Age Group 45-50 What is your're best 5k and 10k for 2006?

C'mon Pete. IF someone can't break 45 minutes for a 10K at 45 they DO suck or at best that is mediocre. Sub-40:00 is at best average talent. Now the 37:00/6:00 per mile range for 45+ is pretty good I admit, and your time is completely awesome, worthy of a solid sub-28:00 for a youngster.

almost 48 here-

5k 18:00

10 38:20

best times in a couple of years

I will differ on this wrote:

C'mon Pete. IF someone can't break 45 minutes for a 10K at 45 they DO suck or at best that is mediocre. Sub-40:00 is at best average talent. Now the 37:00/6:00 per mile range for 45+ is pretty good I admit, and your time is completely awesome, worthy of a solid sub-28:00 for a youngster.

You must be 22.

5k 16:47 road

10k did not run one

half marathon 1:16

marathon 2:42

I am 46 year old and recently ran a 34:44 for 10k. I know this will not make a lot of other old farts happy, but that is equal to about a 33:30 in my prime. I realize that the reason that I don't run faster anymore is because I don't train anywhere near what I once did. It is lifestyle changes that make the biggest difference.

SoCal Pete wrote:

OhHenry wrote:

deleted this thread....I suck!

Absolutely not! You rock!

Jesus, man, we're all 45-years-old and above! Do you know how great it is that we're all still out there running decent times, refusing that fast spiral downward into immobility that so many of our peers have chosen?

of us and the slowest of us is far less than the difference between any one of us and those who gave up on physical fitness a couple decades back!

I agree that IF you are still out there 'doing it' you have nothing to feel bad about. Just give it your best within the constraints of job, family and age/injuries, allow, at our age.

I, however have NOT 'chosen immobility'; it chose me. I used to run into my mid 30s with prs of 29:51 10k, 106 1/2 mar and 222 marathon. However, in my forties, I started having knee problems (not totally because of running), have had 4 knee surgeries, have alot of pain in both knees due to lack of cartlidge and CANNOT run anymore.

SoCal Pete wrote:

14:45 (track)

31:45 (road)

those prs for anyone over 40 are fantastic. I am always interested in HOW masters runners arrive at their 'place' in the masters lists.

Would you say that 'those who busted ass between age 16 and 30' for the most part are NOT the masters stars, having 'done their thing' and moved on to other hobbies?

I ask because it seems alot of the masters stars, (besides the big names that we all recognize, that are far and few between) are guys who 'discovered' running in their late 30's or early 40s and tap into the potential that was hidden there, under the surface; but, more importantly, have the 'fresh and brand new' enthusiasm that those who busted 100 mile weeks throughout their 20s and 30s; rarely have.

Which are you, Pete? Sorry that I'm not sure who you are without knowing your name. (I've been out of the loop for years and just discovered this website). I remember a Pete Mundle who was a good masters runner from So. Cal, but that was decades ago and obviously isn't you.

I'm interested in your 'take' on this subject.

Those times of yours from last year are amazing; and would mean you were probably a 14 flat 5k guy and a sub 30 10k guy when you were 28 years old? (or even faster)

silly conversions wrote:

I am 46 year old and recently ran a 34:44 for 10k. I know this will not make a lot of other old farts happy, but that is equal to about a 33:30 in my prime. I realize that the reason that I don't run faster anymore is because I don't train anywhere near what I once did. It is lifestyle changes that make the biggest difference.

A 3% slow down is very good, if not off the charts. If you look at things like WAVA, which are based on age group records, you might expect more like a 10-12% slow down. So I kind of have to disagree. 15 years ago I was a consistent low 32 10k runner off of pretty moderate mileage. Now I do more milege, but still enough quality, and haven't been able to break 35 for years. And if you look at race results, there are very few 45-49 year olds breaking 35 for 10k.

Question for SoCal Pete, what kinds of times were you running in your 20s and 30s?

18:14 - possibly a stride or three short

39:00 give or take - marathon relay leg

I did a 16:30 5k road this summer but I suspect the course was slightly short (re-routed due to construction on the normal certified course), so I'll say an upper 16 (which is what I ran at the same race last year).

Didn't do any 10k's but I did manage a 53:46 at the Boilermaker 15k (certainly not a PR course). I'm 48.

Kind of funny that SoCalPete was the first to answer this thread as it's all downhill from there!

SoCal Pete took 11 years off and drank and smoked. He came all the way back which makes his performances more amazing. However he also now has "fresher legs" than other 45-year-olds which might be helping him get through training with more vigor.

5K: 17:28 (road)

10K: NONE (37:29 marathon split)

good question - I too would like to see some real stats on this issue; my hunch is most have been running all along...and that there are realatively very few who started in their late 30's+ who are now at the top of the charts. It may seem like there are a fair number of them, but that's only because we hear about each and everyone of them.

My theory is this; the best runners stopped running because:

1) injury - not burnout In my area the number of the best runners from say high school and college over the years had to quit from injuries. If they could still run today they would and they would still be at the top. Some have transitioned over to other sports like biking.

2) reached their best - some quite running competitively because they have seen thier better days and do not enjoy racing at levels below where they once were.

3) jobs, wives & families - others stopped racing due to their families...some go willing and happily others go but deep down wish they could have continued to run

So those left still running are pretty much one of these:

1) runners who never quite - ran all along - were able to work and run at the same time

2) runners who quite for a while but after turning 40 +/- decided to make a comeback

3) runners who never ran and just started the sport at a later age.

Maybe we can make a list of the top American Masters runners and note which of these 3 best fits them: for example: these are in no order just as they came to me or I found them in the record books -

1) Tony Young (4:05 mile) running all along)

2) Pete Magill (14:45 5k record 45+) running all along

3) John Hinton

4) Pete Hegelbach

5) Kevin Paulk

6) Doug Bell

7) John Tuttle (8k record 23:25)running all along

8) Bill Rogers (8k record 24:41 45+)running all along

9) Eddie Hellebuyck (2:12 marathon) running all along

10) Paul Pilkington (10 mile record 49:34) running all along

11) Mbarak Hussein (1/2 mar record 1:03:23) running all along

12)Steve Plasencia (25K record 1:18;38) running all along

edit: Pete Magill (from previous poster) would be #2 runner who quit for a while (that is impressive - I did not know that)...is there a way to edit my previous list?

Edit out the likes of Eddy H. too. He was a confirmed druggie. And there is a difference between 40 and 45.

1) Tony Young (4:05 mile) running all along)

2) Pete Magill (14:45 5k record 45+) running after a break

3) John Hinton

4) Pete Hegelbach

5) Kevin Paulk

6) Doug Bell

7) John Tuttle (8k record 23:25)running all along

8) Bill Rogers (8k record 24:41 45+)running all along

9) Eddie Hellebuyck (2:12 marathon) running all along

10) Paul Pilkington (10 mile record 49:34) running all along

11) Mbarak Hussein (1/2 mar record 1:03:23) running all along

12)Steve Plasencia (25K record 1:18;38) running all along

"C'mon Pete. IF someone can't break 45 minutes for a 10K at 45 they DO suck or at best that is mediocre. Sub-40:00 is at best average talent. Now the 37:00/6:00 per mile range for 45+ is pretty good I admit, and your time is completely awesome, worthy of a solid sub-28:00 for a youngster."

Actually only 17 guys out of 280 40-45 your olds at the Dana Point Turkey Trot broke 40 minutes. Same about for the 35-39 Age Group. I not saying breaking 40 is awesome but I believe your over stating saying it is average talent. IF you can break 40 Minutes after 35 years old your a much better than average fit man and or and exceptionally fit woman for only 14 women out of 1700 at the Turkey Trot of most local big races break 40 minutes.

Oh and breaking 45 minutes shows a person to be reasonably fit. Not saying that this one race is the bar but it shows a decent example. only 70 or the 280 35-39 year old males broke 48 minutes which even Mark Wetmore said about the top 25% percent of masters finishers are pretty fit men and women. I say get of your high horse and realize not anyone can break 45 or 40 with out putting in some training beyond what you refer to as "Sucking"

Mark Wetmore referred to the top 25% of the racers at MASTER'S USATF WINTER CROSS COUNTRY NATIONALS in Boulder this February, not some po-dunk Dana Point Turkey Trot filled with hobby joggers.

I think if you can break 40 minutes as a male at age 45 that makes you an OK runner but nothing special. There are top women at 40 who can break 35 minutes for a 10K so what's your point?

I guess I have an issue with who your comparing runners to. Why don't you compare your 10K time to Bekele 2620 and tell me how much you suck? That is my point!