What the What? wrote:
This thread from 2012 lacks context. What is it talking about? Some LRC editorial from 2012 saying RW is wrong about serious 5k times?
I don't know if there was an editorial but there was another lengthy thread before this mocking a Runners World article claiming that sub 25 minutes makes you a serious runner.
I see people do that wrote:
wrote:
I dare any of these clowns who think they're so important because of their 5K time to put it down on their resume.
When I look at resumes, I like to see stuff like running in the resume. Seeing something like running, biking, swimming, rowing, tells me how they may deal with stress. It also tells me that they may continue to work hard even when things are uncomfortable. The list can go on and on: less likely to be needy, not as much complaining, fewer sick days...
I just hired a guy earlier in the year, in part due to running. He also went to grad school at Hopkins, but his resume was similar to the others.
Ditto on looking for competitive sports on the résumé instead of, say, PTA bake-offs. Having said that, unless running is directly related to the position one’s after, listing a 5k PR is not a plus.
gOCanada wrote:
Realistically, the majority of male runners will never come close to breaking 20:00.
So I'm saying Men - 20:00
Women - 22:30
Let the games begin...
I lift a lot and come from an athletic background, so my runs are usually never more than 3-4 miles, longest run has been 6 miles and I did that like once. Weekly mileage, 10-15 most weeks. My 5k PR is 20:38. Idk if that tells me my athletic background carried me or I am severely underachieving. Do I take that as having a stronger engine than I realize? Eventually I'd like to get to 35-40 mpw to see what it's worth.
trying to gauge trajectory wrote:
gOCanada wrote:
Realistically, the majority of male runners will never come close to breaking 20:00.
So I'm saying Men - 20:00
Women - 22:30
Let the games begin...
I lift a lot and come from an athletic background, so my runs are usually never more than 3-4 miles, longest run has been 6 miles and I did that like once. Weekly mileage, 10-15 most weeks. My 5k PR is 20:38. Idk if that tells me my athletic background carried me or I am severely underachieving. Do I take that as having a stronger engine than I realize? Eventually I'd like to get to 35-40 mpw to see what it's worth.
Id say that most young MEN would be capable of between 20-23 minutes on 15 mpw (women would probably need closer to 35-50 to get this fast). You don’t indicate any great or elite talent but I think you could get in the 16s on a few years of running consisant 80-90 mile weeks.
What is with the threads from ancient times surfacing recently? Not that there isn't value in something discussed when this site wasn't polluted like it is now, but the no-context crap, or broken-link stuff coming up again is something.
I'm a 13 year old girl and I already beat 20 minutes. Yay!
Coevett wrote:
What the What? wrote:
This thread from 2012 lacks context. What is it talking about? Some LRC editorial from 2012 saying RW is wrong about serious 5k times?
I don't know if there was an editorial but there was another lengthy thread before this mocking a Runners World article claiming that sub 25 minutes makes you a serious runner.
surprised you remembered that, he should have bumped that one instead
The ONLY one with a brain wrote:
There is no such thing as a serious 5k time. There are only serious runners.
Some non-serious runners will go under 16 minutes. Some serious runners will never break 24 minutes.
so you mean a person who never trains or only trains once or twice a week can break 16 minutes!! Nobody is that much naturally talented
Cathy loves to run 13 wrote:
The ONLY one with a brain wrote:
There is no such thing as a serious 5k time. There are only serious runners.
Some non-serious runners will go under 16 minutes. Some serious runners will never break 24 minutes.
so you mean a person who never trains or only trains once or twice a week can break 16 minutes!! Nobody is that much naturally talented
Look up Justyn Knight high school training.
Idontevenknow wrote:
Ventolin69 wrote:
400m -> 800m -> 1 mile -> 2 mile -> 5K -> 10K -> Half -> Mary
49.5 -> 1:49.7 -> 3:58.7 -> 8:22.4 -> 13:34.7 -> 27:58.6 -> 62:37 -> 2:16.7
Anything below is hobbyjogging.
Damn... Roger Bannister was a hobbyjogger?
I mean yeah. Bannister was on some nerd sh!t trying to be a nurse or something while Kipchoge literally makes goats bend to his will how cool is that lol.
Cathy loves to run 13 wrote:
The ONLY one with a brain wrote:
There is no such thing as a serious 5k time. There are only serious runners.
Some non-serious runners will go under 16 minutes. Some serious runners will never break 24 minutes.
so you mean a person who never trains or only trains once or twice a week can break 16 minutes!! Nobody is that much naturally talented
There are many pro footballers who primarily focus on squatting weights, plyos and sprints who could probably do it. 16 is good, not elite.
Idontevenknow wrote:
Ventolin69 wrote:
400m -> 800m -> 1 mile -> 2 mile -> 5K -> 10K -> Half -> Mary
49.5 -> 1:49.7 -> 3:58.7 -> 8:22.4 -> 13:34.7 -> 27:58.6 -> 62:37 -> 2:16.7
Anything below is hobbyjogging.
Damn... Roger Bannister was a hobbyjogger?
You could argue that he trained like one. He did maximum 30 miles a week, which is similar to how seriously distance hobby joggers train in modern times. This is another support of why times do you serve as a function of seriousness for running.