My 45 year old friend claims that if he breaks a 5:00 mile this makes him the 15th fastest miler ages 45-59 is this true

1nOut wrote:

Holland Nass wrote:

Try 5:35, bro...

Try looking up the definition of "equate", bro...

equates as in equivalent. Look up a comparative performance list and the two -5k & mile - "equate". Different lists will have slight variances, but that is the general ballpark. Daniels - 59 Vdot as 17.17 5k and 5.02 mile.

janet weiss wrote:

1nOut wrote:

Try looking up the definition of "equate", bro...

equates as in equivalent. Look up a comparative performance list and the two -5k & mile - "equate". Different lists will have slight variances, but that is the general ballpark. Daniels - 59 Vdot as 17.17 5k and 5.02 mile.

Daniels' Running Formula Appendix A

mile 5:38 = 5k 17:30

Daniels based online conversion tool

17:23 5K = 5:35 mile

Randy Oldman wrote:

17:23 5K = 5:35 PER mile

I fixed that for you. Let me say this really ssssllllloooooowwwwwwwlllllllyyyyyyyyy

If a runner can run a 5k in 17:23, they "should" be able to run one mile in 5:03.

Scratch that - ignore my stupidity.

Bottom line is most of those lists are for people who have registered in nationally recognized federations or races. There is no doubt that there are likely a dozen guys in my local area (Toronto) in that age category that can run under 5...hell, I turn 45 in 7 weeks and I ran 10:07 for two miles on the treadmill in practice last week...and I was doing 4 x 1 mile repeats on the track at 5:10-5:14s three weeks ago. And I am only a solid guy in my neighborhood. Lots of guys would dust me, and I am sure I could go 4:40 if I cranked one out right now (and I have done zero speed work in years).

probably old news, but i haven't completely gone through what appears to be a surprisingly lengthy thread:

1) it's possible he means for the year. indeed, sub-5 would have put him in the top 15 americans at the mile for 2013.

2) while the mark seems arbitrary--i don't know who decides these things--it would also give him "all-american" status.

3) there is severe under-reporting, and there are fewer mile races versus 1500s, so the equivalent 1500 time would barely put him in the top 25 reported times for 2013.

4) the mastersathletics site has not been updated since 2012, and if you're checking on masters records on the usatf site, many records don't get ratified (i recently set one in the 45-49 age group for the 1500, and it likely won't get ratified because of paperwork and some missing signatures).

finally, sub-5 is pretty fast at any age. it's easy to lose sight of that when looking at records and all-time lists, but it's still pretty fast...

janet weiss wrote:

equates as in equivalent. Look up a comparative performance list and the two -5k & mile - "equate". Different lists will have slight variances, but that is the general ballpark. Daniels - 59 Vdot as 17.17 5k and 5.02 mile.

5:00 equates to a 2:44 mile for 45 year olds.

This is about the time of the 10th place 45-49 year old at Boston, a race with thousands of such old people.

Cicirunner wrote:

Well considering there are 40 yr old guys breaking 4 minutes in the mile, I doubt a sub 5 would be top 15 for 45-59 yr olds, but a sub 5 would still be very impressive and I don't think you should crush his dreams.

40yr old guys? I noticed the plural on guys. I guess you are correct since plural requires two or more. But the first part of your statement makes it seem like a lot of 40 yr olds are breaking 4:00 for the mile. But in reality, only Eamon Coghlan in 1994 and Anthony Whiteman in 2012 have done it, and both on American soil. Most likely on American soil since 1500 meters are primarily run in other countries while the US has lots of miles.

The second part of your statement is correct. If you look at the Men 45-49 2012 1500 meter list on mastersathletics.com, which, though not 100% complete, is probably the most comprehnsive and complete list out there...if you look at that list, it starts with a 4:05 1500m and ends with mark 58 at 4:20. The mile equivalent would be roughly 4:25 to 4:42 or so.

oldlegs wrote:

Bottom line is most of those lists are for people who have registered in nationally recognized federations or races. There is no doubt that there are likely a dozen guys in my local area (Toronto) in that age category that can run under 5...hell, I turn 45 in 7 weeks and I ran 10:07 for two miles on the treadmill in practice last week...and I was doing 4 x 1 mile repeats on the track at 5:10-5:14s three weeks ago. And I am only a solid guy in my neighborhood. Lots of guys would dust me, and I am sure I could go 4:40 if I cranked one out right now (and I have done zero speed work in years).

I probably have raced against you many times if you race regularly in Toronto, since we are in the same AG, and I live in your area (you are likely a bit faster than me, as I couldn't touch your workouts and would barely break 5 in a mile at this time). And I agree with being 'just a solid guy in the neighbourhood'. I almost broke 1:19 in a half and went under 17:05 at 5k last year at age 45 and was beat in both events by people in my AG - could have been you, haha. Solid times, but nothing special.

I ran about a 5:02 mile equivalent for 1500m in the U.S. Masters Outdoor at Sacramento a few years back, and that was only good for 11th in the 50-54 age group.

Of course it was no where near the top 40 on the World Rankings for 50-54.

This age group is the Coe, Ovett, Scott, etc. age group and probably has been one of the strongest in depth sets, although it's thinning out as we age (I'm coming up for 57).

So running just under 5:00 at 45 would be a very creditable effort - you have to show have some pretty fair ability to the equivalent of a 4:33 mile at any age - and shows high fitness for age, but is going to be off the sharp end at National and World Masters level, although it could easily make the top 15 in the U.S. now we are moving on to post boom sets of runners.

the short answer is no.

I run for a masters team and our team alone has at least 10 guys that can run sub 5 for the mile. I am not in our top 5 and I can run sub 5 and I am 46.

while a sub 5 is competitive in masters running it is no where near top 15 in a single year.

as mentioned earlier the problem with masters running is that the amount of people that show up for any one particular race is not indicative of the actual talent that is out there.

Yes...he'd be in the top 15 45-49 age group in your neighborhood.

easy weeks wrote:

A good example is the beer mile. In the 40+ AG, the WR is 5:51, and 10th place is 6:23.

I was there for that 5:51 :) That was a fun day.

Congrats on your time by the way ... and if you ever wanted to go after the record I am sure Luis would savor the challenge of getting it back.

kevinb wrote:

the short answer is no.

I run for a masters team and our team alone has at least 10 guys that can run sub 5 for the mile. I am not in our top 5 and I can run sub 5 and I am 46.

while a sub 5 is competitive in masters running it is no where near top 15 in a single year.

as mentioned earlier the problem with masters running is that the amount of people that show up for any one particular race is not indicative of the actual talent that is out there.

What club is this?

Ibana8te wrote:

kevinb wrote:

the short answer is no.

I run for a masters team and our team alone has at least 10 guys that can run sub 5 for the mile. I am not in our top 5 and I can run sub 5 and I am 46.

while a sub 5 is competitive in masters running it is no where near top 15 in a single year.

as mentioned earlier the problem with masters running is that the amount of people that show up for any one particular race is not indicative of the actual talent that is out there.

What club is this?

calcoast.

kevinb wrote:

I run for a masters team and our team alone has at least 10 guys that can run sub 5 for the mile..

"can" or "have" ?

How many on your team are 45 or over that *have* run sub 5:00 or sub 4:38 for 1500 at that age? Not saying it's an amazing accomplishment, just curious on the actual facts of your team when talking about 45+ y.o.s, not conjecture or about 40 -44 y.o's.

socal cush wrote:

Ibana8te wrote:

What club is this?

calcoast.

I believe you. calcoast has arguably the strongest-deepest 45+ contingent in the US, with three 50+ guys who have gone sub 15:30 for 5K (under the "official" record) in the past year. You guys are amazing. Did pretty well for my age at club nats and sat next to a bunch of you at the awards, but was too embarrassed at my sorry ass time to introduce myself!

Congrats on your good running and for setting a great standard.

Cal Coast and the Atlanta Track club are both very strong in masters racing - anyone out there who knows details on Atlanta? Alls I know is that they come and dominate the USATF masters xc 5k every year.

There are a lot of treadmill times, training times, and estimated times being thrown around here. The fact remains, if you don't race a mile on the track you don't get on the rankings list. A sub 5 mile will get you on every nation's top 15 mile times (or damn close to top 15) for the YEAR in the 45-49 age group. It will get you in the final of US nationals and into the semi finals at worlds. It's a national class time for the 45-49 age group. Treadmill warriors and 5k road race guys need sack up or shut up about their estimated mile times.