I want to punch every poster here so far. Trolling, smug, toxic bros, and/or arrogant are all of you, especially you OP. So, for you, 0/10.
Whatever. I had coaches in middle school and high school tell me that I wasn't an athlete. I don't think I could have even broken 65 in a 400m as a healthy 18 year old. I ran 3:17 after a year and half of training and topping out at a 55 mile week. I can't dunk, I can't bench 150 lbs. My natural body shape sucks. All it took was time and effort to run nearly 3:15. Most people don't want to work that hard. It's not arrogance.
I know a guy who ran 2:38 (and ran for Big Ten School) on a mere 35 miles a week. That should tell you the true divide between a non-talented unathletic runner like myself and somebody who ran for top collegiate program.
You're stupid and your coaches are stupid. Average person isn't running sub 4 after 1.5 years. Most people can't even train enough to reach a sub 2 half in that time.
WAYYYYYY back in the day- 1970's/80's- Runners World would publish every marathon time, with names, in an annual issue they had. I ran a 2:49 and was in the top 2% in the country for men.
But, to break it down basically, I'd say a man breaking 3:00 and a woman breaking 3:30 makes you "good"
Statistics show that on average, less than 1% of the U.S. population completes a marathon each year. Accordingly, I give props to anyone and everyone who completes the full distance regardless of time. The US adult population is already overstress and overworked. Props to anyone who throws a marathon into the mix.
My friend ran 2:36 at the Boston marathon, and he thinks he’s the best in the world for some reason (lol, one of those types), but he literally packed up and moved to Boulder to pursue running. Barely broke 17 in college. His life revolves around his running. Literally obsessed with strava and spends his entire day trying to get as many followers as possible haha. My other friend (female) ran 2:38 on a difficult course last year. Both are early 20s. But she’s in med school. Has a job. Her life does not revolve around the sport. My point is, I’m much more impressed with her time because of the fact that she has other demanding things going on in her life and wasn't able to give it 100% (and also she’s a woman, so it’s a much better time in comparatively).
I’m much more impressed with someone who has a family, who has a full time job, who can’t plan their life around their runs. So, for the general public, if a guy runs sub 3 or a woman runs sub 3:30 I’m super impressed. But if someone who ran 4 years in college moves to Boulder to train and gives it their full time and commitment, I think it would take a sub 2:22 for guys and sub 2:40 for women for me to be impressed.
I agree with you, but come on. The main reason her time is more impressive is because she's a woman. The equivalent male time to a 2:38 is 2:19. http://www.marathonguide.com/fitnesscalcs/ageequivalent.cfm Your female friend is a star. If your male friend had run 2:19, I bet you'd be a lot more sympathetic to his running ambitions and move to Boulder.
When someone runs a 5k TT and their pace is like 8-9 min/mi is that normal? good for a 45 year old? I'm seriously not trolling. The people I run with at my age will drop 15-16' for men and 16-17' for women.
Women in 40s running 16-17 min 5k? Are you training with world class masters runners?
In my local hobby jogger races, 18min for men and 22min for women can usually win the 45-49 division. Anything under 25min for men and under 30min for women is probably "decent" for that age group.
Agreed. I am 42 / F and run about 22 minutes for the 5K. I win my local parkrun at that pace about a third of the time and regularly place high in races for my age group.
Although this seems to be a 'relative' question, the median times have gone slower over the years because people now only want to 'complete' a marathon. When I ran my first one in 1977, the cut off was 4hrs, and the qualifying time for a particular Ultra after that was 3:45. I was just 'generally fit' and active as most of us were back then, and though never ran more than 7km, I ran 3:30, closer to the back than the front though.
About 10 0r 15 yrs ago I read a comment by Dan Empfield of slowtwitch where he said, 'any healthy male should be able to run 38min for 10km whilst young enough...up to probably aged 40' and I don't think he is far off. By 'healthy' that includes not being overweight, and not sitting on your arse all day. However, people don't fit that demographic anymore, yet somehow believe that they too should be able to run- sorry, complete- a marathon. No other sport actually allows that.
Was working at an event recently and the last marathoner came in after 8hrs !!...good grief, that is 5km/hr you don't even walk to the bus stop that slowly. The more latitude an event gives, the slower they go.
Anyway, if people actually 'ran it' like it meant something, trained for it like they should, then 6min/km (4:12 finish) wouldn't be too much to ask from a healthy individual.
I disagree with Dan. My husband runs 30 miles per week and is not overweight (or anywhere close). He's pushing 50 now, but even before he turned 40, I don't think he would have been able to manage 38 minutes for a 10K. He just has no natural running ability whatsoever.
Also, 6 min / km is maybe not to ask from a "healthy individual" if being under 40 is part of your definition of health. There are many master's women for whom 4:12 is just not a realistic expectation. I am a master's female and ran 3:58 for my first marathon off 40 to 50 mpw. I have above average "natural ability." For many women 4:30 or even slower is all they'll achieve off 40 to 50 mpw. For women over 60? 5:35 is the equivalent for a 65 year old women to a 25 year old women running 4:12. And 6:20 is the equivalent for a 65 year old women to a 25 year old man running 4:12.
Most people (but especially young men) wildly underestimate the impact of age and sex on speed.
Although this seems to be a 'relative' question, the median times have gone slower over the years because people now only want to 'complete' a marathon. When I ran my first one in 1977, the cut off was 4hrs, and the qualifying time for a particular Ultra after that was 3:45. I was just 'generally fit' and active as most of us were back then, and though never ran more than 7km, I ran 3:30, closer to the back than the front though.
About 10 0r 15 yrs ago I read a comment by Dan Empfield of slowtwitch where he said, 'any healthy male should be able to run 38min for 10km whilst young enough...up to probably aged 40' and I don't think he is far off. By 'healthy' that includes not being overweight, and not sitting on your arse all day. However, people don't fit that demographic anymore, yet somehow believe that they too should be able to run- sorry, complete- a marathon. No other sport actually allows that.
Was working at an event recently and the last marathoner came in after 8hrs !!...good grief, that is 5km/hr you don't even walk to the bus stop that slowly. The more latitude an event gives, the slower they go.
Anyway, if people actually 'ran it' like it meant something, trained for it like they should, then 6min/km (4:12 finish) wouldn't be too much to ask from a healthy individual.
I disagree with Dan. My husband runs 30 miles per week and is not overweight (or anywhere close). He's pushing 50 now, but even before he turned 40, I don't think he would have been able to manage 38 minutes for a 10K. He just has no natural running ability whatsoever.
Also, 6 min / km is maybe not to ask from a "healthy individual" if being under 40 is part of your definition of health. There are many master's women for whom 4:12 is just not a realistic expectation. I am a master's female and ran 3:58 for my first marathon off 40 to 50 mpw. I have above average "natural ability." For many women 4:30 or even slower is all they'll achieve off 40 to 50 mpw. For women over 60? 5:35 is the equivalent for a 65 year old women to a 25 year old women running 4:12. And 6:20 is the equivalent for a 65 year old women to a 25 year old man running 4:12.
Most people (but especially young men) wildly underestimate the impact of age and sex on speed.
Most people, especially people who like running, wildly underestimate the impact of speed on speed.
My friend ran 2:36 at the Boston marathon, and he thinks he’s the best in the world for some reason (lol, one of those types), but he literally packed up and moved to Boulder to pursue running. Barely broke 17 in college. His life revolves around his running. Literally obsessed with strava and spends his entire day trying to get as many followers as possible haha. My other friend (female) ran 2:38 on a difficult course last year. Both are early 20s. But she’s in med school. Has a job. Her life does not revolve around the sport. My point is, I’m much more impressed with her time because of the fact that she has other demanding things going on in her life and wasn't able to give it 100% (and also she’s a woman, so it’s a much better time in comparatively).
I’m much more impressed with someone who has a family, who has a full time job, who can’t plan their life around their runs. So, for the general public, if a guy runs sub 3 or a woman runs sub 3:30 I’m super impressed. But if someone who ran 4 years in college moves to Boulder to train and gives it their full time and commitment, I think it would take a sub 2:22 for guys and sub 2:40 for women for me to be impressed.
I agree with you, but come on. The main reason her time is more impressive is because she's a woman. The equivalent male time to a 2:38 is 2:19. http://www.marathonguide.com/fitnesscalcs/ageequivalent.cfm Your female friend is a star. If your male friend had run 2:19, I bet you'd be a lot more sympathetic to his running ambitions and move to Boulder.
Actually, except for this part (he thinks he’s the best in the world for some reason (lol, one of those types)) I'm impressed. 2:36 is not great by any means for someone whose life revolving around running, but you gotta admire his single-mindedness, however silly it may seem.
Those who are willing to engage in a marathon race and finish it (no matter the time they achieve) possess a stamina and a level of fittness way above the average Joe.
Furthermore in massive marathon races without criteria of eligibility and time barriers the average time of finishers (who are much much fitter than the average Joe) is around 04:15:00.
People who are capable of running times below 03:00:00 are talented, well trained with knowledge about everything I mentioned above.
When a 02:45:00 marathon guy asks what is the average time they don' really seek an answer but just attention.
I am continually surprised that people on this board miss this. Marathons, to a point, are still self selecting activities. Most people who do them have a certain level of athleticism. This is also why bigger marathons (not ones that require qualifiers) have a tendency to have slower average paces. They are bucket list races that pull runners that may be less physically talented.
Running friend groups are also often self selected. If you are running with a group you probably already are with physically more talented runners because people who suck at it are not going to run for fun in a group. It is the rich person in Beverly Hills believing everybody must have a lot of money because everyone around them is rich kind of thinking.
I train as much as I can, but I can't do a lot of mileage as I get injured. I have hired coaches to help me with my running plans but I still max out around 50-60 miles a week on my peak weeks and but I can't maintain it for long or I break. I only managed a 25k race result of 1:56 last year. Not exactly burning up the course but that still put me in the top 15% of finishers and its unlikely with my current fitness I could break 3 hours in the marathon. I have been running consistently for years and that is the best I can do.
One of the main things people with running talent miss is that the ability to handle training is part of your natural ability. I love running, I wish I could run 80-90 miles a week. It isn't lack of desire or effort putting in the work. I just can't hit that mileage without my body self destructing. I am very easily injured doing speedwork as well which makes it hard to build up speed. I am jealous of people who can crush themselves in training, because I can, but then I will be out for a month with an injury.
Anything sub 4 is pretty solid for the average “runner”.
BQ means you put in some serious effort.
Sub 3 is pretty rare outside of LRC. I only personally know 2 or 3 other people that have run faster than me in a marathon, but I don’t really hang out with other runners. I train solo, don’t stick around for medals or post race parties, just do the race and go shower.
I’m probably barely 50 percentile on this board, but faster than any of my coworkers anywhere I’ve worked. It’s all relative. I’d love to run 2:35, but at 44 with 2 kids and a demanding job I think that ship sailed 7-8 years ago.
100% here. It's all relative. I generally find guys running 2.18-2.50 on par with someone putting up 225 bench in the gym. "Fast" is so unbelievably relative unless you're ACTUALLY fast which is sub 2.13.
I'm a former D1 runner, was just below Olympic trial standards before I hung up the spikes. Now, I'm a mildly overweight Dad of 2 kids under 3. I just ran a 4 hour marathon and was largely impressed with myself, mostly because I made it to the start line and I finished. It wasn't pretty, but I was very proud of myself, so would consider 4 hours "good".
I run marathons in the 2:35-2:45 range as a 40 year old male. I'm not that good myself, maybe decent. I think of myself as slightly above average even though "average" is probably 4:00 for males and 4:30 for females. But those are embarrassingly slow times. If someone tells me that I'm like sure.
But what times should I be impressed with? or feign it? (yeah I'm just a jackass who only thinks times faster than mine are impressive). If someone says they ran a 2:5x I'm thinking that's decent though I'd hate that myself. When they say 3:0X my ears close off and at 3:3x I'm like so you even trying bro (or gal). I think most ppl I know who train seriously/semi seriously run from 2:18 - 2:5x so my perspective is a bit warped.
My family always thinks my times are like record breaking but to me they're just good but okay.
Not sure what you're asking.
At 55 this would be very impressive, and you would be considered fast by almost any group of runners and at the top end of the population.
At 40..... it's weird. It means you train A LOT and take it very seriously but weren't really built to actually go fast.
I run marathons in the 2:35-2:45 range as a 40 year old male. I'm not that good myself, maybe decent. I think of myself as slightly above average even though "average" is probably 4:00 for males and 4:30 for females. But those are embarrassingly slow times. If someone tells me that I'm like sure.
But what times should I be impressed with? or feign it? (yeah I'm just a jackass who only thinks times faster than mine are impressive). If someone says they ran a 2:5x I'm thinking that's decent though I'd hate that myself. When they say 3:0X my ears close off and at 3:3x I'm like so you even trying bro (or gal). I think most ppl I know who train seriously/semi seriously run from 2:18 - 2:5x so my perspective is a bit warped.
My family always thinks my times are like record breaking but to me they're just good but okay.
Not sure what you're asking.
At 55 this would be very impressive, and you would be considered fast by almost any group of runners and at the top end of the population.
At 40..... it's weird. It means you train A LOT and take it very seriously but weren't really built to actually go fast.
so if performances between 2:35-45 are "weird" for someone at the age of 40, are we "supposed to" just see a big gap in marathon results between elites and joggers in that age group (or maybe you'd extend that logic to younger runners, too)? what is the slowest acceptable "fast" time and the fastest acceptable "slow" time?
Statistics show that on average, less than 1% of the U.S. population completes a marathon each year. Accordingly, I give props to anyone and everyone who completes the full distance regardless of time. The US adult population is already overstress and overworked. Props to anyone who throws a marathon into the mix.
There are not 3.3 million people in the US running a marathon each year. It's a lot less.
Anything sub 4 is pretty solid for the average “runner”.
BQ means you put in some serious effort.
Sub 3 is pretty rare outside of LRC. I only personally know 2 or 3 other people that have run faster than me in a marathon, but I don’t really hang out with other runners. I train solo, don’t stick around for medals or post race parties, just do the race and go shower.
I’m probably barely 50 percentile on this board, but faster than any of my coworkers anywhere I’ve worked. It’s all relative. I’d love to run 2:35, but at 44 with 2 kids and a demanding job I think that ship sailed 7-8 years ago.
100% here. It's all relative. I generally find guys running 2.18-2.50 on par with someone putting up 225 bench in the gym. "Fast" is so unbelievably relative unless you're ACTUALLY fast which is sub 2.13.
I'm a former D1 runner, was just below Olympic trial standards before I hung up the spikes. Now, I'm a mildly overweight Dad of 2 kids under 3. I just ran a 4 hour marathon and was largely impressed with myself, mostly because I made it to the start line and I finished. It wasn't pretty, but I was very proud of myself, so would consider 4 hours "good".
See that's interesting. I would not find your 4 hrs very remarkable as I have 2 kids and do most of my peers running in this no-man's land. I understand you don't want to train as hard as you used to and have already proven yourself. In some ways I'm jealous. To be free of the cult of pursuing perfection.
Glad that you're still getting out there - hope you never loose it completely. It's a stress relief and I think it gives the kids something to strive for (not necessarily to be a runner but to be all in).
But if we just met for the first time and you said hey I'm a dad of 2 kids and I ran 4 hours I'd probably shrug that off - hence why I'm asking here.
Honestly I'm gonna get flack for this but any non-serious hobbyjogger than finishes under 4:30 without collapsing at the finish is "good". 95% of the general population probably can't run a single mile in 10:20. To hold that pace for 26.2 miles is not trivial.
Lazarus Lake's Guidelines:
over 6:00 - stop "running" marathons, you will do better as an ultrarunner
5:00 - not a good road time, but you probably have potential to be an elite ultrarunner
4:30 - getting close
4:00 - respectable for a non-serious hobbyjogger
3:30 - border between a decent hobbyjogger and a good hobbyjogger
The problem here is that some people are spending a little bit too much time worrying about other people’s times. Run your own times, do the training you want to do, and worry about yourself.
When someone runs a 5k TT and their pace is like 8-9 min/mi is that normal? good for a 45 year old? I'm seriously not trolling. The people I run with at my age will drop 15-16' for men and 16-17' for women.
Women in 40s running 16-17 min 5k? Are you training with world class masters runners?
In my local hobby jogger races, 18min for men and 22min for women can usually win the 45-49 division. Anything under 25min for men and under 30min for women is probably "decent" for that age group.
I suppose I am. Some of them do place highly in world events. I suppose I'm lucky to live in a place with a lot of high quality (or medium quality - depending on if you go global) athletes.
And likely a big part of the problem. I run so much with this type of group that I loose perspective towards 'regular' runners.
FWIW I consider us to be high quality athletes but I understand we're not all placing world records - some are doing Age group rankings but then again I know a bunch of men in their late 50s and mid 60s running under 3 hrs for the marathon.
Lots of interesting responses to the OP, as always:
Didn't run in HS or college. At 41, qualified for Boston (in 2009) by running Richmond marathon in 3:17. Ran Boston the next spring in 3:21. Followed a 3 days/week training program. I was content.
The "everyday" guy/gal who are competitive age groupers are impressive.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.