NotAnotherChristianRunner wrote:
Bruce Deacon recently won a 5k race in B.C. in 15:52, I would say that is respectable. He's 46 years old.
For the average 40+ runner I would say 18-19 seconds is something to be reasonably happy with.
18-19 seconds for 5K? That's moving. That's about 16-17 kilometres a minute, or 1000 km/h; a shitload faster than Bruce, Mo or Kenny B!
18:30 would get you 9th place in the 40-49 age group in our local turkey trot (Corning, NY). Need to be 17:00 or better to win a pie.
For average 40+ guy, a sub-24 is respectable.
Change @ Park wrote:
For average 40+ guy, a sub-24 is respectable.
That is under 8 minute miles. For the average 40+guy, an 8 minute mile is possible. Three in a row is respectable for him. It is not respectable for the 20-something LRC poster, but those people are usually egotistical trolls. Nobody with a brain thinks they have a valid point.
By the way, the OP was likely a troll, as well. I score him a 6/10.
I'm 45 (male) and can run mid 18 5k currently on a good day. I have to work my aze off to do it though (70 mile weeks). It sux getting old.
60% (Local class): 22:45
70% (Regional class): 19:30
80% (National class): 17:04
90% (World class): 15:10
--------------------------------------------------------------
Are you kidding me with this? Age grading does not work because 99% of the fast people already retired by that age. And even if they're competing, they are training not even 50% of the what they are capable of because it no longer matters.
I would though add that 18 minutes would be respectable.
nyloco wrote:
18:30 would get you 9th place in the 40-49 age group in our local turkey trot (Corning, NY). Need to be 17:00 or better to win a pie.
107 (last in that age group 51:39
54th place 40-49 AG (right in the middle) 25:44
Dallas turkey trot 40-44
1st 20:24
69th 32:38
138th 1:18:50
Carlsbad 5k 40-44
1st 15:42
113th 23:30
226th 37:55
An average time for a man barely over 40 would seem to be in the 24 minute range. Whether one feels that is a respectable time is their own opinion.
Of course more 43 year-olds can run 20:44 than 3:14:59. The VAST majority of marathon finishers run mileage similar to middle-school girls.
Syracuse Festival of Races hosts USATF Masters 5k champs.
http://www.leonetiming.com/2012/Roads/Festival/FestivalMen12.htm
420 … Mile? wrote:
Of course more 43 year-olds can run 20:44 than 3:14:59. The VAST majority of marathon finishers run mileage similar to middle-school girls.
Simpler [and probably more accurate] is seeing what the McMillan Calculator has to say. It gives:
20:44 5k = 3:22:01 marathon
20:01 5k = 3:14:59 marathon
Seems about right, but I think it's way harder for recreational runners to get in the volume of training required to hit the marathon equivalent of their 5k time.
For example, I'm 49 and my season best for 5k is 18:56. McMillan gives the marathon equivalent as 3:04:29 but there's simply no way I could get in the training required to approach that kind of marathon time.
Arm Chair Wrestling wrote:
Syracuse Festival of Races hosts USATF Masters 5k champs.
http://www.leonetiming.com/2012/Roads/Festival/FestivalMen12.htm
Is that an uber fast course? I see results each year and it looks like runners do about 15-30 sec faster there than at other races. It's also very skewed because it Is a national championship, so nothing average about those results.
That said, 19s is pretty respectable for 40s.
Arm Chair Wrestling wrote:
Syracuse Festival of Races hosts USATF Masters 5k champs.
http://www.leonetiming.com/2012/Roads/Festival/FestivalMen12.htm
That is not a Master's race. Master's races only contain people over 40 years of age, not 20.
You are joking,right? No average 40 year old runs under 15:30, unless, of course, they are from Kenya. lol!
I'm 42 and ran 16:11 5k this year. I ran about 50 miles a week avg but injury is always on the horizon. I'd like to break 16 but only race about 3-4 times a year because I get injured so easily running faster.
opnion nated wrote:
I used Boston Qualifying time for a 43 year old of 3:14:59 and the aged grade table gave me 20:44 being about equal ranking.
No way. I would bet a lot more 43 year olds could run 20:44 than 3:14:59 for a marathon.
Some funky calculation there.
It might be close (at least for me)...
When I was a few years past 43 I ran very close to 3:14:5x @ Boston and close to 20 flat 5k a few months later. I was targeting 3:12/3:13 but ran out of fuel during the last mile which cost 1-2 min.
For over 40 guy?
I'd say probably breaking 18 minutes and faster.
Jack Chung wrote:
Any average 40+ year old should be able to break 15:30 with moderate running (10-15 mpw) after 4 months.
Very funny.
19:30 would win you your age group at a lot of average medium size races outside of the big running cities. Anything under 19:00 would be excellent.
Jack Chung wrote:
Any average 40+ year old should be able to break 15:30 with moderate running (10-15 mpw) after 4 months.
Yes.
One of 'em wrote:
What do the masses say? And please keep in mind the difference between "respectable" and "good."
I'd say anything under 20 fits the bill for "respectable." At 80 percent of road races, that'll earn you an age-group award.
Good? Gotta go under 18:30, at least.
_____________________________
As a 54 yr. old male, I'd say you are about right.
I ran under 16 until I was 41. then under 17 until 52. But, I have seen most respectable times in their 40's under 20. I think it's all relative. in other words, if you were a 14:20 guy in your 20's and stayed committed to training, even through marriage , kids etc, then you should easily be under 16 through your 30's and under 17 through most of your 40's.
But, if you are a guy in your 40's who never broke 16 in your life? Then under 20 min is actually a good effort. Maybe a great effort in some extreme weather or hard course races.