Not a troll, just wandering what's realistic: 47 year old 5k if train for 6 months

Lose 25 lb in the 6 mo time frame and run 18s. Lose another 15 over the next year and low 16s. Assuming you are also training through all this.

Im only committed for 6 months right now. I think i should be able to get to 180 by November and as i said 165 is going to be tough over the following 3 months. If im competitive by March then i think i will reassess. If i am running 18 minutes it seems like a lot of work to just get my butt kicked by the local daily runners.

Ultrahype wrote:

Im only committed for 6 months right now. I think i should be able to get to 180 by November and as i said 165 is going to be tough over the following 3 months. If im competitive by March then i think i will reassess. If i am running 18 minutes it seems like a lot of work to just get my butt kicked by the local daily runners.

The biggest challenge will not be aerobic development or even the weight loss - it will be how well your feet/ankles/knees/hips hold up.

You will probably find that your aerobic fitness will return more slowly than you expect, but it will still progress faster than your tendons.

Your weekly hoops will provide some foundation, but make sure you add in aggressive body weight circuits and sprint drills (weights and actual sprinting would be even better) and be religious with foam rolling.

So you haven't run a race in 17 years? OK. Get ready for a 20+ min 5k and lots of setbacks due to injury. Proceed with caution, brother.

According to the above link your proposed goal of 15:58 calculates to an age-grade performance of just over 90% and would be equal to an open time of 14:18. With the information you have provided about health and lifestyle I am sorry to say I do not see you meeting that lofty goal.

I second this. Like I said, I'm 32, 5'10, 160. Within 2 weeks, my muscles and lungs felt great. I thought "I'm good to go, now, I feel fantastic." Then a week later everything in my ankles started to hurt and I've ben fighting ever since. Aerobicly and my muscles, I could go run 15 miles, no problem. I wouldn't be able to walk the next day, due to my joints.

I would settle for anything in 16s. I agree that on training runs my body gets tired wll before my lungs ever do if that makes sense.

Aiming for st pats so i will post my weight and time and see if you all were right. I do appreciate all the advice.

I think you will be shocked at how tough it will be to run under 21:00, then 20:00 for 5k.

I'm 53, similar background to you, but ran just a little slower than you when younger. I ran 19:50 this past spring, but it took 2 years training to do it.

Keeping healthy is not easy when you are near 50. It's a constant battle with ankle/foot/knee injuries.

Less is more. Remember that. Set your sights for that sub 20, and good luck. Keep us posted on your progress.

I am 42, 6' 4, 175

Youth PRs 1:58 800 and 3:57 1500

Break from running from age 18 - 42. Smoker from age 20 - 36 (15 a day)

At 38 cycled with some dedication but not much.

2 years ago at 40 got back into running.

First 5k after 3 months of training 21:21

Now after 2 years, down to 18:12.

Avg mileage leading to that time was 42 mpw.

Progress is slow. So down to 16s in 6 months would be tough.

My aim is still to hit high 16s/low 17s. Might not be possible but you never know.

Last 7 weeks mpw is averaging 85.

I am at least back to putting the effort in. Or some of it anyway.

You all are certainly giving me several different perspectives which i appreciate. I cant do the medium to high mileage as more likely to break down. So selective day quality is my plan.

You're considered overweight at the moment. I would bet a large amount of money that you will be injured within 2-3 weeks, especially if you're only thinking "quality".

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm

I'm 6'3". Started running at age 40, 210 pounds. I did run/walk for the first 6 months (30 seconds easy jog, 30 seconds walking), plus an additional long walk everyday. Lost the weight quickly. Once I was down to 180, then started doing quality workouts.

It's been three years, never been injured. At age 43, I'm now 165. Shooting for 159. 4:34 miler, 16:22 5k.

If you really want sub-16, then losing the weight is priority number one. Go backpacking for a week or two. Walk constantly. Buy a Fitbit. Eat piles of fiber. Put a poster of Luke Puskedra on your wall. He's 6'4", 151 lbs at race weight. When friends/family start voicing concerns about your weight, then you know you're getting close to race weight.

At age 47, the next few years is likely your last chance for 16:xx. If you get injured, you have zero chance.

Take it slow, lose the weight first. Don't get greedy.

24 was fair wrote:

Ultrahype wrote:

Damn that's harsh!!! I gotta believe 20 minutes is a gimmie.

No. Even 24 could be a stretch to be honest. 6 months is not much time after 17 years of no real running.

Not really. I was 47 years old when I started running for the first time in 30 years. In 4 months I was well under 18. And my HS 5k was slower than the OP. Only advantage I had was I didn't have much weight to lose.

I've gotta believe that the OP can get under 20.

I've read that studies show fat people are no more injury prone than skinny people. The big difference is fat people know they need to take it slow and don't know what they are capable of. They start off walking a mile with a couple blocks of running mixed in. In a few months, they are up to running 2 miles.

OP on the other hand knows what he's capable of and will probably try to push it from the get go... "I used to run 12 miles at 6 minute miles, I'll just run 4 miles at 8 minute miles to start out just to keep it easy." Within a few weeks, he can't walk

When I turned 40 I decided if I was going to ever run a marathon, I'd better get going. Built mileage for six months and did a 5k training program before the summer marathon training started. Was dropping 15 seconds a mile each month in the 5k, but was still training like I was still 20 (10 quarters in 80) and found my weak point is my ankle tendons.

Long story short, did eventually do some marathons (even Boston twice) after I healed up, but it's too easy to overtrain. You aren't 20 anymore. Increase mileage gradually, be super careful on the speed work (try long tempos and fartlek instead) and keep your massage guy and PT guy on speed dial. RICE for aches and pains.

Ultrahype wrote:

I would settle for anything in 16s. I agree that on training runs my body gets tired wll before my lungs ever do if that makes sense.

Yeah, 16s are totally out of the question. If you manage not to get injured, high 17s or 18 flat is a possibility, but even that's unlikely (the not getting injured part).

Even the guys in their mid-30s with your times can slip out of the 16s if they aren't really consistent and healthy for an extended period of time. I'd consider anything under 18:30 as a pretty big success.

Ultrahype wrote:

Aiming for st pats so i will post my weight and time and see if you all were right. I do appreciate all the advice.

I predict injury 12 weeks out. You are thinking like a 20-something.

20.00 if you don't get injured and it ends your fitness project.

Ultrahype wrote:

6'4 215

A type personality but wife (or injury) would probably prevent complete devotion.

Tell your wife to accept your devotion to running. If she doesn't, find a good divorce lawyer.

Jimmy21 wrote:

I second this. Like I said, I'm 32, 5'10, 160. Within 2 weeks, my muscles and lungs felt great. I thought "I'm good to go, now, I feel fantastic." Then a week later everything in my ankles started to hurt and I've ben fighting ever since. Aerobicly and my muscles, I could go run 15 miles, no problem. I wouldn't be able to walk the next day, due to my joints.

Did you mean 52? cause 32 is pretty young.