Seems like just about all the 5k's in my area have winning masters times in the 18's or 19's. Would a sub 20 5k for a 40 year old put you in the top 1 percent of masters runners?
Seems like just about all the 5k's in my area have winning masters times in the 18's or 19's. Would a sub 20 5k for a 40 year old put you in the top 1 percent of masters runners?
I don’t think so. In my area lots of guys in their 40’s (even 50’s) running well under 20 minutes. I ran under 15 mins in my early 40’s and still not sure I was even in the top 1 percent.
I don’t think so. In my area lots of guys in their 40’s (even 50’s) running well under 20 minutes. I ran under 15 mins in my early 40’s and still not sure I was even in the top 1 percent.
Not sure sub-15 the 99th percentile at 40? You’re joking, right? It is at any age.
Running Level is the name for something I recently found. It is a great source for comparing running times, and also weight lifting. That is where I came up with the 17:25. It is easy to use and kind of fun to see where an old guy like me is at.
I just went to that running level site. I don't know where they get the numbers, but an 18:36 5k is only given the 95th percentile for 40 year olds. Unless it's a super elite race, there is no way 18:36 is getting beat by 5 percent of 40 year olds. 17:25 does sound reasonable for the top 1 percent, though.
1% of what? Anyone who entered a race last year? A large portion of those are non runners who get dragged to a turkey trot or charity event and walk or shuffle through a 5k. Sub 20min is probably close to top 1%. Change that to everyone who averages at least 30 miles a week and does some type of structured training and it’s probably around 17 min. obviously in certain races being in the top 1% of the field would take much faster times.
I just went to that running level site. I don't know where they get the numbers, but an 18:36 5k is only given the 95th percentile for 40 year olds. Unless it's a super elite race, there is no way 18:36 is getting beat by 5 percent of 40 year olds. 17:25 does sound reasonable for the top 1 percent, though.
I don't know where they get the numbers either, the times do seem a little fast for what I see on the local level.
As a 45y runner iI will say unless you are at a major race with good prize incentive you are not going to find many people of any age under 17 min. last race i did had 1400 people in it. I was 3rd overall and my normal training pace would have placed me 80th (top 7%). yes there are some really fast people but they are few compared to number of people that enter races. id say for 45. A 15:30 would make you very competitive in any race you enter. A 16:30 would make you solid in big races but elite in smaller races. A sub 18 will be ok in big races but close to age group podium in small races. A sub 20 will get you respect in small races.
No, not even close. You would need to run 13:40 as a 40 year old to be in the top 1%.
19:59 5k for a 40 year old is 67th percentile.
They downvoting you because they know you're right
They are downvoting him because he is equating age graded times with percentile. Age graded is just what % of the WR you are.
You have to be the biggest buffoon on the planet to think you need a 13:40 as a masters runner to make it into the top 1%. That same table shows you need 12:58 as a 30 year old. Imagine thinking you need a 15:07 to be considered top 10% of 40 year old runners. Come on man
My guess is that sub 17 gets you into the 1%. Sub 18 5%. Sub 19 10%. Or thereabouts. And the percentage is based on people who actually train and show up for races, not the general population. If you just took the general population, sub 19 would probably be .001%.
Most 40+ runners who train at a decent level can get a sub 20. Sub 19 takes a fair amount of talent and dedication, but most who are willing to put in the time and effort can get there at 40+. Sub 18 is where you need to have a pretty serious commitment and some real running talent. I maxed out in the low 17s for 5k when I was in my 40s. It was never a focus for me as the marathon was my main focus. Sub 17 will mostly be runners who have real experience competing on a high level in either HS or college.
Are Carlsbad runners a representative sample of the country?
Maybe. Carlsbad is a well known race and attracts big game looking for a challenge. This would be in my opinion (with out looking at results just name) a competitive race.