pr100 wrote:
I can do it now at 46 with minutes to spare, not sure what the youngest age at which I could do it was... my fitness has been up and down over the years (and I've never been fast) so it's not an easy thing to remember.
(Ed Whitlock did 42 at age 80 a couple of weeks ago.)
I hope you mean 4-6 and not actually 46, because that would be amazing
I'm 13 and my pr is 37:17...so answer is NO
And have you run a mile in less than your age in decades?
[Example: Coghlan ran a sub-four mile when he was 4.x decades old; on your 39th birthday you'd have to run 3.9 minutes (3:54.00) or better; et cetera.]
I can only walk, not run, so it looks like I'll have to live to 150 or so to get that one, but I'd think some of LRC's alter kockers have done it...
Nobody is going to beat Mr. Whitlock -38 minutes, that is incredible!!!
This isn't like shooting your age in an 18 hole round of golf. I'm 45 so this would be very easy.
Everytime. Pretty easy when you are 61.
That is why I said it has to be a male 50 or 60 to ever hit the 400 mark.
older runner wrote:
That is why I said it has to be a male 50 or 60 to ever hit the 400 mark.
Here are your masters records.
http://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/masters_outdoorTF_world.aspThe youngest a guy has done the 400 is probably about 52. For women, the closest time is 68.x at age 65.
I'm 50....36:15...I train well below 50 minute 10k pace...not even sure how slow that is.
wi|fredo wrote:
pr100 wrote:I can do it now at 46 with minutes to spare, not sure what the youngest age at which I could do it was... my fitness has been up and down over the years (and I've never been fast) so it's not an easy thing to remember.
(Ed Whitlock did 42 at age 80 a couple of weeks ago.)
I hope you mean 4-6 and not actually 46, because that would be amazing
Huh? I mean going some minutes faster than 46 for 10k at age 46. I'm not sure what you thought I meant...
Many times once I reached 36, I'm now 52-still doing it. I can do it in training now!
No, I haven't broken 22 for the 10k.... yet