Is an 18:50 5K good for a 40-year old man on 30-35mpw?

Banner. wrote:

Agree with this post, turning the topic into a talent Vs training debate but yeah it's not talent that's stopping any healthy male under 50 breaking 16 or 17 it's the balls the do the work, and to take the pain in that last 1k. So many give out shlt excuses why they are 'slow' or ran a poor 5k, when usually it's just their head being week. Towards the end of a 5k your brain will be screaming at you to stop, learning to tough that out is what gets you PBs, some can handle that better than others.

But yeah 18.50 at 40+ is OK, shows you like to run, but there's no reason not to try and go much faster, aim for 16.xx.

Don't be ridiculous. Most healthy males under 50 can't even get up to those speeds at all never mind hold it for 5k.

Toughness is great for gritting out the last mile but it doesn't create speed.

Yea not being a bit*h in a 5K can actually be objectively measured more or less with a HRM

if you're hitting 93-95% HRM/HHR% or thereabouts in the last half mile or so of a 5K PB effort, you're not a bit*h

You cant just will yourself from running 6:00/mi pace to suddenly running 5:00/mi when you cant even PB a single mile at that speed

TSLAMP wrote:

Just ran this time last weekend. Weekly training consisted of:

10 mile long run

5x1000 with 2 minute rest.

No tempos, but some steep 1 minute hill repeats with jog down recovery once every two weeks.

depends on what your PB is. what is your best 5k?

i'm 39 and run about 10-15 mpw and can currently run around 17:20's and am not winning my age group by any means. I guess I'm dealing with the National masters XC champ though in a lot of my races. a dude who is still running sub 4:00 1500's

my 5k pb is 14:50 from 17 years ago

Rez wrote:

I am going to be honest.

Yes it is.

To all those saying it’s average is complete BS. If the average man trained at 35mpw for even 5 years I doubt they would break 20 in the 5k. It takes more natural talent than people realise. The genetic potenial of a 20 year old male is probably around 18-19 min (21-22 for women) so I’d say you have above avg running talent and that you are doing well.

Double your milage and get into the 16s.

You should learn to be humble. If 18 min 5k takes talent, what about Jakob Ingebrigtsen who ran 13 in his 5k debut at the tender age of 16? Put it another way, if a 17-year-old kid can run 13, you really think a healthy, average (male) adult can't break 19 off some decent training?

Sledge_hammer wrote:

Rez wrote:

I am going to be honest.

Yes it is.

To all those saying it’s average is complete BS. If the average man trained at 35mpw for even 5 years I doubt they would break 20 in the 5k. It takes more natural talent than people realise. The genetic potenial of a 20 year old male is probably around 18-19 min (21-22 for women) so I’d say you have above avg running talent and that you are doing well.

Double your milage and get into the 16s.

You should learn to be humble. If 18 min 5k takes talent, what about Jakob Ingebrigtsen who ran 13 in his 5k debut at the tender age of 16? Put it another way, if a 17-year-old kid can run 13, you really think a healthy, average (male) adult can't break 19 off some decent training?

JI has precocious talent and guys like that are once in a generation. So yes, the average healthy male who won't have talent at any point in his life can generally not break 19 off some decent training.

coach be a moran wrote:

TrainBoy wrote:

I've coached hundreds of kids and the tough ones can do this after a year or two of training. The wimps can't. You really think breaking 17 for 5k takes talent? There are buncha guys in college breaking 14 min - that takes talent. Totally different world. Every kid who's come to me wanting to run 15 or 16 min had no trouble doing it after committing to it. My talented ones did 14. I've had kids break 16 who were so slow they were never even able to break 60 for 400m. So they put in the work to combat this lack of talent.

You are also an idiot. Those kids were also talented. It's just a matter of degrees of talent. It's a totally different world in all time ranges,.

The buncha kids in college breaking 14 are the cream that's already risen to the top.

NEWSFLASH:

It takes NO talent whatsoever for a male to run under 17 min. Any average high school boy can do it, unless he's Somoan. I've coached kids who were so incredibly un-talented and slow who took years to become barely competent runners at best eventually break 17 by senior year. At that level, if you've got no talent the training will take you there. I've coached hundreds of kids of all abilities, many with phenomenal talent and many with ZERO talent. I know what I'm talking about.

weelybird wrote:

coach be a moran wrote:

You are also an idiot. Those kids were also talented. It's just a matter of degrees of talent. It's a totally different world in all time ranges,.

The buncha kids in college breaking 14 are the cream that's already risen to the top.

NEWSFLASH:

It takes NO talent whatsoever for a male to run under 17 min. Any average high school boy can do it, unless he's Somoan. I've coached kids who were so incredibly un-talented and slow who took years to become barely competent runners at best eventually break 17 by senior year. At that level, if you've got no talent the training will take you there. I've coached hundreds of kids of all abilities, many with phenomenal talent and many with ZERO talent. I know what I'm talking about.

Newsflash: They were not untalented.

You would be a famous coach if your BS was real.

weelybird wrote:

It takes NO talent whatsoever for a male to run under 17 min. Any average high school boy can do it, unless he's Somoan.

So you are disagreeing with yourself?

But you are not wrote:

weelybird wrote:

NEWSFLASH:

It takes NO talent whatsoever for a male to run under 17 min. Any average high school boy can do it, unless he's Somoan. I've coached kids who were so incredibly un-talented and slow who took years to become barely competent runners at best eventually break 17 by senior year. At that level, if you've got no talent the training will take you there. I've coached hundreds of kids of all abilities, many with phenomenal talent and many with ZERO talent. I know what I'm talking about.

Newsflash: They were not untalented.

You would be a famous coach if your BS was real.

So you are saying a teenage boy who runs a 9 minute mile in a race his first year and takes two more years of training just to get to a 6 min mile with a turnover rate of only 150 is not Un-Talented? Can only run 22 min for 5k after a summer of 40 mile weeks but eventually gets to sub-17 only thru 70-mile weeks of hard training for two more years? That's tough and dedicated but excruciatingly untalented.

I've had kids run that fast in their first race ever as a new runner! Those are the kids who have some talent. The other kid has zilch.

Banner. wrote:

Agree with this post, turning the topic into a talent Vs training debate but yeah it's not talent that's stopping any healthy male under 50 breaking 16 or 17 it's the balls the do the work, and to take the pain in that last 1k. So many give out shlt excuses why they are 'slow' or ran a poor 5k, when usually it's just their head being week. Towards the end of a 5k your brain will be screaming at you to stop, learning to tough that out is what gets you PBs, some can handle that better than others.

But yeah 18.50 at 40+ is OK, shows you like to run, but there's no reason not to try and go much faster, aim for 16.xx.

Maybe this pretty much defines what running "talent" actually is as far as this particular discussion goes?

weelybird wrote:

You would be a famous coach if your BS was real.

So you are saying a teenage boy who runs a 9 minute mile in a race his first year and takes two more years of training just to get to a 6 min mile with a turnover rate of only 150 is not Un-Talented? Can only run 22 min for 5k after a summer of 40 mile weeks but eventually gets to sub-17 only thru 70-mile weeks of hard training for two more years? That's tough and dedicated but excruciatingly untalented.

I've had kids run that fast in their first race ever as a new runner! Those are the kids who have some talent. The other kid has zilch.[/quote]

That's right. It's all degrees. Zilch talent is the person who never gets much below 30 minutes because that's practically their sprinting speed.

Anyone have links to race results which illustrate just how unexceptional this time is?

Gravy wrote:

Anyone have links to race results which illustrate just how unexceptional this time is?

What does that mean?

Gravy wrote:

Anyone have links to race results which illustrate just how unexceptional this time is?

Well, according to this link, 18:50 would make the OP 43rd out of 1239 runners in the men's master's division at the Carlsbad 5K this year. So in the top 5%.

Why are people so determined to convince the OP he's unexceptional? He's not. Getting in shape, putting yourself on the line, and running 18:50 at his age is pretty commendable, and not at all normal for men of his age. He should be encouraged to keep trying to find out how fast he can get.

my 2c wrote:

Well, according to this link, 18:50 would make the OP 43rd out of 1239 runners in the men's master's division at the Carlsbad 5K this year. So in the top 5%.

Yeah...and that's Carlsbad, which usually brings out top talent. OP has very little to be ashamed of. Out of curiosity, I just checked out local race results this week and the OP would have finished in the Top 10 OVERALL in 6 out the 10 of the local races in my area this weekend. That's good.

Beating on a 40 year old for running 18:50 is pretty inexcusable. At least he's out there doing it. A majority of the "Elite/Sub-Elite" runners he would have competed against 15-20 years ago can't be bothered to lace up and go for a 20 minute jog these days for fear of not being nearly as good as they once were.

From my experience the 20 - 39 age groupers are frequently taken down by the 40-49 crowd in local races. I was able to break 16 for 2 or 3 yrs after turning 40 and was frequently beaten.

It's really quite terrible. I'm 46 years old and regularly run a 5k in the low to mid 12 minutes. PB is 11:55. But I can't even place here in north carolina in my local 5ks. People here are really fast. I would consider "good" to be under 11:15.

NotInMy Area wrote:

anoldguywhoruns wrote:

I'm 40. I run low to mid 16s on a fast course. I know plenty of guys my age who can run faster in my area.

I would be curious to know where all these fast masters are. In my area, where more than 10 million people live, I know of only a couple of people that last year broke 16 minutes on the 5K at age 40+; I suspect that there may not be more than 4 or 5 overall.

To answer the OP, 18:50 is a respectable time, better than 90% of the 40 years-old, but you probably already knew this.

Local road race outside Philly. 4 masters all under 15:30.

Philly Philly wrote:

NotInMy Area wrote:

I would be curious to know where all these fast masters are. In my area, where more than 10 million people live, I know of only a couple of people that last year broke 16 minutes on the 5K at age 40+; I suspect that there may not be more than 4 or 5 overall.

To answer the OP, 18:50 is a respectable time, better than 90% of the 40 years-old, but you probably already knew this.

Local road race outside Philly. 4 masters all under 15:30.