pr100 wrote:
Spend some time browsing the results at
http://www.parkrun.org.uk/, which provides a nationwide series of free weekly 5k races (not on a track by accurately measured). You get all kinds of people participating. My local one is
http://www.parkrun.org.uk/cambridge/results/latestresultsLast weeks results - linked above - are typical. There will be 300-400 runners. It'll be won in 16:xx; 20 mins will get you top 30. 25 mins will be half way down the field.
These results highlight an obvious and much more reasonable way of thinking about what constitutes a "serious" runner: somebody who, regardless of age, is capable of notching a specific percentage of their age-grade. I think 60% of AG would be reasonable. (I'm unhappy when I make less than 70%; last week, age 54, I ran a 20:20 5K, which is about 75%.)
For the open category--a 25 y.o. guy--an AG of 60% is a 21:30 5K. A 25:00 5K is an AG of 51.6. It seems to me that a serious runner should aim to be a little bit better than exactly in the middle.
Note to RW: You're encouraging, validating, and cultivating mediocrity.
By the same token, for a 60 y.o. female, a 25 minute 5K is an AG of 76.1. That's terrific. That's where I'm running. A 25 minute 5K is more than serious; it's very good. It's local class; not quite regional class. (Then again, I won the 10-mile state championship in Alabama a couple of years ago in the over-50 category, so maybe 75% is regional level.)
Of course, there's no way to create a standardized, one-size-fits-all training plan for such a diverse array of anticipated 60%-or-better AG times. But if one is looking to start the conversation with a thoughtful, plausiable claim about what constitutes a serious runner, then that would be my suggestion: breach the 60% of age-grade threshold. Prove you're a notch above the mean, whatever age you happen to be.