Sub 20 minute 5K at 50 years old?

Scientists believe to much running in the youth will negatively affect your running economy as an adult. I think its safest to focus on hill training, easy strides, long run and long intervals. Don't do to much short intervals. If you have a body that responds to that sort of training then you should give it a go

I started running at age 38 and got better for about 9 years with increasing training. Actually ran a 15:35 5K at age 49 and a 16:05 at age 50. 16:10 at age 51. It seemed pretty easy to do back then about 22 years ago. You don't need a year to get down from 23 to sub 20 5K at age 50.

Just do 400s at the track a few times a week and one fast tempo run each week and hope you don't get injured.

Your 17:03 5k at age 39 age grades to 77.7.%.

An equivalent age-graded time at age 50 is 18:43, so a sub-20 5k is well within your capacities. I'd say that you could get there in about 3-4 months with consistent training of at least 20-30 mpw (vs. 6-12 months).

In my experience, it's difficult to go up by more than about 5% on an age-graded equivalent time, assuming comparable training at each age.

Re-reading your question about what is hard and what is easy against straining and not straining it is not black and white like that. It isn't either hard or easy and that's the end of it—no!

There are degrees of easy obviously, from walking to jogging to running steady......whatever all that happens to be.

A run can still be a very strong effort without straining. THAT in fact is one thing that the modern runner needs to learn. Earlier I wrote that we don't warm-up or warm-down slow enough. This is true. I have done both with world-class runners (I am not even close to deserving to carry their water bottle). They often warm-up dead slow to begin with and I have done warm-downs with 2:09 marathon runners and sub-30 10Kers and you would be surprised at how slow they go.

Same with easy runs. The difference between their easy and their balls-out racing is much broader than ours. I ran with a sub-13-minute 5K guy and we were going 5:30 per km. He could have slept.

I suggest going back and reading what I wrote again about Lydiard and all that.

You should be able to run strong without straining and differentiate that from hard with straining.

If you plan to race sub-4:00 per km pace for 5K, then you should be able to run sub-4:45 for 59 minutes and control it.....

To clarify, SprintGeezer's claimed 5K time here is unverified... not a race, no official timing, no observers, no GPS track... and a one-off track workout he timed himself, perhaps inaccurately.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I did increasingly long race-pace intervals followed by “long runs” of 40-60 mins on a mill. Did a TT on the track when I started to get a mill-related knee injury, and to my huge surprise went sub-19, at 53.

There are multiple ways to get there, make sure you keep it interesting.

Being an oldtimer myself, this is a great thread. At age 54 I got back into running and managed to train steady at 25-30 miles a week for about 4 months and went from 21:54 to 19:48 for a 5K, so I think the OP goal is very doable. The key to this is to make sure you take adequate days for recovery and don't do anything stupid when you are feeling good. Play the long-game. To a great extent, I'd advise staying away from the track, as you can very quickly revert to your youth and become a slave to the watch. Intensity should also be minimized. Fartlek is a great alternative. Also, find as much soft surface to run on as possible.

It's things like this that make running so much fun. No fan-fare, not medals, no prize money no shoe contracts; however, the effort and journey are just the same. Here is to an injury-free, consistent 12-months of running. If you can do that, I'd put your odds at about 95+%. Good luck.

oregon oldtimer +1

"The key to this is to make sure you take adequate days for recovery and don't do anything stupid when you are feeling good. "

Monterey Fan wrote:

I started running at age 38 and got better for about 9 years with increasing training. Actually ran a 15:35 5K at age 49 and a 16:05 at age 50. 16:10 at age 51. It seemed pretty easy to do back then about 22 years ago. You don't need a year to get down from 23 to sub 20 5K at age 50.

Just do 400s at the track a few times a week and one fast tempo run each week and hope you don't get injured.

"Just do 400s at the track a few times a week

Rofl. Nobody do this.

Ernest wrote:

To clarify, SprintGeezer's claimed 5K time here is unverified... not a race, no official timing, no observers, no GPS track... and a one-off track workout he timed himself, perhaps inaccurately.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I did increasingly long race-pace intervals followed by “long runs” of 40-60 mins on a mill. Did a TT on the track when I started to get a mill-related knee injury, and to my huge surprise went sub-19, at 53.

There are multiple ways to get there, make sure you keep it interesting.

All true, except for inaccurate timing. GPS was not needed, it was a new NCAA track. Posters here believe I could have gone even faster in a race. And to my great surprise my time was apparently my age-graded time equivalent to a run I did in HS!

Regardless, the training log is there, FWIW. It merely presents an option. I would like to emphasize to the OP that this regimen screwed my knee for more than 6 months, and it is still not perfect. YMMV

thats's great.... wrote:

Monterey Fan wrote:

I started running at age 38 and got better for about 9 years with increasing training. Actually ran a 15:35 5K at age 49 and a 16:05 at age 50. 16:10 at age 51. It seemed pretty easy to do back then about 22 years ago. You don't need a year to get down from 23 to sub 20 5K at age 50.

Just do 400s at the track a few times a week and one fast tempo run each week and hope you don't get injured.

"Just do 400s at the track a few times a week

Rofl. Nobody do this.

I dunno, being a hairs width away from sub16 at 50 is not a bad stat to back that up with! Iv noticed a lot of the recent masters record holders at around 5k don't actually run huge milage but do a fair bit of speed work and strength work.

Great post, oregon oldtimer.

We are the same age.

19:48 is about 16:00 age-graded, I think. That's solid off of that small amount of mileage!!

Okay, actually 16:53.7 or 76.84% according to this calculator - still though good though

https://runbundle.com/tools/age-grading-calculator

52 and ran 18:58 at a TT... I consider myself pretty darned talent less. I do get in a long run, 1 track session, and some strength work 2x week.

Balancing the recovery with putting in enough work to make any progress is the bane of the Masters runner.

There are days were after a hard bout I struggle to get in 3-5M easy, but then there is always that eye towards the weekly total that makes me think "maybe just add another 2M here..."

Keep us posted on how you do, it's a goal worth going after. Good luck

Sprintgeezer = YMMV?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I would like to emphasize to the OP that this regimen screwed my knee for more than 6 months, and it is still not perfect. YMMV

Your mileage may vary—i.e. the OP may be better-suited to treadmill running than I.

I didn't just mean those 3 workouts. I was doing 65 miles a week with some slower runs and a longish run on the weekend as well as those 3 workouts each week. I agree you probably only need one track session a week - don't need 2.

Thanks EZ10Miler,

I hope I didn't create confusion. I don't think I put my goal time down here. I am not sure I have one anyway. That is the other guy that I am replying to, the OP.

I was never fast, I ran a couple of questionable 17-high and a bunch of 18-oh 5Ks in my early 40s, that's as good as it got. I am hoping to age-grade equivalent them. So, about 21:00, which doesn't sound like much, but I had 10 years off with a few surgeries.

I went to run a one-hour effort for a virtual race a few weeks ago and took off at 3:45/km pace, which felt normal, for 200m. Ha ha.....it's going to take me a while...

Lol I think my baseline 5k was something like 27or 28 minutes, and it wasn’t easy.

It does get better, and pretty quickly—but it’s funny how slow one can get?

Nothing funny about it.

Kidding.

Did you have a long downtime or something?

It takes the cardiovascular system - specifically the aerobic engine - much longer than the muscular system and neuromuscular system to respond. Once the aerobic system is well-conditioned, the anaerobic system just needs four to six weeks to begin to see diminishing returns. So all is quick to improve but the base—bah!

I would be fine if I could get my aerobic base conditioned (had a wack of calf pulls for a year). Consistency.