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

I dont think thats true at all wrote:

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 [

Good post, but that still doesn't say that most male's aged 18-39 can't reach sub 16 min 5k for example.

a) Fully agree. A lot of people don't reach those times, because it makes no sense for them. Why dedicate sooo much time (training, cross-training, sleep, recovery measures) to running over many years to be mediocre (compared to elites) with a 15:50 5k and earn no money? Why run alone most of the time for optimal training stimulus and exact paces when they could train with trains a bit less effective but with way more fun?

If someone has a family, a well paying job, why should he put so much dedication to reach his limit in running? He isn't even getting a good body doing that, strength training or swimming would be much better for it.

b) I had shin splints for 5 years (going from sedentary to trying to become a decent runner) and couldn't run more than 5-10 mpw. But do I blame lack of durability? No! I just had no clue what I was doing in training. Every run was a tempo effort, my cadence was low (150-160), every run I would finish with an all-out 200m sprints downhill on concrete (and I have a lot of natural speed). My lower legs were ruined for years, nothing was able to fix it. When I did intervals, it was all out until I was seeing stars, usually getting slower each rep with standing recoveries.

Then I did a lactate threshold test, and the trainer prescribed me training zones. They were MUCH lower than I ever trained at, but suddenly my injuries got much better and I was able to gradually build mileage.

c) But most people CAN get a low BMI if they really tried. Some really can't, as it can be highly genetic (I for example can eat whatever I want without gaining wait, even when I was sedentary), but most can change their life and lower their BMI. But again, why would they? Why stop going to the gym and bench presses/biceps curls to maximize the running times? Most women couldn't care less if someone runs 22 min, 20 min or 16 min 5k, but having almost no muscle mass on the upper body vs a well-trained muscular body certainly makes a difference (even if most of it is just evolutionary, like wanting someone to "protect them"..).

Sorry for the wall of texts, but I'm very passionate about this topic. Almost everyone can be quick (as in 15:30-16:00 5k) if they really tried and optimize everything and are young enough.

to put it another way, masters running [ignoring your 18-35 comment, as this thread had a different thesis, eg 40] is literally the definition of survivorship bias

If you do that 4 times a week you would be in great aerobic shape. Probably better than 90% of most people.

I live in the UK, ran 17.29 last year at 43. Normally run round high 17s and low 18s off 30mpw. Normally in small races (parkruns etc) I'll win age cat, in a decent race I'll be 15-20th in age cat though.

survivorship bias wrote:

to put it another way, masters running [ignoring your 18-35 comment, as this thread had a different thesis, eg 40] is literally the definition of survivorship bias

This is the hard and plain truth. At the peak of my college running, I didn't make the top 50 list in Track & Field News in my best event, but probably was within the top 100. If you age grade my times as a masters runner, the times are about the same as my college time from my best event (using VDOT tables to come up with equivalent times for different distances). But in my masters career, very few (2, to be specific) American men in my age group have beaten me even though I've run high quality races. Am I a national or world class runner because I almost always win my age group and consistently run between 88 and 91% age graded times? Definitely not - it's just that none of those other 100 American guys are still doing this at the level they were back in the early 90s.

I have broken 16 minutes 25 years in a row so far. Will make it 26 this year. It is not to difficult.

I was a 16:30 high school 5k runner. Took 30 years off and started training seriously 1.5 years ago- harder and smarter than when I was in school. I ran 18:19 last month at age 48, which age grades pretty close to my high school times. Defining what’s “Respectable” is very subjective, but I think that anything over 70% age grade is pretty good.

Strange how many of these sorts of threads there are around here. I know this one is old but I see them all the time. In one sense, who cares what anyone thinks is good or normal? Just train, enjoy yourself, and try to improve. Unless you’re aiming for a scholarship or a pro contract, the question doesn’t matter, and if you are aiming for those things you know the answer without asking.

That is the nature of the aging game. You lose much more in the 5K over marathon.

Hanzo wrote:

Sorry for the wall of texts, but I'm very passionate about this topic. Almost everyone can be quick (as in 15:30-16:00 5k) if they really tried and optimize everything and are young enough.

This is just complete nonsense. It's like saying almost anyone could be a physics professor at Northwestern if they'd just study harder. It's not true. Most people are too stupid. Those that can do it are 4-5 sigma outliers.

Moo Goo wrote:

That is the nature of the aging game. You lose much more in the 5K over marathon.

Complete non-sense. As every master out there can tell you, you lose a bit of aerobic capacity every year (some studies say about 1%) + mileage is no longer your best friend due to wear and tear of a lifetime. Most people focus on longer distances as they get old which is kind of shooting themselves on the feet (pun intended). Those who focus more on other systems (VO MAX primarily), and work on their running economy pretty much every day with drills, hills, simple strides... can get some darn good results on shorter races up to 10k as they get in their 40s, 50s and even in their 60s.

Most of the guys who are now in their prime will never be able to experience all this because by then they will have been crippled by wear and tear and poor form...

Things like this website remind me why the internet is really awful. You are terrible people.

It's all relative wrote:

Things like this website remind me why the internet is really awful. You are terrible people.

You salty.

Creepy Cracker wrote:

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??

Most 40plus people don't run. So is average for a runner?

48 year old wrote:

Creepy Cracker wrote:

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??

Most 40plus people don't run. So is average for a runner?

This^

Now respectable for the LRC hobby jogger crowd (not necessarily age group podium times which would be classified as excellent)

40s-19:XX

50s=20:XX

60=22:XX

70s=2?:XX

80s: Finishing

One of 'em wrote:

What do the masses say? And please keep in mind the difference between "respectable" and "good."

I'd say anything under 20 fits the bill for "respectable." At 80 percent of road races, that'll earn you an age-group award.

Good? Gotta go under 18:30, at least.

It's really not about age.

It's more about your height and weight.

And more about weight than anything.

What's your current weight? Then I could give you my best estimate of a good time for your age.

Matt speaks the truth.

When I rip past a 20 something in the final stages of a Parkrun, I don't think they are looking wide eyed and salty because I'm nearly 50. They're looking wide eyed and salty because I have biceps bigger than their twink thighs.

http://www.running2win.com/calculator/WeightAgeGradingCalculator.asp

Absolutely ! Somebody finally on this thread who is talking sense .the original post said what is the average 5k time for a man in his 40s ...if you Google the average time for this age group it says around 32 minutes ..which to me seems very slow ..and more like a complete beginners time in average health. I am 45 years old and used to run as a teenager for my school at county level ..after many years of no running at all and having a BMI of around 26 ..I decided to start running around 3 or 4 x 5k a week for the last few months and now average around 26 minutes ..looking to be sub 25 minutes before the end of summer (BMI is now 24) . .. I would suggest the true "average" 45 year old man in UK would be just under 30 minutes probably more like 32 for the "average" American man as they tend to be heavier . ..in my opinion anybody who is mid forties running 8 to 8.5 minute miles is well above "average" . Sub 20 minutes for an average man in his mid 40's is bollocks! 15 minutes is lunacy as an average ...! The posters on here are either taking the piss or their averages are based on the average professional runner ! Not the average Joe .

As a 45-year-old female, I run 18:40-ish 5Ks right now, Hoping to improve this year. For a guy at my age, I would say that in the 17 minutes will be respectable.