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

Okay, first of all, I'm not what you'd call a "pro runner". I run to stay in shape because once I get under way, I know that I'll finish my 5k for they day, and drop 1.5-2.0 pounds by the end. I don't know jack about running, except that I put one foot in front of the other.

That being said, a lot of these posts of like 18 minute 5k's for guys that are 50 or whatever are either A) COMPLETELY FULL OF SH*T, or B) PRO-LEVEL RUNNERS who've been doing this all of their lives and are in the top 5% of aptitude. My VERY BEST time at 43 years old was 25:36. And it was 75 degrees, relatively flat with just minor grades, and I worked up to it by running 2-3 5k's per week for the preceding 4 months or so.

So.. don't let the ego-cases or braggarts discourage you. I'm 44 years old, and I don't ANYBODY that can hang with me at my current 27-28 times. And I work at it. and I hate running. But I never regret it when I've finished my INCREDIBLY SLOW TIME by this forum's standards...

Sorry, running a 5K 2-3 times a week isn't even training. Work up to 30-40 miles per week and you can say you're at least training.

I'm NOT saying this to be elitist. That's just the world of running. 18-minute 5Kers are NOT professionals, these are people just like you, who simply train a lot more than you.

By the way, the 2 lbs you lose when you run a 5K is all water weight. You don't actually lose 2 lbs of fat. Hopefully you're aware of this.

Davey's legs wrote:

That being said, a lot of these posts of like 18 minute 5k's for guys that are 50 or whatever are either A) COMPLETELY FULL OF SH*T, or B) PRO-LEVEL RUNNERS who've been doing this all of their lives and are in the top 5% of aptitude. My VERY BEST time at 43 years old was 25:36. And it was 75 degrees, relatively flat with just minor grades, and I worked up to it by running 2-3 5k's per week for the preceding 4 months or so.

I'm glad you enjoy running, but you are not seeing things clearly. I'm 44 and just ran 18:18 for 5k. I only run 5 days a week, max of 30 mpw. This is very little training and I used to do a lot more. However, never have I been pro level. My current time only grades out to 76% based on my age, so it might be good compared to the few middle age dudes who still race in my town, it's nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things. The truth is that most guys who keep their weight under control and are sort of built for running should be able to run around 20 min or so for a 5k for most if their lives. Obviously that changes as they get older, but we're talking 50+ before you legitimately start to slow down. If you ran a reasonable amount of mileage (like 25-30 instead of 10-15) your time would drastically improve.

I did no exercise at all until I was 39 years old, never ran, never played team sports. I weighed about 80kg and at 173cm tall had a BMI which was definitely in the "overweight" category.

I ran 1:35 for a half 1 year in to starting running off about 18mpw. I ran 1:29 a couple of years later with similar levels of "training" and could sneak under 20 for 5k off the same mileage.

I then upped my mileage to 30+mpw and have got down to 18:14. Weight is now 72kg so I'm still no skinny rake.

I'm sorry that your body seems to limit you to a 25:xx PB - but take it from me, you don't need to be "pro level" or full of sh*t to be running sub 19 in your 40s. But you do need to put the miles in AND probably have an aerobic system (a.k.a. choosing the right parents) which helps you out.

I am sure you misread the question. Achieving 5 minute mile (even for 1 mile) is not within the realm of "average" for any age group.

Davey's legs wrote:

But you do need to put the miles in AND probably have an aerobic system (a.k.a. choosing the right parents) which helps you out.

The aerobic system is HIGHLY trainable. You can go from sedentary / not able to run more than 2 min to a 16 min 5k if you start training without much talent (at young age and normal 19-23 BMI). Speed on the other hand is highly genetic, but it's not that important for distance events.

Stop blaming genetics for hobby joggers. I'm tired of hearing all the time I got talent just because I improved from 21 min 5k to 17 min in one year at >30. It's just hard, solid work week after week and smart, consistent training. And 17 min is still fucking slow, most hobby joggers got a complete misunderstanding of what's fast and what not.

Talent matters at the highest level - it ultimately decides who gets the medals at Olympics, but hobby joggers should never use it as an excuse for their times when they haven't even optimized training and everything around it yet or are doing 30 mpw and think that's a lot.

Also to the poster before, 18 min for a 50 year old is extremely far away from world-class (it's a very good time for that age, sure but world-class would be 15-16 min).

Hanzo wrote:Stop blaming genetics for hobby joggers. I'm tired of hearing all the time I got talent just because I improved from 21 min 5k to 17 min in one year at >30. It's just hard, solid work week after week and smart, consistent training.

That you started at a 21min 5k says something, at least to me. How much training did you do leading up to that?

Joe Jackson wrote:

Hanzo wrote:Stop blaming genetics for hobby joggers. I'm tired of hearing all the time I got talent just because I improved from 21 min 5k to 17 min in one year at >30. It's just hard, solid work week after week and smart, consistent training.

That you started at a 21min 5k says something, at least to me. How much training did you do leading up to that?

You are telling me that a 21 5k for a dude requires good genetics? Wow. Just wow.

Trainability of vo2max and lactate threshold are genetically determined, as are the ceilings for those things. That is true whether you are an elite or a hobbyjogger it just so happens that the elites have a higher baseline to start with and are more trainable.

But not everyone can go out and run a sub 17:00 5k after 40, and genetics are the biggest determinant of that.

Your anecdote is nice and it is affirming, but it is your truth, not the truth for all others. Maybe you just have a medium to medium low baseline vo2max that is highly trainable.

If untrained, running 21 for a 5K at above the age of 30 requires good genetics. Yeah if you're highly active and do a lot of aerobic work...no.

Really? Really? wrote:

Joe Jackson wrote:

That you started at a 21min 5k says something, at least to me. How much training did you do leading up to that?

You are telling me that a 21 5k for a dude requires good genetics? Wow. Just wow.

Really? Really? wrote:

You are telling me that a 21 5k for a dude requires good genetics? Wow. Just wow.

That you STARTED at a 21min 5k says something, at least to me.

Personally, sub 20 is a fair marker I think, maybe sub 21 in the later 40s

There's a world of difference in the never-ran average Joe's that get off the couch on their 40th birthday and ex collegiate runners

One example might be in swimming, I'm an ex collegiate sprinter, I took 20 years off and entered a 50 for grins, I still got under 24s which isn't amazing (20.n in college), but there is literally no adult onset swimmer that would come within 5 body lengths of that, regardless.

Sure sprinting isn't distance, but a similar concept. I took the sport to a high level in college and easily trounce my AG in masters meets. Running isn't terribly different, unfortunately we are all a bit differently able.

Disclosure: after 4 years of ~15 mpw jogging,, my PR is 20'14 in a Turkey trot lol

Gobble gobble mfer

cesar__Ff wrote:

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?

Yeah, he/she's clueless. How can it take 4 months? It should be after 4 training runs.

There are people here that are trolling. But it really doesn't take a pro to run 18 minute 5k's in his 50s. It's pretty hard, but even being able to do it still doesn't make one on a par with pros. It's a goal that's very much reachable for recreational runners. Of course, to say everyone or most people can do it is just trolling.

The reality is that pros are so so far ahead of recreational runners.

Foggy wrote:

How's 16:38 for an age 53 man?

Flying....I was about eighth in the nationals on the track with 17:32 at that age. You would make the world-rankings with that on the track.

I ran 17:30 on road at 52 (certified course) and pretty much solo. At that I was doing three hard runs a week - reps, something like 6x1000m at race pace; an l/t run; and about 7 or 8 hard for a "long" run; and just jogging a couple of miles on the other days, probably just around 30 miles per week.

And I was no superstar when younger - never broke 15 min - but more speed-oriented (5k was a bit on the long side), so more intense training and less mileage worked OK.

Joe Jackson wrote:

Hanzo wrote:Stop blaming genetics for hobby joggers. I'm tired of hearing all the time I got talent just because I improved from 21 min 5k to 17 min in one year at >30. It's just hard, solid work week after week and smart, consistent training.

That you started at a 21min 5k says something, at least to me. How much training did you do leading up to that?

I started at 24 years after doing no sport at all for 10 years (computer gamer) and couldn't run more than 2 mins without stopping. So I started on a level far below most hobby joggers. I was so happy when I did my first 5k in 35 min after a couple of weeks.

Getting to 21 min 5k didn't take much effort, almost no running as I was injured all the time (chronic shin splints) so I did a lot of biking. Half a year of biking was enough to run 21 min 5k, the further improvement to 17 min came 5 years later after I finally was able to run without shin splints (from 21 to 17 in around half a year).

Saying that it's a sign of talent is the same reason I dropped my coach (he coached an Olympian, but says the same stupid thing - that it's an indication of talent to respond so well to training and that not everyone does that.. instead of believing in his own training plan and me working hard).

Canova said that every young male (except for a few % with disabilities or chronic overweight) can run 15:50 / 32:30 / 1:15 / 2:33 with many years of the right distance training. He is the only one that really knows his stuff I think.

Why I agree with him?

1) Because I've trained with hobby joggers (and surpassed all of them) in all those local running clubs. None of them trains optimally, they are running for fun doing random things. Those are the same ones that call those who do better and improve quickly talented, instead of trying to optimize their training and learn more about running. Most of them barely improve, doing the same thing week after week.

2) The human body was built to run long distances (IF properly trained for). Tests with animals (husky's etc) showed that the difference between the best and worst husky's is only about 10% in distance events. The difference between the best human and worst human (all optimally trained) should be 13 - 16 min 5k, and not 13 min to 20 min, or 13 min to 23 min etc. Chances are the 23 min runner is nowhere near his genetic capabilities that he could reach with optimal training (unless he gets too old).

Hanzo wrote:

I started at 24 years after doing no sport at all for 10 years (computer gamer) and couldn't run more than 2 mins without stopping. So I started on a level far below most hobby joggers. I was so happy when I did my first 5k in 35 min after a couple of weeks.

Getting to 21 min 5k didn't take much effort, almost no running as I was injured all the time (chronic shin splints) so I did a lot of biking. Half a year of biking was enough to run 21 min 5k, the further improvement to 17 min came 5 years later after I finally was able to run without shin splints (from 21 to 17 in around half a year).

You (truly) started well below me (35min 5k vs. my first attempt after a few weeks of running at ~25min, granted I had only been sedentary for about 1-2 years at that point) yet managed a 21min 5k (around my PR) with apparently very little effort vs. me running ~25-30mpw for a few months to get there. Clearly there's some difference between us because me doing any amount of focused training was apparently way more than what you did to run 21min.

For reference, many years ago (15ish) I attempted a 5k totally untrained a few days after a solo 200k bike ride (in a year that I rode ~6000 miles). Hard to recall exactly what I ran but it was also somewhere in the 25min range. I vaguely recall running a ~7-7:30 mile with the wind then turning around only to death march to the finish line on toasted legs.

there are quite a few different body types, and those conclusions presume that you have the ideal ~19-21 BMI runner body or close to it

For non-runners that do multi-sport, can push 3-plates or near it in multiple compound lifts and are around 25-26 BMI [yet not >15% BF] are not going to run mid 15s

And distance runners are also self-selected [especially in the 40+ crowd] for runners that are extremely durable. Many runners will have ligament/joint/soft-tissue injuries that keep them bouncing around 20-30 mpw with downtime for injuries

So sure, if you assume the peak of the bell curve:

a) spare time to dedicate to 70-110 mpw training

b) are extremely durable [2 sigma above normal population, esp above age 40]

c) have a low BMI runner body type [