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

I note that as I age, my running/racing rolls along in 3 year cycles, followed by a more mellow year.

The best races come in the 3rd year of each cycle. I'll be 60 next year, and honestly it's gone like this since I got out of college.

So, why not give it three years? Four months just ain't enough.

Whoops, I mean 6 months isn't enough.

As for the 3 year cycles, I don't plan that, it naturally imposes itself on me, mentally and physically. With an achilles problem just now, I'm entering an off year after having a lot of fun with my first bunch of half marathons (former 800/miler).

46 with similar in my prime PRs. My 800 significantly slower at 1:55 but I went sub 3:50 @ 1500. Did not race or run much for 20 years and put on about 20lbs from college weight. Played flag football, hoops and surfed a lot before getting back in shape to see how fast I could run a mile in my mid-40s. Tore my hammie running too hard too early (mile repeats @ 5:25ish pace - really dumb) and had to lay off for 3-4 months, then built up very slowly; no back to back days of running for 4 months, no more than 1 hard workout a week. Once I felt like I was not going to rip my hamstring in 2 running hard, I started training more consistently. Got back up to 30-45 mpw and raced a season of cross and several flat, fast road 5Ks. Went 16:20 and 4:18 (1500). Was under 17 pretty much from the get-go with a 16:55 opener.

Who knows with you. You certainly have the pedigree. The weight is obviously an issue. Biggest thing I've seen others mention is to build up slow and steady and disregard the old PRs. I would predict sub 17 if you can get the weight down. Sub 16 rarified air, but there are guys who do it. Best part for me was the journey getting back. Great fun. Large luck.

Doesn't matter what you ran when you were young. You have to discover what level of runner you are all over again--you aren't just dealing with "natural" ability now, you have to factor in longevity (the two do not go hand-in-hand) and age. A few tips:

1) Throw out the time frame. You have no idea how long it will take your body to adapt to training. Personally, when I started running again at age 39, it took me 5 months just to run 5 miles without walking.

2) Delay the diet. Your chance of successfully launching a new running program decreases dramatically if you try to make too many lifestyle changes at once. You need calories to fuel your new program--both the workouts and the rebuilding during recovery. Besides, in a few weeks/couple months you'll be training a higher volume, leading to better fuel storage (carbs in your muscles), a higher metabolism post-run, and an easier time making the diet work.

3) Start with walk-jogging. I'm serious. Your connective tissue adapts more slowly than your muscles. Your muscles adapt more slowly than your nervous system (most gains in the first few weeks are nervous system gains, not muscle or cardio gains). Sure, you can run on your first day. And your nervous system might even cover for you--for the damage you're doing to your muscles and CT--for a few weeks. And then, wham!, you'll have shin splints or knee pain or Achilles tendinitis, and some bozo will tell you that you need new shoes, when really you just needed to give your CT and your muscles a head start on adaptation.

4) Include a low volume, moderate intensity resistance-training routine into your program. Treat the exercises like a vitamin pill, not an Olympic competition. Strengthen all the muscles involved in driving and stabilizing your stride. Add in some injury-prevention exercises (towel toe curls, heel dips, etc.).

5) Progress to easy running after a couple weeks, and then begin to include things like strides and moderate hills soon after. And then progress to fartlek, reps, some easy form drills, etc. Sticking to distance pace only will sabotage your program. You aren't a single running unit, with your entire unit affected equally by training. When you run only distance, you train only slow-twitch muscle fiber and the physical components that support it. You don't train intermediate fiber. You don't train fast-twitch fiber. You don't teach your nervous system how to create a more efficient stride. You don't adequately stress connective tissue to generate the adaptations you'll require to succeed in a long-term program. Etc. It'd be like planting a field and then only watering the same third of it every day. You keep waiting for the rest of the field to grow. But it never does.

6) Don't have a goal time when you start. If your goal is too fast, then all the great races you run between here and there will be disappointments. Instead, enjoy the journey from where you're starting today--out of shape--to where you're heading--fitness--every step of the way. You'll have more fun that way, which means you'll be more likely to achieve your optimum performance.

7) Join a local running club. Seriously, even if your legs won't carry you to the times you want, your clubmates will nevertheless make the experience a positive one.

Okay, good luck to you. FYI, my new book, The Born Again Runner, is all about starting a running program from scratch or starting one over after a long absence from the sport. You can find it in bookstores or online. And one more FYI, it took me 18 months before I was finally ready to run my first race as a masters athlete. It was an okay race, but not great. However, by age 46, I was able to run 14:34 for 5000, and at age 49 ran 14:45 for the same. Sure, I'm lucky with the longevity genes, just like you were with the talent genes when you were younger. But I was also patient. I started running to improve my health and my lifestyle; the times were just a pleasant surprise. Start running because you want to run, then wait and see what the future holds as far as performances.

Hope you get close to your goals, I'm sorta in the same camp (former D2-college swimmer walk-on, relays/sprints and was a HS standout just didn't progress like my peers)

I first got back into working out beyond mtbiking/surfing/snowboarding about 3 years ago when I turned 40

Had a few pounds to lose like many, and unlike you I am a zero talent runner, honestly quite sad. After 3 years of losing weight, getting back in the pool, and adding some specificity to bike training, about 6-7 hours of this/week (not much really) and 15-20 mpw I'm now a 21:00 5k'er and a 6:00/ miler

My bike is average among my tri peers, and my swim as expected is my strong suit but I'm only going 22:00/1500m in a pool which is pathetic compared to what I could do in college.

Anyways I'm actually ecstatic with the thought of crossing

SoCal Pete wrote:

Doesn't matter what you ran when you were young. You have to discover what level of runner you are all over again--you aren't just dealing with "natural" ability now, you have to factor in longevity (the two do not go hand-in-hand) and age.

Great advice, Pete.

Is there research that backs up your statement about a "longevity gene" vs. natural talent? I always just assumed we start with natural talent and it degrades more or less the same for each of us over time. What is different is life factors over time (time spent training, stress, injuries, illness, motivation). All those things equal, I would expect the elite runners to always be elite. But you are implying this may not be the case.

It's definitely possible. I agree with everyone else who is saying that you need to take it slow. Your mind and aerobic ability will come more quickly than your physical strength. I would suggest hitting the gym to build a strong core, strengthening your hamstrings etc...

As far as is it possible for you to run 15:58? That's going to be tough, but it all depends on the person. You should be able to get back into the 16's/17's. I know multiple Masters/Grandmasters runners in my area in their early 50s who could/can still run 16:xx on the roads. The ones who are getting into their mid to late 50s are starting to slow down though.

I think the OP has gotten some fantastic advice in this thread. Especially the part about connective tissue - I was in my early 30s when trying to get back into shape resulted in knee pain after about 3 weeks and an aborted training plan every single time I tried. It wasn't until I was in my 40s that I started up slow enough to keep going. And I agree with all the people saying you should give it longer than 6 months. It took me 6 months from starting to run again to my first awful 5K, and the good training hadn't even started yet.

The one thing I'd add is that you should rethink what it means to race. Sure, 17 years ago, it meant being faster than other people in the same event. Now "winning" mostly means showing up on the start line uninjured and with a solid race build-up behind you, because you're mostly racing against yourself. The only people who care how fast old guys run are other old guys. If you keep all that in mind, racing can be extremely satisfying. Placing in or winning your age group is fun. Being the old guy who sends 95% of the other runners home devastated because they got geezered is fun. (And you might be surprised what kinds of times will win a local 5K outright. 18:00 can win a lot of races.) Try running a 5K first, and then decide what your 5K goal should be.

You may want to check out this year's results from the men's masters (40+) race at the Carlsbad 5000, a race that likes to call itself the fastest 5K in the USA (http://www.runrocknroll.com/finisher-zone/search-and-results/?resultspage=1&eventid=16&subevent_id=1&yearid=&firstname=&lastname=&bib=&gender=M&division=&state=&city=&club=&perpage=100). Out of 1319 finishers, a total of 6 (0.45%) broke 16:00 (including John Gardiner in 4th place, one of the best masters runners around). Only 28 runners (2.1%) broke 17:00. Only 55 (4.2%) broke 18:00. Only 94 (7.1%) broke 19:00. Only 150 (11.4%) broke 20:00.

You've got the talent to be one of the one (or so) percenters. The only question is if you have the patience and persistence.

You can probably get sub 17 I think.

I ran 15:55 in my mid-40's, with a pr in college of only 15:15. But I never stopped running.

Injuries are your biggest obstacle.

That said, I disagree with the many posts about lots of stretching. Stretching cold muscles or injured muscles is a prescription for reinjury. I see lots of runners who reinjured their hamstrings stretching and then wonder why they never get well. Stretching too aggressively just re-tears injured muscles and the healing process has to start over from day one.

Dynamic movements are better.

You would be better off to add dynamic stretching, aka drills, to your warm up as a preventive measure... lunges, A skips, scoops, leg swings, butt kicks, high knees, etc.

Ultrahype wrote:

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

Olympian Michael Stember only managed 19:30 after 7 years off.

There is a lot of good advice in this thread for you. I'm 53 now. At 20, I was at 1:54 and never raced more than a 1500 so you were better than I was. I quit at 21 and started running some again at 44. I'm 5'11 and bounce between 150 and 160 so weight was never a big issue. It did take me two years of often being injured to fully buy into stretching, rolling, cross training and so on to even allow consistent training. And not even a lot of training - probably 10 weeks of over 50 miles total since I started again. One thing not mentioned is your heart just wont pump like it used to. I think that is as big of factor as anything in trying to go fast. Maybe testosterone is another factor in losing pure speed. At 48, I ran a 57s 400 in flats on a cinder track. I thought with spikes, speed training and so on it could have been 53 or maybe even 52. Now, en route, at max effort I have trouble being under 15s for a 100.

So my advice would be to enjoy the journey. Set a time goal like you have but be willing to adjust. Be happy running a 95 minute half-marathon.