What is more impressive over age 50 - sub 17 5K or sub 5 mile?

I did both in my youth and couldn't do either once I reached my 50's (and I still did both in my late 40's).

I think they're about equal.

As a runner in my 50’s, I can say that I’m closer to breaking 5 in the mile than running sub 17. It’s not even really close; 5.06 vs 17:48.

Ha! I've got both on my goal list for my age 50 year.

As with others, my gut says sub 17 will be more difficult.

I'm 49 now and have gone under 5 every year since age 15. Last year was 4:54 in my one attempt after some specific training. I thought 17 might be out of reach, but was able to do a new year's day 5k in 17:08 in my first 5k in a few years, with no special training beyond consistent running, a couple of tempo sessions, and a few sets of 200m reps.

Yeah, I think there are a lot more runners like you than the opposite.

As a 55 year old, I would say the 5k, but not by much. You tend to lose so much speed as you age and you can power your way through a 5k if you're big engine endurance type vs speedster.

The mile, that is so short that unless you had real quicks when you were younger, that is going to be a tall order. Just having the leg speed for sub 75 400s is NOT going to be common, much less stringing 4 of them together.

So I generally agree with the other posters that 5K under 17 is a bit more difficult but I think it also depends on your body type and training regimen. I am in my 40s and lift weights regularly and can run 5:05 but I can’t break 18:00 which I believe is due in part to the fact I’ve focused more on strength than endurance and cardiovascular capacity. If I were to lift less and put in more miles, do more specific training, and drop 10-15 pounds, I think I’d fair better in the 5k.

Further I’d say most (nearly all) sub 17 5k runners can break a 5 minute mile regardless of age but not all sub 5 minute milers can run 16:59.

Depends on whether you were better at the mile or 5km

Its fairly equal but you could probably wack up the miles to go sub 17. Or an 800/1500m runner would find the former easier

Somone who has run when younger would have more chance at the sub 5 but a lot of runners I've seen start in 30's or later would find the sub 17 easier. They have never really done shorter interval / speed type session and are reluctant to do so when older

In my experience, the 5:00 mile was way harder than sub-17 at 50. In my age 50 year I ran 16:17 road and 4:58 road. Admittedly I didn't do any mile-specific training so I could probably eek out several more seconds... but point being sub 17 was much more easily achieved. I also run with several 50+ runners who can run at or below 17 but can't sniff 5:00. I think the necessary footspeed erodes at this age unless you focus really heavily to maintain it.

Funny to hear most say the 5k is harder. I was a mid distance runner wayback when. The last time I broke 5 was at age 47 but I broke 17 at age 52.

Anything with higher sped is going to be more impressive as that tends to be the limiting factor for older runners.

5:00 mile wins.

These are similar to what I ran last year, but my mile time is a little slower. For me sub-17 is probably the tougher mark.

Overall it's a toss-up and depends on the runner. If you can run sub-17 after 50, you probably have a good shot at getting under 5.

At 50 I ran 5:02 and 17:46. If I'd had more time to train sub-5 was doable, but I think sub-17 was not even close to doable for me.

For me, sub 5 has always been way easier than sub-17. Now that I am past 50, breaking 5 is still possible, but I'd be surprised if I could break 17:20. On the other hand, I train with a few guys of my age that can break 17 in their sleep, but do not have anymore the leg speed to break 5 (they can get pretty close, though). So, I guess it depends...

Sub 17 is easier but more people will do the training to run sub 5. It is just easier run 40mpw and do some strides than to find the time to run 70mpw that most people need to do to break 17 with 5:05 mile.

For me it would have been easier to hit the mile than the 5000m. Last time I raced a 1500m in sub 5:00 equivalent time, I ran 17:32 a couple of days earlier (both USATF Masters Championships when I was around 53).

The 17:32 was, for me a pretty decent run, and was more the distance I had trained for. There was no way that I could have conceived running 17:00. The 1500m was the first time I had run a mile in about four years (sub 5:00 for an accurate road mile), and I probably had a little improvement there.

It seems that 4:59.0 and 16:59.0 are very similar time age graded (or were on the latest factors I found), so it probably comes down to what type of runner you are and to some degree training focus. I was probably better at a mile when I was young (4:20 with 60 last 400m) v the 5000m (about 15:22 as I remember).

When I was in my early 50s, I still had decent speed, and could run 4 times 100m in 15.xx (with the odd drop into the high 14.xx after a session). Much past 3000m by relative performance tended to fall away - I would have been a low 37 min 10k road runner at 53, which is comparatively slower than the mile/1500m or 5000m time.

So, I would guess the times are relatively equal in merit; the 5000m time might be more frequently run, as there are more 50+ guys that would train for 5000/10000m and up, than would be training for 1500m/mile; and I'm more impressed the the 5000m, since I couldn't get anywhere near it at 50+, although I could run the mile time!

Honestly. The age doesn't make too much difference sub 17:00 is better than sub 5:00 across the age spectrum.

The correct answer is 2:10.7 for 800m ;)

Neither.

another vote for sub-17 as more impressive. I ran 4:59.2 at 50, and i can't find anything better than 17:27 for 5k since then that I trust. A 17:05 at 51, but I suspect that was a short course. It's a good question, though -- a lot of times people pose questions on here that seem to have an easy answer without any research at all.