How's 16:38 for an age 53 man?
How's 16:38 for an age 53 man?
16:10 when I was 22, took most of my 20's and 30's off, now, sub 23 will usually get me an age group award. It depends on what you consider average, a guy I work who just took up running with thinks I'm a God because I win awards. I think I'm terrible because I'm 40 pounds overweight and race significantly slower than I use to train.
Taco Truck wrote:
60% (Local class): 22:45
70% (Regional class): 19:30
80% (National class): 17:04
90% (World class): 15:10
--------------------------------------------------------------
Are you kidding me with this? Age grading does not work because 99% of the fast people already retired by that age. And even if they're competing, they are training not even 50% of the what they are capable of because it no longer matters.
I would though add that 18 minutes would be respectable.
What does the fast (talented) people being retired have to do with anything???
The age-grade tables reflect the actual world that we see in running!
Regardless of what you are doing, you have to make a choice. You can be average, or you can be respectable. You can not be both.
Bacon, lettuce, testosterone wrote:
Regardless of what you are doing, you have to make a choice. You can be average, or you can be respectable. You can not be both.
Average is an objective measure where as respectable is not.
If you're not dedicated runner, 22 could be considered respectable. But we can show that 22 is above average when considering all people who run in road races.
I would say that low 20s is clearly respectable because any person has to be very fit relative to the general population of runners to run that fast.
Sub 20 is beyond most runners so it's statistically respectable.
Hi chaps im a 42 year old novice male , I ran a 18:36 5km on the treadmill after 2 weeks and approx 20 miles of training. Two questions firstly I thought that treadmill times were quicker than road but my heart rate is lower on the road than on the treadmill at the same speed and secondly realistically how fast can I expect to run 5kms if I put in the required time and effort?
opnion nated wrote:
I played with the Runner's World age graded table and it IMO is skewed to give higher ratings to the 5K distance compared to a marathon.
For a 43 year old male: 19:09 for a 5K is about equal to a 2:59:59 marathon.
A 2:59:59 is much tougher for most 43 year olds IMO.
I wonder how this data was compiled.
Yeah, I would say a sub-18 would be equal to a 3 hour marathon? Maybe?
seriously....I am 48 and in good shape, been running 5xWeek for last 5 months, but breaking to run 5min miles to break 15:30??? Am I missing something here or is this guy running on the moon with less gravity?
I finally broke 16 min for 5k as a master, running 15:58 on a usatf certified course. I'm 45 years old and super excited about my time. Only 30 seconds slower than my pr from my 20's.
16.50 is amazing. I used to manage under 18 at 35 and I was running about double the speed of any one in our gym !
Tom%$ wrote:
Az 16:50 easy
I am 47 and can still break 18. Doesn't feel like that much of an accomplishment but I never got too out of shape at any point.
I didn't run a 5k between 18 and 42 yo.
My 18 yo pr was 16:40.
I ran a surprisingly easy 18:11 last November, and a shockingly difficult 18:32 last weekend.
I have been running casually my whole adult life, currently doing about 55 mpw at 7:20 pace.
subfive wrote:
Taco Truck wrote:60% (Local class): 22:45
70% (Regional class): 19:30
80% (National class): 17:04
90% (World class): 15:10
--------------------------------------------------------------
Are you kidding me with this? Age grading does not work because 99% of the fast people already retired by that age. And even if they're competing, they are training not even 50% of the what they are capable of because it no longer matters.
I would though add that 18 minutes would be respectable.
What does the fast (talented) people being retired have to do with anything???
The age-grade tables reflect the actual world that we see in running!
Lagat ran 13:35 at 41, in the actual world we see in running.
Take 22:45 off the board, a good 50 year old wouldn't get out of bed for that.
60% (Local class): 19:30
70% (Regional class): 17:04
80% (National class): 15:10
90% (World class): 14:00
johnny5 wrote:
subfive wrote:
What does the fast (talented) people being retired have to do with anything???
The age-grade tables reflect the actual world that we see in running!
Lagat ran 13:35 at 41, in the actual world we see in running.
Take 22:45 off the board, a good 50 year old wouldn't get out of bed for that.
60% (Local class): 19:30
70% (Regional class): 17:04
80% (National class): 15:10
90% (World class): 14:00
Yeah, a Kenyan still training full-time and still benefiting from likely years of EPO use (maybe still taking it) can run 13:35 at 41.
Back in the real world, it's a fact that the age grade calculator is pretty accurate. 22.45 will be fairly competitive (ie. respectable) in your local small town race.
Age grade calculator is based on percentage of the WR for that age group. Doesn't a certain Ed Whitlock own a few of the older age group WRs? He didn't even run seriously in his prime. In other words, you have no way of knowing if a former pro running for decades could have ran faster at the same age if he had continued to train full time. A lot of elite runners get burnt out in their twenties let alone be able to continue being world class in their 40s and 50s. Or maybe you think Jim Ryun would be running 4:15 miles now if he'd 'continued to train full time' for the last four decades?
Even Anthony Whiteman has had enough and retired at 45.
MIMITW wrote:
Change @ Park wrote:
For average 40+ guy, a sub-24 is respectable.
That is under 8 minute miles. For the average 40+guy, an 8 minute mile is possible. Three in a row is respectable for him. It is not respectable for the 20-something LRC poster, but those people are usually egotistical trolls. Nobody with a brain thinks they have a valid point.
By the way, the OP was likely a troll, as well. I score him a 6/10.
Yeah, sub-24 is definitely respectable, sub-22 would be good.
At age 44 I ran a 18:20 5K and placed 15th out of 500 participants (lots of first-timers of course, small local race). Only numbers 13 and 14 were older. I guess most « good » runners took part in the 10K race.
To compare this with my marathon time: 3 hours 19 minutes.
Training 3 times a week, highest mileage 30 mpw.
Depends on the context. Random guy at work that work that i find out runs? Id be fairly impressed if he said under 20. Random guy thats doing repeats at the track? I would NOT be impressed with a 19:45
Average over 40 runners are not at an optimal race weight, may not even have ever had a "runner's body". Thus the age/weight grade calculator.
I run 16:01 equivalent on 25 miles or so a week which seems about what and average runner would run.
fat in iowa wrote:
16:10 when I was 22, took most of my 20's and 30's off, now, sub 23 will usually get me an age group award. It depends on what you consider average, a guy I work who just took up running with thinks I'm a God because I win awards. I think I'm terrible because I'm 40 pounds overweight and race significantly slower than I use to train.
Whoever bumped this is getting me all nostalgic. I think this was my first ever post after a few months of lurking.
For the record, I lost the 40 pounds, and just completed my first 30 mile week of this century. Looking to train consistently over the winter and try to go under 18 in the spring.
Above avg: sub 24
Good: sub 21
Excellent: Sub 18
Superb: sub 15:30