one said male 4:21, female 4:48. It is getting slower every year. Running Level calculator can be kind of fun. You are in the top 1%. I would call you very good the way I define it. Maybe you are like me and look at the people ahead of you and forget how many are behind you.
32 -
Yeah, 2:38-2:39 (might have been 2:39 now that I’m thinking about it). Was her debut. Injured herself with 10ish miles left too so had to walk a decent amount. Worked as a tutor (not sure how many hours). Ran 90 mpw for training. Like I said, I’m extremely impressed. I can’t even imagine how hard medical school is, so I’m not trying to be disrespectful at all through lying about someone running a really good time while balancing it with other things.
23 -
I know multiple high schoolers who ran sub 3 off 35 mpw, but it was the week after track ended. It’s only 6:52 pace which is not fast at all
130 -
The general population doesn't run marathons so this question doesn't make sense.
150 -
honestly, anyone that can genuinely "run" the distance for the whole time is impressive.
even 4 hours impresses me.
201 -
They don't run marathons wrote:
The general population doesn't run marathons so this question doesn't make sense.
So how many in the US run Marathons?
This source says 560,000 in 2014. The US population was 318.4 million
That's about 0.18 % of the population.90 -
So how many in the US run Marathons?
This source says 560,000 in 2014. The US population was 318.4 million
That's about 0.18 % of the population.30 -
not a troll wrote:
I run marathons in the 2:35-2:45 range as a 40 year old male. I'm not that good myself, maybe decent. I think of myself as slightly above average even though "average" is probably 4:00 for males and 4:30 for females. But those are embarrassingly slow times. If someone tells me that I'm like sure.
But what times should I be impressed with? or feign it? (yeah I'm just a jackass who only thinks times faster than mine are impressive). If someone says they ran a 2:5x I'm thinking that's decent though I'd hate that myself. When they say 3:0X my ears close off and at 3:3x I'm like so you even trying bro (or gal). I think most ppl I know who train seriously/semi seriously run from 2:18 - 2:5x so my perspective is a bit warped.
My family always thinks my times are like record breaking but to me they're just good but okay.
For the general public? Finishing without walking is a huge accomplishment. a lot of finishers walk so much of it these days.
90 -
not a troll wrote:
When someone runs a 5k TT and their pace is like 8-9 min/mi is that normal? good for a 45 year old? I'm seriously not trolling. The people I run with at my age will drop 15-16' for men and 16-17' for women.
Women in 40s running 16-17 min 5k? Are you training with world class masters runners?
In my local hobby jogger races, 18min for men and 22min for women can usually win the 45-49 division. Anything under 25min for men and under 30min for women is probably "decent" for that age group.
180 -
open men
2:50 or faster decent solid
2:40 or faster capable of winning a small race
2:30 or faster good put you in top 100 at Boston
2:20 sub elite
2:15 or faster elite
2:10 of faster world class
2:05 god like status
Capable of gold at Olympics
winning major
if you can’t do any of ghese
do 5/10km 1/2 till you infer faster
Ie anything over 3:00 just not that fast
317 -
not a troll wrote:
I run marathons in the 2:35-2:45 range
This seems like the worst. Basically you spend just as much time on running as a pro, but you're a lot slower.
173 -
I haven’t read all the responses but I’m surprised by the big ratio of downvotes. Seems like a genuine and legit question. I recently started coaching middle and high schoolers and it’s hard to require your brain to what is considered “fast” for any given demographic. I have friends who kept running seriously after college and still can drop a sub 5 mile in a random CrossFit workout like it’s nothing, which blows my mind. However, 5 years ago when I was in college I wouldn’t have even thought twice
110 -
Yes a troll wrote:
not a troll wrote:
I run marathons in the 2:35-2:45 range as a 40 year old male. I'm not that good myself, maybe decent. I think of myself as slightly above average even though "average" is probably 4:00 for males and 4:30 for females. But those are embarrassingly slow times. If someone tells me that I'm like sure.
But what times should I be impressed with? or feign it? (yeah I'm just a jackass who only thinks times faster than mine are impressive). If someone says they ran a 2:5x I'm thinking that's decent though I'd hate that myself. When they say 3:0X my ears close off and at 3:3x I'm like so you even trying bro (or gal). I think most ppl I know who train seriously/semi seriously run from 2:18 - 2:5x so my perspective is a bit warped.
My family always thinks my times are like record breaking but to me they're just good but okay.
You are a troll. You are definitely not 40 because no one my age uses the texting abbreviations that you use, “bro”. And the “range” of 2:35 to 2:45 is a huge jump. Someone who legitimately ran a 2:35 is going to say they run a 2:35 because they realize just how much more work it took to get there from 2:45. You haven’t sniffed those times or you would know that.
So 0/10 on the backstory.
As to the question, I’m impressed if someone trained hard and got the most out of their talent/body. That typically translates to sub4 for first time recreational runners. 3:30 for fitter guys and gals, and sub 3 for the age groupers. For perspective, I’m actually 40 and have a 2:49 PR.
Maybe you’re just jealous?
010 -
.,.,. wrote:
anothermarathoner wrote:
My friend ran 2:36 at the Boston marathon, and he thinks he’s the best in the world for some reason (lol, one of those types), but he literally packed up and moved to Boulder to pursue running. Barely broke 17 in college. His life revolves around his running. Literally obsessed with strava and spends his entire day trying to get as many followers as possible haha. My other friend (female) ran 2:38 on a difficult course last year. Both are early 20s. But she’s in med school. Has a job. Her life does not revolve around the sport. My point is, I’m much more impressed with her time because of the fact that she has other demanding things going on in her life and wasn't able to give it 100% (and also she’s a woman, so it’s a much better time in comparatively).
I’m much more impressed with someone who has a family, who has a full time job, who can’t plan their life around their runs. So, for the general public, if a guy runs sub 3 or a woman runs sub 3:30 I’m super impressed. But if someone who ran 4 years in college moves to Boulder to train and gives it their full time and commitment, I think it would take a sub 2:22 for guys and sub 2:40 for women for me to be impressed.
You're telling me a woman ran 2.38 whilst being in "med school" AND having a job? I don't believe you as I am a student doctor and there is not enough time for all three. Typical internet lies.
The only American women who ran between 2:34:00 and 2:40:00 ran their time at: Chicago, Grandma's, Indianapolis, The Woodlands, or New York. All courses are flat except for New York. Only two women ran NY and their ages were 31 and 29. Neither were running their debut marathon. One had run at least a dozen prior races including the 2016 Olympic Trials and the other had several races to her credit including the 2020 Olympic Trials.
153 -
Not true. I don’t know where you’re getting these lists of times but they are definitely missing some names then. Feel bad putting her name out there on these boards but she was early 20s last fall and ran a marathon in NE.
20
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.