Turning 40 is around the corner. Former HS sprinter. Just starting to run. Is a sub-18 5K realistic?

Totally doable with what you've said if you train right. I was 6ft 175 and am down to 160 and running sub 16 @ 46 years old. Just be consistent. Run often easy and occassionally hard.

I'm 43, 6'2, around 180lbs as well. I ran sub 18 in a TT last december and in a track race last month. I've been running on and off for a while, about 7 years, started out in a lot worse shape than you (obese), struggled with overtraining and injuries. I think sub18 is well within reach, if you build up progressively and dont hurt yourself. Not a given by any means, but not crazy either.

Decent chance you can do it, but will be a couple months before we have a better idea. Hope you keep this thread going. It should be fun to follow and can be a great place for you to pick up some pointers. Hopefully you are an analytical type, because you will have a lot of info to filter out. Just the nature of an open forum.

I would guess that 70 second 400 will come way down as well. With or without speed training. Be patient. Listen to your body. Take it easier than you think you need to for a few months.

Good luck!

I am 5'8" and thin as a rail. Pretty much an ideal runner's build. I got back into running at 33 after not doing any racing since junior high cross country. It took me about four years to go from about a 22 min 5k down sub 18. At 40, you can train just as hard as ever, but each year you get past 40, you will find that you will start being limited in your training volume.

Unless you are a pure distance running talent, you will not be running sub 18 after a year. It will take a while to get there. Maybe two years, maybe four or five. The longer it takes, the more you will butt up against aging and will need to make adjustments.

But you should definitely do it. 40 is the age when your metabolism checks out and the pounds will start piling on if you are not active. And training and racing are a lot of fun. Find a training group with some runners who are running your goal time and chase them until you meet your goal. Beats sweating it out on the treadmill at the gym.

In fairness this dude was an 11 flat 100 runner. He clearly is very athletic. I find that general athleticism can translate pretty well to distance running to an extent. All things being equal 18 minutes isn't that impressive and I believe you are over-valuing how difficult it will be to achieve that time.

I am 4 years younger but was under 18 after 4-5 months of dedicated training with a similar physique and background as the OP. I am certainly not a natural distance running talent.

seth82 wrote:

*For kicks, I recently went to a local track to see what an all-out 400m felt like. I ran it in 70 seconds.

What shoes did you use?

Have you considered running a baseline 5k to see where you currently stand untrained?

All discussion aside, best way to establish a "baseline" is to just go find a road 5k somewhere and give it an

honest effort.

If he can come in around 22 minutes, I think he's got a real good shot. If it's significantly above that, I think it's going to be tough.

For an athletic, healthy 40 year old man that should be comically easy.

toozy wrote:

For an athletic, healthy 40 year old man that should be comically easy.

I don't know about comically easy. 17:59 at 41 (let's assume it takes a year) age grades to sub 17. Would you really say that sub 17 is "comically easy" for a healthy, athletic adult. Lots of people train pretty seriously and don't break 17. Your comment seems pretty out of touch.

6403 wrote:

All discussion aside, best way to establish a "baseline" is to just go find a road 5k somewhere and give it an

honest effort.

If he can come in around 22 minutes, I think he's got a real good shot. If it's significantly above that, I think it's going to be tough.

Yes, do this! And please keep thread going!

6403 wrote:

All discussion aside, best way to establish a "baseline" is to just go find a road 5k somewhere and give it an

honest effort.

If he can come in around 22 minutes, I think he's got a real good shot. If it's significantly above that, I think it's going to be tough.

that is sort of useless. the number that matters a lot more is 5k time after like 10 weeks of training. In HS lots of kids ran like 25 min 5ks in the first time trial. It didnt mean much. the talented kids were running 19s 12 weeks later and the scrubs were doing 22s.

Again go to your local road race and count how many sub 18s you see. Sure the 1430 guy running 25 mpw has no problem but those kids who busted their ass for 4 years to run 1745 in HS arent breaking 18 after taking 20 years off.

highhoppingworm wrote:

In fairness this dude was an 11 flat 100 runner. He clearly is very athletic. I find that general athleticism can translate pretty well to distance running to an extent. All things being equal 18 minutes isn't that impressive and I believe you are over-valuing how difficult it will be to achieve that time.

I am 4 years younger but was under 18 after 4-5 months of dedicated training with a similar physique and background as the OP. I am certainly not a natural distance running talent.

+1

ddidididid wrote:

Again go to your local road race and count how many sub 18s you see. Sure the 1430 guy running 25 mpw has no problem but those kids who busted their ass for 4 years to run 1745 in HS arent breaking 18 after taking 20 years off.

Is it that difficult to run sub 18? I don't think you need to have been a 1430 guy at peak for it, but I could be wrong based on my own experience. I ran a 15:09 3-mile (never broke 16:00 in 5 km) at my peak but I can still run < 17:30 5 km easily (i.e., no workouts) just jogging 20–25 mpw. Although I am not that old yet

ddidididid wrote:

6403 wrote:

All discussion aside, best way to establish a "baseline" is to just go find a road 5k somewhere and give it an

honest effort.

If he can come in around 22 minutes, I think he's got a real good shot. If it's significantly above that, I think it's going to be tough.

that is sort of useless. the number that matters a lot more is 5k time after like 10 weeks of training. In HS lots of kids ran like 25 min 5ks in the first time trial. It didnt mean much. the talented kids were running 19s 12 weeks later and the scrubs were doing 22s.

Again go to your local road race and count how many sub 18s you see. Sure the 1430 guy running 25 mpw has no problem but those kids who busted their ass for 4 years to run 1745 in HS arent breaking 18 after taking 20 years off.

I would disagree that it's "useless", although it wouldn't hurt to do some basic road and distance work before the race.

I simply extrapolated based upon my own experience when I started running out of the blue at basically the same age.

I went and jumped into a 5k with no prior training or racing experience, and after 5 years of pretty dedicated training was able to improve 20% from the "baseline" race time, so assuming that I am not some outlier this fellow should be able to at least duplicate what I did if not better it. And I was not a "talent", was far from an 11 flat sprinter, although that is not necessarily something that is going to be extremely helpful for distance running.

If you look at the typical builds of guys in the sprints, it's not exactly conducive to running distances of 5k and beyond.

most likely scenario is you get injured and give up. If you can stay healthy and get consistent training, you can do it.

ddidididid wrote:

nobody can answer this. very few 40 year olds run 18min 5k. But very few 40 year olds are willing to train 7+ hours/week for 2 years...

That doesn't guarantee it either. Have to have some talent even to run a 5k in 20 minutes.

seth82 wrote:

Looking for a mid-life challenge. Will soon be turning 40, and am healthy/active (occasional hikes, occasional bike, walk, etc.), but don't really run. Is a sub-18 5K within 2 years realistic? If not, what's a more realistic goal?

More about me:

*6'1, 180lbs

*Decent high-school sprinter (11-flat 100m)

*1 year of cross country when I was 15yo -- PR (also my first race ever) was just under 19 minutes

*For kicks, I recently went to a local track to see what an all-out 400m felt like. I ran it in 70 seconds.

People are making WAY too many assumptions/assertions based on what we know about you. To state that you either can or can not at this point is way too early.

Bottom line is that you will not know until you train and try. 40 years old isn't old. I'm 55 and running better today than I have in 15 years (due to some healthier eating, more consistent training, and recovery from a knee surgery).

I will give you HOPE though. The fact that you broke 19 minutes as an undertrained 15 year old bodes well for you. Not all 15 year olds can do that...in fact most can not.

It IS a stout goal, however. Good luck!

ddidididid wrote:

nobody can answer this. very few 40 year olds run 18min 5k. But very few 40 year olds are willing to train 7+ hours/week for 2 years...

Don't take advice from posters with usernames that look like a cat had a seizure on a keyboard.

Sub 18 in your 40s is quite achievable and common. It can be an advantage to have been away from the sport as you don't have a long history of injury, burnout, and expectations based on past fast times.

I ran mid 16s in my 40s and the list of local guys in my age group who could (and did) beat me was long.

Ernest wrote:

ddidididid wrote:

nobody can answer this. very few 40 year olds run 18min 5k. But very few 40 year olds are willing to train 7+ hours/week for 2 years...

Don't take advice from posters with usernames that look like a cat had a seizure on a keyboard.

Sub 18 in your 40s is quite achievable and common. It can be an advantage to have been away from the sport as you don't have a long history of injury, burnout, and expectations based on past fast times.

I ran mid 16s in my 40s and the list of local guys in my age group who could (and did) beat me was long.

It may be "common" for guys who ran distance in college, but it is far from "common". And if there was a long list of guys who beat you in local races running mid 16's, you are living in a relative "hotbed" of road racing. Mid 16's would usually win most races where I live unless some kid showed up from college or just out who dipped into the 15's.

Ernest wrote:

ddidididid wrote:

nobody can answer this. very few 40 year olds run 18min 5k. But very few 40 year olds are willing to train 7+ hours/week for 2 years...

Don't take advice from posters with usernames that look like a cat had a seizure on a keyboard.

Sub 18 in your 40s is quite achievable and common. It can be an advantage to have been away from the sport as you don't have a long history of injury, burnout, and expectations based on past fast times.

I ran mid 16s in my 40s and the list of local guys in my age group who could (and did) beat me was long.

1) Sub 18 is not impossible at age 40 nor is it EXCEEDINGLY rare, but I wouldn't call it "common".

2) You are correct in your assessment of his possible advantage.

3) Mid 16s in your 40s makes you a local stud. Not sure where you are that there was a long list of guys who could beat you, but that is not a common situation in the vast majority of areas in the US. Many times a decent sized 5k will be WON by someone who runs in the mid 16s, and most of the time, of course, that person is younger than 40.

4) Just because you did this doesn't mean this guy can. Talent is the limiting factor.