What is a respectable 5K time for an average over-40 guy?

Depends who you hang out with.

Age grade tables give you the following for a 40-year old man:

60% (Local class): 22:45

70% (Regional class): 19:30

80% (National class): 17:04

90% (World class): 15:10

Yeah, for the general masses, I think your sub 20 = "respectable" is reasonable.

How would you classify 25:59 for a 40-something guy? Just curious...

He hangs with Plus-size women if that helps.

Does he drive a small car?

Any average 40+ year old should be able to break 15:30 with moderate running (10-15 mpw) after 4 months.

Is "small car" a new euphemism for male genetalia?

A

One of 'em wrote:

16:30

Out west 16:00 to 16:30 in CA

Az 16:50 easy

17 flat in TX

When I look at all the races to see the first master, I see a lot of mid 18's. Of course that gets much faster as the races get more competitive.

it's all relative wrote:

Depends who you hang out with.

Age grade tables give you the following for a 40-year old man:

60% (Local class): 22:45

70% (Regional class): 19:30

80% (National class): 17:04

90% (World class): 15:10

Yeah, for the general masses, I think your sub 20 = "respectable" is reasonable.

where'd you get these?

no. 15.30 is only realistic if you are doing high mileage (80+).

Mugsy Bogues wrote:

it's all relative wrote:

Depends who you hang out with.

Age grade tables give you the following for a 40-year old man:

60% (Local class): 22:45

70% (Regional class): 19:30

80% (National class): 17:04

90% (World class): 15:10

Yeah, for the general masses, I think your sub 20 = "respectable" is reasonable.

where'd you get these?

Runnersworld has an age grade calculator.

Any 40-year old who runs 10-15 mpw should crack 15:30 for a 5K within 4 months? what in the fuc-k are you smoking?

I played with the Runner's World age graded table and it IMO is skewed to give higher ratings to the 5K distance compared to a marathon.

For a 43 year old male: 19:09 for a 5K is about equal to a 2:59:59 marathon.

A 2:59:59 is much tougher for most 43 year olds IMO.

I wonder how this data was compiled.

I used Boston Qualifying time for a 43 year old of 3:14:59 and the aged grade table gave me 20:44 being about equal ranking.

No way. I would bet a lot more 43 year olds could run 20:44 than 3:14:59 for a marathon.

Some funky calculation there.

Did you mis the heading??? It says. "Average" guy. Do you understand AVERAGE???

The 60% age graded post shows 22:15 for a 40 year old. Of course the heading is OVER 40, so 20:15 IS respectable. Reality?? 23 is probably respectable for OVER 40 'Average' guys. Do you see it??

opnion nated wrote:

I played with the Runner's World age graded table and it IMO is skewed to give higher ratings to the 5K distance compared to a marathon.

For a 43 year old male: 19:09 for a 5K is about equal to a 2:59:59 marathon.

A 2:59:59 is much tougher for most 43 year olds IMO.

I wonder how this data was compiled.

that´s true. it´s statistics.

interesting is just the "age-performance %" of what someone has run in reality:

Bruce Deacon recently won a 5k race in B.C. in 15:52, I would say that is respectable. He's 46 years old.

For the average 40+ runner I would say 18-19 seconds is something to be reasonably happy with.