what's the 5k potential for a "normal" person?

Barring severe generic abnormality, any male between 18-40 can train to a sub-15. Period.

What you really mean is that you are not more talented than the average D1 runner, that puts you in the top 0.01% of the US population.

To give some perspective, the average US runner (

What you really mean is that you are not more talented than the average D1 runner, that puts you in the top 0.01% of the US population.

To give some perspective, the average US runner (10% of the US population) runs the marathon in 4 hours.

To answer the OP question, you may or may not be able to run 2:50 in the marathon, it depends on how do you respond to training. Although I am much older, I had a similar history: started doing ultras as a master with 100+ MPW mileage; at that time I could barely break 20 min in the 5K. Then moved to shorter distances and eventually run 2:50 in the marathon, but had to drastically change my training volume and intensity and break 17 in the 5K first.

Chrome A. Soams wrote:

Barring severe generic abnormality, any male between 18-40 can train to a sub-15. Period.

Yes, sure! When I was a young kid I also used to believe that with proper training and dedication anything was possible, become an astronaut, go to the olympics, isn't it part of the american dream?

Chrome A. Soams wrote:

Barring severe generic abnormality, any male between 18-40 can train to a sub-15. Period.

I know someone who runs 90+ mile per week consistently and never breaks 18, and had a hard time breaking 20. Period.

It should be 80, oops.

I agree, middle distance guy. I think some of the commentary here is way off. A 30:xx guy "average"? No D1 runner is just average.

Sub-2:50 in a marathon is way far from average. Running 3:00 puts you in something like the top 1.8%--of all marathon runners, not simply your age group.

The key is continued training...which means the real key is avoiding injury. Get to the higher mileage when you are capable of handling it. No "average" runner can handle 100 mpw. I am in a club, and there are some very good runners in it, but most people--the VAST majority--do not even run 30 mpw. Mileage will absolutely help, but there are good runners and then there are better runners.

Me in real life wrote:

90% of all male runners between the ages of 19-29 in America, never break 17 min.

I doubt that number. It's probably more like 75%.

Here's the thing: distance runners are made up of people with some talent. Those are the people who run under 14:30. People with average talent: those between 15-16:30. People with less than average talent: Those who can't break 17 (I'm talking about people who actually train seriously for a number of years and can't break 17).

There's a lot of HS runners who are of below average talent. They got into running because all the talented people when to other sports and they wanted to do a sport. These are the people with plodding form, no speed at all, and not all the much innate endurance. They are actually slower than the average person. They are just trained to get the most out of they limited ability.

Now to top it off, some people are sprinters, some are middle distance runners, some are distance runners (5k-1/2 marathon), and some are ultra distance runners (marathon and above).

A person with average talent, but who is more a sprinter type might be able to break 55 at 400 and 26 for 200, but can't break 17:00 at 5k or 5:00 in a mile.

The "average" person, aged 19-29, of a"average" talent can probably run somewhere in the range of 16-20 minutes for 5k depending on their innate running traits (sprint to ultra), and probably 2:40-4:00 for a marathon.

That's if they train a reasonable amount.

At 29 so are starting to hit the age wall for 5k, but you still have close to a decade left on your marathon potential. The OP seems to be of average talent. Assuming his is a distance runner type, then I'd say he could probably run around 16:30-17:45 (given his age) if he ran 70mpw for a couple of years and trained smartly (i.e run at the right pace, increase mileage sensible, do the proper intensity - tempos, intervals).

Unless he ran 19:17 on a short or downhill course:)

I agree with you.

I think the limit of the mortals lies in somewhere between 16 or 17 minutes 5K for a healthy young man.

And consistency is the key to realizing one's talent. (Some may even say durability is a talent in itself.)

And hey, good to see you here again. :)

I'm not sure either. The average American that can run a 5k or the average untrained American running a 5k, or the average trained American running a 5k are all very different. then comes age groups. I think the average American can't even run 3.1 miles with out stopping. The average running untrained American probably 21 to 30 min 5k. Anyone less is probably very young, genetically gifted, is training properly, or running a huge volume of "junk miles" is my belief. The OP talking about a 2:50 marathon is kind of left field to his original title post. Definitely agree that some people are predisposed to doing more with less in regards to training, comes easier.

George_213 wrote:

Chrome A. Soams wrote:

Barring severe generic abnormality, any male between 18-40 can train to a sub-15. Period.

I know someone who runs 90+ mile per week consistently and never breaks 18, and had a hard time breaking 20. Period.

Anyone running 90 (or 80) MPW who has trouble breaking 20 has something else going on.

I do not know what your main or ultimate goal is, but do not put too much emphasis on your 5k PR if your main goal is the marathon. So many guys struggle to get near or break 3:00, yet their 5k PRs are much faster than mine. I ran 3:02 in my first (and only) marathon, yet my 5k PR is only 18:57, which around here is laughable (even considering my age, which is 45+). I have read on these boards, over and over, that "you need to break 18 in order to run 3:00" or you "need to be at least at 18:30" in order to get near 3:00. Do not listen to them. It all depends on you and your abilities. I like marathon pace. Others do not.

I should have stipulated that my comments are directed toward the OP and his questions.

Frustrated_runner wrote:

I agree with you.

I think the limit of the mortals lies in somewhere between 16 or 17 minutes 5K for a healthy young man.

And consistency is the key to realizing one's talent. (Some may even say durability is a talent in itself.)

And hey, good to see you here again. :)

Good to see you, Frustrated_runner. You make an excellent point: the ability to run day-in and day-out over a long period of time is, in my view, a talent. It means that your body is nicely suited to the motions and impact of running.

running bc why not wrote:

(bump) From my experiences, the benchmarks I consider at minimum attainable by "the average person after at least a year of dedicated training" is as follows:

1600- 4:40

5000- 16:45

Half- 1:25

Full- 3:10

Would love to hear your opinions as well.

Seems like a 4:40 is worlds better than a 3:10

Surprise! wrote:

running bc why not wrote:

(bump) From my experiences, the benchmarks I consider at minimum attainable by "the average person after at least a year of dedicated training" is as follows:

1600- 4:40

5000- 16:45

Half- 1:25

Full- 3:10

Would love to hear your opinions as well.

Seems like a 4:40 is worlds better than a 3:10

Yeah--I agree. And I would add that 16:45 for me would be beyond even a pipe dream...yet I beat 3:10 by nearly 8 minutes. All runners are different, and we have our respective strengths and weaknesses.

Surprise! wrote:

running bc why not wrote:

(bump) From my experiences, the benchmarks I consider at minimum attainable by "the average person after at least a year of dedicated training" is as follows:

1600- 4:40

5000- 16:45

Half- 1:25

Full- 3:10

Seems like a 4:40 is worlds better than a 3:10

According to McMillan, 4:40 is the equivalent of a 2:37 marathon. Definitely not something attainable by the average person after a year of training. I suspect that the average american (5'9" -195 pound guy) would have a hard time breaking 6:30 after a year of training.

People here seems to forget that runners are a self-selected group and do not represent the "average", not even close.

Good points.

I would also add that I have a friend (who is 13 years younger) who has run 4:45 and 17 mid, but barely beat me in the marathon. We recently ran in the same marathon, and he beat me by five seconds. I was ahead of him for about 23.5 miles, and ran alone for a fair chunk of the second half. The wind put a dent in me.

In any case, OP, do not stress over short distance PRs if your goal is the marathon.

Surprise! wrote:

running bc why not wrote:

(bump) From my experiences, the benchmarks I consider at minimum attainable by "the average person after at least a year of dedicated training" is as follows:

1600- 4:40

5000- 16:45

Half- 1:25

Full- 3:10

Would love to hear your opinions as well.

Seems like a 4:40 is worlds better than a 3:10

Well, improving in the 1600 comes a lot faster than improvement in the 5k-marathon range.

Still, I agree, 4:40 seems a bit fast for the average person. The poster said "minimum attainable". If he meant maximal, then maybe I'd agree. A semi talented "average" person in the OP's age range might be able to obtain 4:40 after one year of optimal training.

Most could not.

Remember the OP did not say what could the average person do after one year of training. He said what could the average person "like me do if I actually got on a plan and stuck to it". He's also willing to run up to 100MPW.

The OP has run in the past. He's not a total novice and he just ran 5k after a month of training.

So an average person like the OP is not 5-9 195, is not a total couch potato. He is an active maie in his late twenties. What can that person do if they seriously trained. The OP did not stipulate a time frame (still at 28 the clock is ticking).

A guy who ran 19:17 and 3:29 off less than optimal 30-40 MPW training might be able to achieve something in the 17:00 range in a year or two, and in the 2:50 range in a couple of year of serious, and smart training.

The average 20-something active male will have a larger range since we all have different innate abilities. There's someone out there who could run 4:40 after a year. That person is probably not "average", but is not necessarily a star who missed his calling. More than likely he just another guy who could have run 3:50 1500 or a 14:30 5k. Pretty darn good, but nothing write home about either.