So does this mean that all females in their prime should run sub 22:30, sub 70 and sub 6?
So does this mean that all females in their prime should run sub 22:30, sub 70 and sub 6?
I'm out of shape but ran 18:33 in HS, 64-sec. 400 in a time trial and 5:15 in the mile. Respectively fall 2001, spring 2002 both for the track times.
But I'd never be able to break 60 in the 400m now or 5 in the mile. I could break 20 with 2-3 months of training though even at age 35.
What % of men 50+ could run these times? I would agree Sub 20 5k easiest, but few 50+ men get under 5 or close to sub 60. Takes dedicated consistent training for years and not getting injured as pre-requisites.
FWIW, here's another slice of data - my times over the last 9 months.
I am a 26 year old male and have run 28mpw since October 2018. These are my pr's so far:
1/2 M - 1:34:58 , March 2019
15k - 1:09:07, January 2019
10k - 39:37, April 2019
8k - 31:56, March 2019
5k - 19:45, May 2019
Mile - 5:12, June 2019
800 - 2:20, June 2019
400 - 56.89, June 2019
200 - 27.29, June 2019
Nothing spectacular, but I'm happy with these under such low mileage. i usually win the 25-29 age group in every race.
90% of the population is incapable of hitting these times.
DukeSkywalker wrote:
FWIW, here's another slice of data - my times over the last 9 months.
I am a 26 year old male and have run 28mpw since October 2018. These are my pr's so far:
1/2 M - 1:34:58 , March 2019
15k - 1:09:07, January 2019
10k - 39:37, April 2019
8k - 31:56, March 2019
5k - 19:45, May 2019
Mile - 5:12, June 2019
800 - 2:20, June 2019
400 - 56.89, June 2019
200 - 27.29, June 2019
Nothing spectacular, but I'm happy with these under such low mileage. i usually win the 25-29 age group in every race.
Come to Holland and the 40 and 50 year olds beat you with those times.
If really running sub 60 for 400m than you can grow big time in 5 and 10k.
DC Wonk wrote:
What % of men 50+ could run these times? I would agree Sub 20 5k easiest, but few 50+ men get under 5 or close to sub 60. Takes dedicated consistent training for years and not getting injured as pre-requisites.
I do not think I will ever run sub 20 for the 5k, I was sedate for too many years so my left ventricle got too hard, but I still have speed, so I run 62 seconds 400s now, would easily go below 60 if I want (with speedendurancetraining). 59 years old in november.
Assuming they train properly for 3-5 or more years:
60-70% of males will hit sub 20 in a 5k
40-50% will run sub 60 (this is the equivalent of sub 5 but more men tend to be fast-twitch developed)
20-30% will run sub 5
“ALL” men certainly won’t do this.
Run for Jesus wrote:
Come to Holland and the 40 and 50 year olds beat you with those times.
If really running sub 60 for 400m than you can grow big time in 5 and 10k.
This is really unsurprising to me. I've been running for 9 months at 28mpw. I assume with my current times, a bump in mileage, and another 15 years of running (I would be 41) I will handily be kicking every 40+ Dutchman's ass I race against. imo.
DukeSkywalker wrote:
FWIW, here's another slice of data - my times over the last 9 months.
I am a 26 year old male and have run 28mpw since October 2018. These are my pr's so far:
1/2 M - 1:34:58 , March 2019
15k - 1:09:07, January 2019
10k - 39:37, April 2019
8k - 31:56, March 2019
5k - 19:45, May 2019
Mile - 5:12, June 2019
800 - 2:20, June 2019
400 - 56.89, June 2019
200 - 27.29, June 2019
Nothing spectacular, but I'm happy with these under such low mileage. i usually win the 25-29 age group in every race.
The 800-400-200 times don’t correlate and are they FAT?
How long have you been running for?
MannequinSkywalker wrote:
DukeSkywalker wrote:
FWIW, here's another slice of data - my times over the last 9 months.
I am a 26 year old male and have run 28mpw since October 2018. These are my pr's so far:
1/2 M - 1:34:58 , March 2019
15k - 1:09:07, January 2019
10k - 39:37, April 2019
8k - 31:56, March 2019
5k - 19:45, May 2019
Mile - 5:12, June 2019
800 - 2:20, June 2019
400 - 56.89, June 2019
200 - 27.29, June 2019
Nothing spectacular, but I'm happy with these under such low mileage. i usually win the 25-29 age group in every race.
The 800-400-200 times don’t correlate and are they FAT?
How long have you been running for?
This is very normal depending on the events you have been training for and the special adaptations, me I had bad 100, good 200 bad 400, good 800, bad 1500, good 3000.
No way!!! wrote:
Sub 60 1/4 is much more difficult.
Yes, this is something the vast majority of people can't do out of the box, and there's no set fitness level that makes it possible. You have to learn how to run with fast form.
Sure, a few "talented" runners start out knowing how. Only a few.
SprintTriathlon wrote:
MannequinSkywalker wrote:
The 800-400-200 times don’t correlate and are they FAT?
How long have you been running for?
This is very normal depending on the events you have been training for and the special adaptations, me I had bad 100, good 200 bad 400, good 800, bad 1500, good 3000.
So you trained for the 200, 800, and 3K?
As a track athlete these are not “normal times “ depending on the situation. For example, Duke’s times would be understood if run on the same day. A 27.29 200m wouldn’t normally break 60, let alone hit 56.89. Someone with a “decent” 400m and 5K would run much faster than 2:20 800m. Something like 2:06-2:10.
Ok. Espescially on the 200 / 400.
DukeSkywalker wrote:
Run for Jesus wrote:
Come to Holland and the 40 and 50 year olds beat you with those times.
If really running sub 60 for 400m than you can grow big time in 5 and 10k.
This is really unsurprising to me. I've been running for 9 months at 28mpw. I assume with my current times, a bump in mileage, and another 15 years of running (I would be 41) I will handily be kicking every 40+ Dutchman's ass I race against. imo.
Duke, you are young and naive.
1. Your times aren’t special for 28 mpw at your age. Those are “nice times” for a 13-14 year old freshman who didn’t run track in middle school.
2. In many parts of the country the 25-29 division is the weakest age group. Most college runners have lots their training base and many are recovering from the night before or pursuing other interests.
3. The top 40-50 year olds are running sub 2:00 800s and sub 16 min 5Ks in the USA so you don’t need to spend that coin flying to Holland.
4. At age 41 you’ll be most likely slower than your 26 year old self. You cannot account for life changes, career arc, and bodily decay. But please keep this post in mind when you turn 41 and bump the thread with an update.
BTW - I’m not your father. If I were, your times would be much faster because I’ve run much faster times than yours on less mileage per week in my 40s.
I was in HS during the late 80s and the Presidential Fitness Test in Gym Class at my school was a 12 minute run in an indoor track where 10 laps = 1 mile. I ran 19 laps as a Frosh and 23 laps as a Junior. I was actually surprised how many footballers and sprinters and baseball players and even girls were able to complete 20 laps in 12 minutes.
DC Wonk wrote:
What % of men 50+ could run these times? I would agree Sub 20 5k easiest, but few 50+ men get under 5 or close to sub 60. Takes dedicated consistent training for years and not getting injured as pre-requisites.
And having a very small, lightweight, diminutive body-type built for running.
Have you seen what some of these diminutive fast runners weigh that post on the 50+ master training thread? One dude said he weigh 130 lbs! I haven't weighed 130 lbs since the 7th grade! ?.
So, very, very few men 50+ could run sub 20, sub 60, etc. Heck, how many 50+ men can even run a mile without stopping let alone try to run a 5k? FFS, the average weight of an American man 40–59 is a whopping ~200 lbs! Let's get real!
https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/average-weight-for-menThis thread proves how delusional letsrun really is.
The best a most men even in their prime could ever hope for is a 30.0 200m and maybe a mid to high 5 mile.
Not everyone is built like a prepubescent like the average Lets Run poster.
Bad Wigins wrote:
No way!!! wrote:
Sub 60 1/4 is much more difficult.
Yes, this is something the vast majority of people can't do out of the box, and there's no set fitness level that makes it possible. You have to learn how to run with fast form.
Sure, a few "talented" runners start out knowing how. Only a few.
Of the three: 400m, one mile & 5K, five minute one mile is the closes to world record by percentage, then sixty seconds 400m. Both sixty-seconds 400m and sub-5 one mile are equivalent to a sub-18 5K. OP was smart enough to know: sub-18 5K would not be much of a discussion on letsrun. Nearly every swing d&ck on letsrun has raced sub-20 5k, so ... . I think there are a lot of young people capable of sub-60 400m without training. Think back to middle school/junior high school/senior high school. Remember the futbol/soccer, Am. football, hockey and tennis players who raced sub-85 600 yards &/or raced sub-95 600m in P.E. class sans T&F training. More high school lads can race sub-60 400m with no track & field training than high school kids who can race sub-5 one mile with no XC or T&F training.
Guys who are generally fit but more built to play linebacker than a soccer forward are never even going to get close to 5:00 for a mile.