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

Sub 5 at that age is good for sure but no not top 15, maybe not top 15 is his own state.

Agreed. I ran significantly under 5 at 50 and there were a few others at that level. At 40 i also ran 4:17 and there a ton of guys under 5. Even at 45 there were full fields of male runners under 5. Funny, i was just talking to my wife today about goals for the summer for herself and, at age 47, that is what we're going to tackle: sub 5 for her at age 47. She has been concentrating on the longer distances so long I feel it's time to back to speed for a spell. So, even a female who's almost 50 has a shot at sub 5.

My HS track coach ran in the world masters games and ran 4:26 1500 placing 3rd or 4th at age 50 so a sub 5 is definitely in the elite for the age bracket but not top 15 ever. Still impressive.

Just want to point out that Cal Coast is something of a super club that draws the best masters from all over the Los Angles area, so the fact that it has 10 guys over 45 that can run under 5 minutes isn't that surprising.

As a runner in the SF Bay Area I feel safe in saying that there are more than 10 guys over 45 around here that can run sub-5.

So just in the major metro areas of California you have 20+ guys 45+ going sub-5. I think that the total in California alone is more than thirty 45+ guys who can run sub-5.

USA Masters starts today. Mile is tomorrow.

http://www.usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2014/USA-Masters-Indoor-Track---Field-Championships/Live-Results.aspx

To gun wrote:

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.

treadmill warriors? 5k warriors? i am not "guessing" or approximating that we have 10 guys that can run that fast, they will run that fast this spring. the only approximation is if they run a 1500 then we can say about what their mile is.

the problem lies in the fact that the mile is not ran that often. but the 1500/1600 is ran everywhere.

like 1nout said, just in california i feel confident saying there is over 25 guys that can run sub 5 for the mile. and that is for guys in the 45-49 age group. Like Cush said (typed?) we have 5 45-49 men our our team alone that can/will run sub 5 this year.

Again, sub 5 when over 40 is nothing to sneer at but it does not mean you are elite. Elite masters are running more along the lines of sub 4:15 1500's so that is about a

central park track club in NYC has four guys over 40 who ran sub 4:30 last year - one ran 4:19 and one of them was 49.

sactomaster wrote:

Agreed. I ran significantly under 5 at 50 and there were a few others at that level. At 40 i also ran 4:17 and there a ton of guys under 5. Even at 45 there were full fields of male runners under 5. Funny, i was just talking to my wife today about goals for the summer for herself and, at age 47, that is what we're going to tackle: sub 5 for her at age 47. She has been concentrating on the longer distances so long I feel it's time to back to speed for a spell. So, even a female who's almost 50 has a shot at sub 5.

If she is that fast now, then she was one of the top women runners in the world in her prime.....her name?

sactomaster wrote:

Funny, i was just talking to my wife today about goals for the summer for herself and, at age 47, that is what we're going to tackle: sub 5 for her at age 47. She has been concentrating on the longer distances so long I feel it's time to back to speed for a spell. So, even a female who's almost 50 has a shot at sub 5.

Well that settles, sub 5 for a 45-49 is not very impressive because "even a female" (that age) can do it! ;-)

I will be sure to tell any guy that I know that is a sub 2:15-2:19 marathoner that what they did wasn't particularly good, because even many WOmen have done THAT, and geez, zillions of guys have done it.....so, sorry, no one cares.

come on wrote:

Dude, John Trautmann Just ran 4:17 at 46..i doubt sub 5:00 is in the top 15

Trautmann won't be 46 until the end of June.

a southern runner wrote:

Just curious if this is true or not. Are there records of the fastest miles run ages 45-49?

No freaking way. So many of them don't even report. Steve Spence still breaks 5:00 every year. MOST college runners who turn 45 could train and break 5:00 if they wanted to. It's not that great a feat. I'm fat and 47 and I could do it in 9 months if I trained (and didn't get injured -- that part is unlikely).

USUALLY I think things are harder to do than people think, but not this time. Can MOST people do it or MOST runners do it? No way, but good runners who are 45 can easily do this, so WAAAAY more than 15. Not a big deal for former college runners with a little bit of training as long as they aren't starting at 100 pounds overweight.

We're not dead at 45 you know.

First post on this thread, believe it or not.

Your point and post is well-taken, but the bottom line is you do or don't. The guy who busts his butt and does it gets credit for what you seem to think is no big deal. I know a lot of ex-college runners, decent runners for sure, who would have a hard time breaking 5 minutes at 45...it's not quite as easy as you imply.

Getting injured is of course, a big deal breaker, but it's more than that.

I'm a slug who ran a sub 2:40 in my teens. I was told by many prominent coaches (yes well known ones) in my area that I will easily run a sub 2:20 in my 20's...never happened.

Why, injuries over and over, bad luck with tendinitis. My point is do I get to say I could have ran a sub 2:20 just because I may have been capable? No I don't.

The trolls will rip my post apart, claiming I am bragging and talking about myself, not true as I am simply making a point.

The "average" runner who ran a 4:30 in high school, even if not over weight, cannot just start running and break 5 minutes in 9 months, if at all. I'm using 4:30 as a number, but I know 2 dozen plus who could not do it. Yes, some are out of shape, regardless they are not 100 pounds overweight and could admit that getting in shape to run four 75 second quarters in a row would be no easy feat.

I respectfully disagree. I give the guys who have done it a lot of credit. Your Steve Spence reference is not realistic. Crap, he's run a 2:12 marathon, still runs, so why would that be a huge stretch?

quote]Flagpole wrote:

No freaking way. So many of them don't even report. Steve Spence still breaks 5:00 every year. MOST college runners who turn 45 could train and break 5:00 if they wanted to. It's not that great a feat. I'm fat and 47 and I could do it in 9 months if I trained (and didn't get injured -- that part is unlikely).

USUALLY I think things are harder to do than people think, but not this time. Can MOST people do it or MOST runners do it? No way, but good runners who are 45 can easily do this, so WAAAAY more than 15. Not a big deal for former college runners with a little bit of training as long as they aren't starting at 100 pounds overweight.

We're not dead at 45 you know.[/quote]

If you break 5:00 for the mile at 50, you are a baller, no ifs ands or buts.

i don't think you can count those runners who "can" do it if they train, only those who have done it. I don't think there's 50-100 every year. When I first turned 50 and ran under 5 I think there was only a handful of guys who actually did it. Maybe only 5 who actually did it in a mile and not 1500 and then maybe a dozen who did the equivelant.

Sactomaster I think somewhere between the handful or two reported sub 5 at 50 we see and purported 50 to 100 claimed by some there lies the truth.

Only those that break 5 on a track or certified road race, 1500 m conversion included. Does not include those who could, even if in good enough shape.

My guess as an active runner:

45-49 maybe 50 or 60

50-54 about 25 or 30

55-59 about 10 or 15

60+ very few just a handful

And to the larded ones who say they could do it. How about less talk and let's see you try!

ya, i don't know. When we had the nationals a few years ago I was second in the 1500 and although it was a tactical race, only about 5 broke the equivalent of the 5 minute mile. If you look at the list from that year only about 10 actually did it. So, the estimate may be high but who really knows. Maybe the trick is to see how old you can get and still break 5 minutes. Nolan Shaheed is a great example for us to follow!

A converted 1500m time, a treadmill time, a time in training, an estimated time, a split time, a road mile time, etc are NOT mile times. You old farts are idiots!

sactomaster wrote:

i don't think you can count those runners who "can" do it if they train, only those who have done it. I don't think there's 50-100 every year. When I first turned 50 and ran under 5 I think there was only a handful of guys who actually did it. Maybe only 5 who actually did it in a mile and not 1500 and then maybe a dozen who did the equivelant.

Thank you, that's my point. The poster, flagpole, was claiming this person and that person could do it because they ran in college. Sorry, I say bs on that theory as say either did or didn't. Breaking 5 minutes at age 50, in my opinion, is quite an effort and hats off to those who have done it.

Well done sactomaster as it's a rarer thing to do than most will admit.

To gun wrote:

A converted 1500m time, a treadmill time, a time in training, an estimated time, a split time, a road mile time, etc are NOT mile times. You old farts are idiots!

old farts or not, a converted 1500 meter time counts.

and Flagpole, really? to claim you could run sub 5 if you only tried is the height of non runnerdom mindset.

Scott Fry would be ashamed.