Is an 18:50 5K good for a 40-year old man on 30-35mpw?

Pretty average - not good, but not bad either.

If you're trying to be the new Bernard Lagat, then no.

If you're trying to win your local 5k age group category, then yes.

Its a good time, but not exceptional. It's certainly more impressive than a 16-25 year old running that time on similar mileage.

Running sub-19 at that age becomes more difficult because a typical 40-year old has so much more to balance day to day (job, marriage, kids, whatever nonsense that pops up). Fitness becomes the least of your priorities. Power cells in the muscle diminish around that age as well.

Plus, how many people that age can say they can run 3 consecutive miles at 6-plat pace?

Depends on what you ran as a 30 year old

It's promising. How long have you been running seriously? If you've started or come back to running in the last few years, you probably have a good amount of room left for improvement. 40 isn't that old, so with some tempo runs and 40-45 mpw, you could lower your 5K time more or aim for good times at other distances.

From my experience it's not that good at all. I was never a fast guy but I ran just under 18 at 50 and, though I'd almost always win the AG at local races, I'd end up being 5th through 10th at any USATF Pac Series Race. In 40-49 I'da been way down the list.

humblebrag wrote:

From my experience it's not that good at all. I was never a fast guy but I ran just under 18 at 50 and, though I'd almost always win the AG at local races, I'd end up being 5th through 10th at any USATF Pac Series Race. In 40-49 I'da been way down the list.

Sure...but are you running under 18 at 30 miles per week? 30mpw is low mileage.

No it’s not impressive.

Are you a TS? wrote:

No it’s not impressive.

It isn't even good enough to place in your age group where I live. The amount of training you do is really irrelevant. They don't ask you how much you run per week when they score a race.

18:50 is not bad on 30mpw for a masters runner, but far from great. I know masters in the mid/low 18's running on 45-50mpw...but they are running high 37's for the 10K. They should re-think their training.

I'm 44 and run 40-45 mpw and run mid to high 16's for the 5k. That's fast enough to win local 5ks and enough to get shut out of age-group awards at masters championship races by a lot.

I am going to be honest.

Yes it is.

To all those saying it’s average is complete BS. If the average man trained at 35mpw for even 5 years I doubt they would break 20 in the 5k. It takes more natural talent than people realise. The genetic potenial of a 20 year old male is probably around 18-19 min (21-22 for women) so I’d say you have above avg running talent and that you are doing well.

Double your milage and get into the 16s.

Rez wrote:

The genetic potenial of a 20 year old male is probably around 18-19 min (21-22 for women) so I’d say you have above avg running talent and that you are doing well.

Genetic talent or current demographic potential.

The former is a much faster 5km than that, the latter is due to current obesity levels at which USA , Australia etc rank amongst highest.

Any 20 yo, that has lived a more active lifestyle has the genetic potential to run much faster than 18min

I Am Sam wrote:

Rez wrote:

The genetic potenial of a 20 year old male is probably around 18-19 min (21-22 for women) so I’d say you have above avg running talent and that you are doing well.

Genetic talent or current demographic potential.

The former is a much faster 5km than that, the latter is due to current obesity levels at which USA , Australia etc rank amongst highest.

Any 20 yo, that has lived a more active lifestyle has the genetic potential to run much faster than 18min

Why do people here always assume I’m talking about the US? I have literally never been to america in my life so i dont know what it is even like over there. I am actually from Europe which would be very similar to Aus.

I think you’re overestimating the average person. Most people on this website are running 15-17 for a 5k which indicates way above average genetic talent. I know guys who have never been fat, never smoked, been active, trained for years and nevr got much lower than 19.

TSLAMP wrote:

Just ran this time last weekend. Weekly training consisted of:

10 mile long run

5x1000 with 2 minute rest.

No tempos, but some steep 1 minute hill repeats with jog down recovery once every two weeks.

It's good but not great. In SoCal the top masters run sub 16 into their late 40s. I've competed against guys who are in putting in 10-60+ miles a week. I know a 40 year old masters who ran ran 17:30 off 10-12 MPW (tempos, progressive pace, or fartlek).

Not really that good at all. Get under 16 and it's starting to become respectable, and under 15 is good.

Just OK but nothing wrong with that. 18:50 Age Grades around 72% for a 40yo. I think you'd need at least a 75% before thinking about trotting out Good.

Sub-18 at 50 is quick (not elite but quick) so you're definitely trash-talking this one.

humblebrag wrote:

From my experience it's not that good at all. I was never a fast guy but I ran just under 18 at 50 and, though I'd almost always win the AG at local races, I'd end up being 5th through 10th at any USATF Pac Series Race. In 40-49 I'da been way down the list.

Okey wrote:

Just OK but nothing wrong with that. 18:50 Age Grades around 72% for a 40yo. I think you'd need at least a 75% before thinking about trotting out Good.

+1

It's a respectable time. 75% age graded would be good, 80% very good, 85% excellent. As someone said, the mpw doesn't matter. Maybe you'll run faster on more mileage and become very good.