AL capable of having both feet off the ground concurrently.
AL capable of having both feet off the ground concurrently.
15:30? For an average 40 year old? What world are you living in? 15:10 is listed as a world class time. You obviously have never run 5 km in your life.
You are so full of crap. Thats a ridiculous time
Jack Chung wrote:
Any average 40+ year old should be able to break 15:30 with moderate running (10-15 mpw) after 4 months.
lol... (somebody help me here...?/10)
Trollus Maximus wrote:
Jack Chung wrote:Any average 40+ year old should be able to break 15:30 with moderate running (10-15 mpw) after 4 months.
lol... (somebody help me here...?/10)
Well Jack sort of misses the point here, this being letsrun.com and all. It should be able to break 15:30 with high mileage running (100-150 mpw) after 27 years. Anything slower on less mileage is an underacheivement. In letsrun parlance the uber talented guy that runs sub 15:10 on 70 miles a week is actually a loser compared the the 15:27 guy that dillegently does his 100-150 miles a week.
That's letsrun mentality.
Jack Chung wrote:
Any average 40+ year old should be able to break 15:30 with moderate running (10-15 mpw) after 4 months.
Puh-leeze!!! An average man over 40 who is coming back into running is not going to run 15:30 on 10-15 mpw. High school kids running 60 miles per week struggle to run that...AND THEY AREN'T AVERAGE!
I say respectable for 40+ with little training is under 23:00. It wont always win, but it is significantly competitive for the age. ON AVERAGE.
fff wrote:
no. 15.30 is only realistic if you are doing high mileage (80+).
81 isn't high mileage
Old Runner wrote:
Jack Chung wrote:Any average 40+ year old should be able to break 15:30 with moderate running (10-15 mpw) after 4 months.
Puh-leeze!!! An average man over 40 who is coming back into running is not going to run 15:30 on 10-15 mpw. High school kids running 60 miles per week struggle to run that...AND THEY AREN'T AVERAGE!
I say respectable for 40+ with little training is under 23:00. It wont always win, but it is significantly competitive for the age. ON AVERAGE.
It's a troll joke from way back.
How is 15:10 considered world-class for a 40 year old? That time would not win you an international title against other elite 40 year olds.
thinking again wrote:
In letsrun parlance the uber talented guy that runs sub 15:10 on 70 miles a week is actually a loser compared the the 15:27 guy that dillegently does his 100-150 miles a week.
That's letsrun mentality.
Abbey D'Agostino has run 15:11 on 75mpw, so 15:10 on 70mpw can be considered "uber talented" for a woman. But does she deserve to be called a "guy"?
mastersrankings.com for your ultimate guide.
it's all relative wrote:
Depends who you hang out with.
Age grade tables give you the following for a 40-year old man:
60% (Local class): 22:45
70% (Regional class): 19:30
80% (National class): 17:04
90% (World class): 15:10
Yeah, for the general masses, I think your sub 20 = "respectable" is reasonable.
Woo hoo!!! That means my 16:58 at age 51 is what?
Pretty simple, a respectable 5k time is one minute faster than your current PR, regardless of age, unless you're winning OG.
Could you put up a link to the age graded tables you are using?
I'm a geezer looking for expanded info on the subject.
I trained and competed over 5K through 40s and earl 50s, now I'm dumb enuff to be taking a crack at Half Marathons...
Respectable....., probably a sub 12 minute, if your not under 12:30 you kinda just average joe, and if your not sub 13 your a hobby jogger, im 69 years old and im hitting about 9:20s on an off day for my 5K.
"Respectable" for "average" 40+? These are generally preposterous answers. For the average guy at 40+, my view is that anything around half the world record pace is respectable. Not good, not great, but decent. So around 25. I run 22 low at 47 and am way above average in my age group. Very slow compared to the winners, and very slow compared to the average 25 year old ex XC stud on lets run, but it's respectable.
It is all relative. It seems Americans in general get unreasonably out of shape as they get past 35. If comparing to the reality of that group, 19 min is respectable. But with Lagat still beating all the young guys at 40, 19 mins is kind of slow.
I can probably run close to 19 minutes now at 45 and I think it is kind of pitiful. That is probably not even a jogging pace for Shalene and Desi.
Moo Goo wrote:
It is all relative. It seems Americans in general get unreasonably out of shape as they get past 35. If comparing to the reality of that group, 19 min is respectable. But with Lagat still beating all the young guys at 40, 19 mins is kind of slow.
I can probably run close to 19 minutes now at 45 and I think it is kind of pitiful. That is probably not even a jogging pace for Shalene and Desi.
I think for those of us that ran pretty competitively back in our early 20s would consider what we run now to be pretty slow. But in the whole scheme of things as long as we feel happy with our results it's all good.
I'm 48 now and here in CO running a 5K finishing in 17:55 I can still come in 5th or 6th in my AG depending on what race I'm in. Of course I could win my AG in some races but get absolutely pummeled in others. Lately I've just been happy with 18:30s for the 5K. I'm far more pleased when I go to sea level and run 2:45 - 2:47 for the marathon.
My fastest 5K in my 20s was 17:27. Respectable for me from age 45 to 52 was right around 20 flat. (Best race in that age area was 19:28.)
22:00 is about seven minute pace. That's OK. It's not what I would call respectable, and it's certainly not good.
Good is a friend of mine who just ran a hilly 10K in 41:15 at age 67. That is very good.