My 45 year old friend claims that if he breaks a 5:00 mile this makes him the 15th fastest miler ages 45-59 is this true

few people care enough to show up at national track meets - us indoors is this weekend, right? Check the results - only around 10 people per age group will show and the depth is paper thin.

like you are finding, most fast guys race on the roads, not the track.

nice running, by the way.

agip wrote:

few people care enough to show up at national track meets - us indoors is this weekend, right? Check the results - only around 10 people per age group will show and the depth is paper thin.

like you are finding, most fast guys race on the roads, not the track.

nice running, by the way.

Thanks - I see your point. I guess that's the nature of the sport. There's so many distances and variations (and opportunities - countless 5k's as opposed to mile events). It's all about interest.

A good example is the beer mile. In the 40+ AG, the WR is 5:51, and 10th place is 6:23. I was planning on entering this event last summer. My initial goal was to run about 5 test runs on my own before the event, but I only did one and lost interest (life got in the way). I was able to run 6:18 on this sole run, which put me at 9th in the world at age 40+, haha. I could see myself possibly going sub-6 if I really, really dedicated myself for months. This would put me as 2nd in the world, 40+. I'm sure that if it was a very popular event, I wouldn't be able to touch the top 100.

It also depends on the list.

To get results ratified for actual age group records etc. requires quite a bit of work by the race director. Certification/timing etc.

The big races will have all that in place for the open races. Local and small races won't.

So I think it also depends on what type of lists you are looking at.

a southern runner wrote:

Just curious if this is true or not. Are there records of the fastest miles run ages 45-49?

I can unequivocally state that, yes, it is true.

agip wrote:

few people care enough to show up at national track meets - us indoors is this weekend, right? Check the results - only around 10 people per age group will show and the depth is paper thin.

like you are finding, most fast guys race on the roads, not the track.

Somewhat related to this is the fact that it seems like a lot of older guys around me just lose their short end speed, probably as much through disuse as aging. I know a bunch of guys whose mile time on a track is hardly faster than their 5k road pace, and not too much slower than their 10k pace. I bet if some of them decided to crank out some speedwork, they could drop a good mile, but it's just not an emphasis for them.

Breaking 5 at 45 is awesome but highly doubt if its all time top 50 let alone top 15. Times might not be as fast as you think too at that age. I mean a 45 year old who runs 4:30 can win anywhere!

I hate to add fuel to this retarded argument. But I got curious and searched for your name.

You are really calling someone else a troll? And yes i know what facetious means

Letsrunner squando

RE: Bolder Boulder course, add how much time to a track 10k? 3/11/2014 5:18PM - in reply to boldinboulder Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

A 31:30 is a 31:30, no matter where you do it. Altitude equivalencies are for losers.

And if you did not carry a 4.4 GPA, score 1580 Math and Verbal on SATs (high ACTs don't count), go to an Ivy League instutution, have have parents that made any less than 400K a year, run at least a 1:55, 4:17, 9:20 or faster in high school, 1:51, 4:02, 8:54 in college, and then quit immediately after (because you know you're no good) and start making $120K on your first job, 250K after your 2nd year, then really you are nothing and have no business on this message board!

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=5687955&id=5687955#ixzz2vsGqa6Y1

easy weeks wrote:

Although a 17:23 equates to about a 5:03-ish mile, I'm pretty confident his background as a miler when much younger more than suggests he was likely capable of going under 5 while in this 65-69 AG.

Try 5:35, bro...

you don't say that wrote:

[quote]I hate to add fuel to this retarded argument.

Quit yer twerking - doesn't look good on a masters runner!

Here are top 1500 m outdoor results from 2012, so 17 definitely under a 5:00 equivalent, and 3 more were close. That was a pretty good year, and indeed does not include some of the really really fast runners that can run 15:30 or under for 5K.

1 4:05.71

BRAD BARTON

OGDEN,UT on 04/14/2012

2 4:14.56

ANDREW DUNCAN

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

3 4:14.85

DAN MONTEAU

GAINESVILLE,FL on 04/21/2012

4 4:16.58

LANDEN SUMMAY

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

5 4:18.62

KEVIN FORDE

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

6 4:22.99

FRANCIS BURDETT

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

7 4:25.54

ROB WEBSTER

SAN DIEGO,CA on 07/25/2012

8 4:26.03

JON MEGEFF

ONTARIO,CA on 06/01/2012

9 4:27.0h

TOM KREUZPEINER

OREGON CITY,OR on 04/22/2012

10 4:27.93

RENE SEPULVEDA

SAN MATEO,CA on 05/26/2012 - 05/27/2012

11 4:30.53

PAUL ERICKSON

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

12 4:32.15

BEN SAUVAGE

SHORELINE,WA on 06/27/2012

13 4:34.15

BRIAN LUNDBERG

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

14 4:34.70

MARK CALHOUN

EUGENE,OR on 07/15/2012

15 4:35.27

ANTHONY FIOTO

WEST LONG BRANCH,NJ on 06/03/2012

16 4:35.86

DAVID BAILEY

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

17 4:36.49

SCOTT BICKHAM

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

18 4:40.39

GREG HALES

LONG BEACH,CA on 09/16/2012

19 4:40.79

LEE WOOLLEY

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

20 4:40.98

DAVE DUNHAM

LISLE,IL on 08/02/2012 - 08/05/2012

Letsrunner squando wrote:

What Letsrunners here fail to realize is that while there are exceptional runners in the 45+ age groups, the depth is truly lacking. You get a few every year that can blast fast times but after that the ranks are thin. No doubt, however, the mastersrankings are under-reported.

I think a lot of people stop running in their 30s and restart in their mid-forties, then peak in their late 40s/early 50s.

I think the 50-54 AG is more competitive than the 40-44 AG.

Randy Oldman wrote:

Letsrunner squando wrote:

What Letsrunners here fail to realize is that while there are exceptional runners in the 45+ age groups, the depth is truly lacking. You get a few every year that can blast fast times but after that the ranks are thin. No doubt, however, the mastersrankings are under-reported.

I think a lot of people stop running in their 30s and restart in their mid-forties, then peak in their late 40s/early 50s.

I think the 50-54 AG is more competitive than the 40-44 AG.

That's a good observation but, wonder if that just isn't the tail end of the bubble of baby boomers/last wave of the 1980s running boom.

When you are age 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 see what you can run for a mile and 5000 meters. Then remember us masters.

Nohilly, Trautmann 4:17, Barton 4:16. There's more out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoJcQ0473TQ

easy weeks wrote:

Although a 17:23 equates to about a 5:03-ish mile, I'm pretty confident his background as a miler when much younger more than suggests he was likely capable of going under 5 while in this 65-69 AG.

Holland Nass wrote:

Try 5:35, bro...

Predictor of a mile based on a 17:23 for 5k, not actual pace per mile in the 5k. Use your deductive powers a little bit next time. It's obvious what was being discussed here.

Randy Oldman wrote:

I think the 50-54 AG is more competitive than the 40-44 AG.

Where I'm from, the 40-44 AG is almost always tougher than 30-34, 35-39, and 50-54. Maybe there's a bunch of outliers in my area that skew the results a little, but I've always thought that local runners hit 40 and think, "here's my last chance at it before I REALLY start to slow down", and pick up the training to more serious levels. Who knows.

I ran 4:50 and 16:44 at age 51. Sub-5:00 and sub:17:00 on the track at 50+ aren't easy. Those times will put you near the top of the annual US lists and in the top 20 - 25 in the world. I last broke 5:00 when I was 54. Sadly, those days are probably behind me. However, I can still break 6:00 by a wide margin so there's that.

Holland Nass wrote:

easy weeks wrote:

Although a 17:23 equates to about a 5:03-ish mile,...

Try 5:35, bro...

Try looking up the definition of "equate", bro...

60 year old in my local club in Ireland just broke the World M60 Indoor 1500m record. Ran 4.26.xx. Putting us younger guys to shame.

Letsrunner squando wrote:

Randy Oldman wrote:

I think a lot of people stop running in their 30s and restart in their mid-forties, then peak in their late 40s/early 50s.

I think the 50-54 AG is more competitive than the 40-44 AG.

That's a good observation but, wonder if that just isn't the tail end of the bubble of baby boomers/last wave of the 1980s running boom.

I think a lot of men drop out of the sport either after college, or in their 30s when they have other priorities, marriages, mortgages, young kids etc.

Once they emerge they take up running as a hobby, and then the old competitive streak takes older. I started 8 years ago at 44 and I'm getting faster.

A 53 year-old ultra-marathoner I know ran a 1:15 HM lifetime PR last year.