Whats a respectable 5k time to you?

i hate to be the whining one here, especially with about a 15;50-16;00 average but to me, at least when it comes to runners, idk if you have to stand by your 5k, because for me, i do much better in the 8k (2540 pr) and half marathon (7219 in 45 degree driving rain) and stand by those as the standards of what i do best rather than the 5k which i don't really ever gear up for or tune my racing to.

anyone else share a similar sentiment?

i think i'd say anything from low 22s down is what i find respectable. most people can't get to that point without putting in some real training (of course, some people can be much faster just on talent but it's rare). but it depends how long you've been running for. if you're a high school senior (guy) and you've been on cross country since freshman year, that's definitely not respectable. i also don't think there should be as much of a divide between men and women. those tables are ridiculous. my pr is 18:10 and i'm in sub-18 shape now and i work way harder than girls i know who run 21, let alone 23:53. of course there are differences but i think in terms of level of success/place in races sub-18 for men is more like sub-21 for women and in terms of training intensity/dedication (saying this just based on girls who have run with me, not trying to be sexist and say "girls don't work hard") sub-18 is more like sub-20. and i just realized i never defined what i think is respectable for women... i guess i'd say in the 24s and below, that requires some definite training for most.

To me it's 15:xx. I'm in my 50's and there are at least 3-4 guys in this area (seattle area) who routinely do 16:xx. Personally I cannot do sub 17, but I'm fairly sure I could if I wanted to focus on the 5K, and I am barely a step up from being a hobby jogger.

After all 17:00 is 5:29 min per mile pace. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's not Herculean either, not if a 50-something can do it.

The 10 year olds who can run under 22 are pretty impressive to me and most others.

Anyone slower than me should not be taken seriously.

Anyone faster than me is obviously on PEDs.

22:00 respectable for who? I'm 51, weigh 207lbs and just ran 22:00 for 3.5mi (6K) roadrace. Started behind 4000 people and spent the first mile picking my way around/through/over slower runners. I think young people aim a bit low these days.

Maybe you could have popped a 13 flat in your younger days. Most 207lb 51 year olds cannot run that fast.

Btw, maybe you should consider starting a little farther up next time.

mathwizard wrote:

I can run 18:45 5k and I bench 235, curl 50's on each arm, and shoulder press 135 easily. I also row 180 easily. Get on my level! Im a real man.

Not a bad start, but I can't help thinking there might be additional criteria to fulfill if you want to be considered a real man.

To me with a PR just under 17:00, anything sub-18:00 is "respectable". Sub-17:00 is good. Sub-16:00 is really good. Sub-15:00 is unimaginably good to me.

Was a 14:36 when I last ran competitively as an 18yr old college frosh. Was always big for a runner(6'4" and big boned) and when I got hurt I just got too heavy and so gave it up. But have always stayed very fit. Work out 6 days a week. Now compete in indoor rowing competitions . I'm top 10 in the world for over 50s. Run 2X a week as cross training but do all of my very hard interval work on the rowing machine.

mathwizard wrote:

I can run 18:45 5k and I bench 235, curl 50's on each arm, and shoulder press 135 easily. I also row 180 easily. Get on my level! Im a real man.

What's your point? I've done all those weights and run 4 minutes faster over 5k. I've done legit curls with a 135 lb. barbell, 25 pullups - admittedly I wasn't in the 14's at that point but could still hit about 16 flat.

Mikey B wrote:

I'm in my early 40s, so when I see someone around my age running a sub 18:00 5k, I take notice.

i agree, considering the age. but to me there is a difference between "fitness running" and club running.

i respect all those who try to stay fit with regular runs. then the time doesn´t matter, it´s ok.

but club runners are ambitious naturally and consider each other accordingly, so the words "respectable 5k time" obtain another meaning. all 40+ club runners i know are hungry for a sub 17.

I broke 20-minutes for the first time last year.

I was a 5:30 miler in high school and now over 30 years old. Academics was #! back then.

Here is my take for non-scholarship runners:

Under 25-minutes: you have trained

Under 22-minutes: you have trained and can run

Under 20-minutes: you take running seriously and have some talent

Under 19-minutes: you are running mileage and have talent

Under 18-minutes: very talented runner who trains hard

Under 17-minutes: very talent runner who trains hard, and has competitive streak

Under 16-minutes: elite runner

Under 15-minutes: total stud

18:40 no good? over 40? Ok, I'll try to break 18:00 this year.

ran ~18:40 at age 61 and was in the top 20 in the world that year for

recorded races (there are major races where age group times are recorded and compared). it is very

age dependent. for the open division respectable is under 19, under 16 is

very good.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

5k hmmmmmm wrote:

My breakdown

As far as guys not doing this for a living/scholarship I say:

Sub 22-Working on your fitness..congrats but keep going

Sub 20- Nice time, could talk training with this person, obviously takes running somewhat seriously

Sub 19- Into the 18's I say well done. Took a bit of commitment.

Sub 18-Respect. Decent 5k time. Would feel this runner takes running seriously and has either invested a lot or is very eager to improve

Sub 17-Into the 16's and Id say your legit. Serious runner...know the score, work hard.

Sub 16-Ballin. Anybody with a 15 in front of their PR is pretty awesome in my book

Sub 15-Superstar

I did the nerd work on my own. According to the IAAF conversion charts:

sub 22:00 Male = sub 31:18 Female

sub 20:00 Male = sub 27:35 Female

sub 19:00 Male = sub 25:44 Female

sub 18:00 Male = sub 23:53 Female

sub 17:00 Male = sub 22:01 Female

sub 16:00 Male = sub 20:10 Female

sub 15:00 Male = sub 18:19 Female

..

That table is ridiculous

Sub-16 for men is respectable. Add 11% for women.

When I was running 15-30 years ago 16 mins would win you nothing unless you entered a 'fun run' which no serious runner would

You needed to be sub 15 or close to to win anything even in local races

Was it the same in America back then?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

I did the nerd work on my own. According to the IAAF conversion charts:

sub 22:00 Male = sub 31:18 Female

sub 20:00 Male = sub 27:35 Female

sub 19:00 Male = sub 25:44 Female

sub 18:00 Male = sub 23:53 Female

sub 17:00 Male = sub 22:01 Female

sub 16:00 Male = sub 20:10 Female

sub 15:00 Male = sub 18:19 Female

..

That table is ridiculous

This is an old thread, but the times I listed were from the IAAF. In my opinion, I'd say there is a ~2.5 minute conversion across the board. So sub 15 male = sub 17:30 female, sub 16 male = sub 18:30 female, and so on.

Here's my current opinion on the levels (note that I'm referring to D1 for collegiate):

over 23:00 male & over 25:30 female = Not Racing

sub 23:00 male & sub 25:30 female = Beginner Who is Trying

sub 22:00 male & sub 24:30 female = Talented Beginner or Convert from Another Sport

sub 21:00 male & sub 23:30 female = Fun Runner Trying to Get Back in Shape

sub 20:00 male & sub 22:30 female = JV High School / Respectable Fun Runner

sub 19:00 male & sub 21:30 female = Varsity High School / Fun Run Age Group Winner

sub 18:00 male & sub 20:30 female = Faster Varsity High School / Smaller Fun Run Winner

sub 17:00 male & sub 19:30 female = Decent High School / Walk-On Collegiate / Larger Fun Run Winner

sub 16:00 male & sub 18:30 female = Good High School / Okay Collegiate / Sub-Elite Wannabe

sub 15:00 male & sub 17:30 female = Good Collegiate / Sub-Elite

sub 14:00 male & sub 16:30 female = Top Collegiate or Professional

sub 13:00 male & sub 15:30 female = World-Class Professional