The question being asked is if 18:50 is good for only 30-35mpw? Yes, it is. Especially for someone who is 40. Don't listen to these guys who are putting down 16 minute 5K's at your age. I can assure that they are running much more than you are and training harder too. You are doing only one speed workout a week and 10 miles is not that far. You have much more room for improvement.
Opinion from someone of similar age, running same mileage, with current 5k time in the low 18s: it’s respectable.
On the plus side, if you were younger and running real mileage you’d probably be able to break 17 for 5k, but not much more. You’d be a an above average HS runner but not winning any meets.
On the negative side, you’re getting smoked by guys at or close to your age that do much less and may not even look like runners. I’ve been there. Recently got out kicked by a 200 lb+ crossfitter that went under 18 and was a couple years older.
As someone above said, it’s more important that you’re doing something at your age. Running workouts is also positive. Keep it up.
Degradation due to age is used too readily as an excuse for slower performances.
I'm 40. I run low to mid 16s on a fast course. I know plenty of guys my age who can run faster in my area.
Sub 18 at 47 wrote:Degradation due to age is used too readily as an excuse for slower performances.Your time will come too, sonny...
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.
Ran 17:32 at 53 off very low mileage. Two rep sessions per week (or a rep session and a l/t run) and a hard 7 miler, the other four days jogging 2 miles.
Was always more of a speed type runner - better at 3k than 5k - and did run the reps very hard, things like 6x1000m at faster than race pace, even up to 3x2000m at faster than race pace.
Had been running for 40 years at that stage, so that might be why it was possible to get by with relatively little aerobic work. I could still run around 5 min for a mile at the time, so 3 miles at 5:40ish left a pretty fair margin.
anoldguywhoruns wrote:
I'm 40. I run low to mid 16s on a fast course. I know plenty of guys my age who can run faster in my area.
I would be curious to know where all these fast masters are. In my area, where more than 10 million people live, I know of only a couple of people that last year broke 16 minutes on the 5K at age 40+; I suspect that there may not be more than 4 or 5 overall.
To answer the OP, 18:50 is a respectable time, better than 90% of the 40 years-old, but you probably already knew this.
In our local scene you would not place in top 3 in that age group. Typically you need 17:45 or faster, depending on who shows up. I’m in the Philly and Wilmington DE area.
NotInMy Area wrote:
anoldguywhoruns wrote:
I'm 40. I run low to mid 16s on a fast course. I know plenty of guys my age who can run faster in my area.
I would be curious to know where all these fast masters are. In my area, where more than 10 million people live, I know of only a couple of people that last year broke 16 minutes on the 5K at age 40+; I suspect that there may not be more than 4 or 5 overall.
To answer the OP, 18:50 is a respectable time, better than 90% of the 40 years-old, but you probably already knew this.
I'm from Northern California. There seem to be a lot of fast old guys here.
Rez wrote:
[quote]I Am Sam wrote:
[quote]Rez wrote:
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.
I don't think 15-17 minute 5k takes too much talent. You just have to be tough and train hard. Guys that weren't introduced to running in an atmosphere of hardness don't get the same mental preparation.
Running 5k in 13-14 minutes......now that takes way above average talent.
Do what every hobby jogger does - double your mileage and look surprised when you run 18:45 and are injured.
Your mileage at 40 is plenty enough if structured well to run way faster at 40 if you have the ability. You may not have the ability but mileage isn't the problem.
sub 16 at 43 wrote:
Sub 18 at 47 wrote:Degradation due to age is used too readily as an excuse for slower performances.
Your time will come too, sonny...
But not in my 40s. That's the point.
Sure. A number of years ago, there was all this hoopla about then 34 year old former Olympian Michael Stember (1:46 800m / 3:35 1500m) coming back to try to break 18 in a 5k (http://www.letsrun.com/2011/stember-1117.php). He ran 19:30.
weelybird wrote:
I don't think 15-17 minute 5k takes too much talent. You just have to be tough and train hard. Guys that weren't introduced to running in an atmosphere of hardness don't get the same mental preparation.
Running 5k in 13-14 minutes......now that takes way above average talent.
years ago i used to train with a marathoner occasionaly, a tough guy who won a famous 50k mountain run race here in my state eleven times. once we did a tempo run and he wore shoes that he had cut out in the back due to heel problems. during this run he told me that he had the impression that i did not like to suffer, but you have to. that made me think about my attitude. since then i believe that it is always possible to push it, even if the time for training is limited. if someone is limited to 30 mpw, there is still room for running these miles better structured or harder.
weelybird wrote:
Rez wrote:
[quote]I Am Sam wrote:
[quote]Rez wrote:
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.
I don't think 15-17 minute 5k takes too much talent. You just have to be tough and train hard. Guys that weren't introduced to running in an atmosphere of hardness don't get the same mental preparation.
Running 5k in 13-14 minutes......now that takes way above average talent.
"I don't think 15-17 minute 5K takes to much talent". You are a idiot.
Pretzel Man wrote:
weelybird wrote:
I don't think 15-17 minute 5k takes too much talent. You just have to be tough and train hard. Guys that weren't introduced to running in an atmosphere of hardness don't get the same mental preparation.
Running 5k in 13-14 minutes......now that takes way above average talent.
"I don't think 15-17 minute 5K takes to much talent". You are a idiot.
I've coached hundreds of kids and the tough ones can do this after a year or two of training. The wimps can't. You really think breaking 17 for 5k takes talent? There are buncha guys in college breaking 14 min - that takes talent. Totally different world. Every kid who's come to me wanting to run 15 or 16 min had no trouble doing it after committing to it. My talented ones did 14. I've had kids break 16 who were so slow they were never even able to break 60 for 400m. So they put in the work to combat this lack of talent.
TrainBoy wrote:
Pretzel Man wrote:
"I don't think 15-17 minute 5K takes to much talent". You are a idiot.
I've coached hundreds of kids and the tough ones can do this after a year or two of training. The wimps can't. You really think breaking 17 for 5k takes talent? There are buncha guys in college breaking 14 min - that takes talent. Totally different world. Every kid who's come to me wanting to run 15 or 16 min had no trouble doing it after committing to it. My talented ones did 14. I've had kids break 16 who were so slow they were never even able to break 60 for 400m. So they put in the work to combat this lack of talent.
You are also an idiot. Those kids were also talented. It's just a matter of degrees of talent. It's a totally different world in all time ranges,.
The buncha kids in college breaking 14 are the cream that's already risen to the top.
kanny wrote:
Sure. A number of years ago, there was all this hoopla about then 34 year old former Olympian Michael Stember (1:46 800m / 3:35 1500m) coming back to try to break 18 in a 5k (
http://www.letsrun.com/2011/stember-1117.php). He ran 19:30.
Hilarious interview. Stember going on and on about his life in grandiose terms and letsrun steering things back to some silly little running goals.
The OP is 40yo not a kid wannabe, his time is pretty solid.
Interesting thread so far. Yes, 6:00 pace or so for 3.1 miles pretty good at 40 off of fairly low mileage. With some more focus and a few more miles OP could drop a fair amount off of that. At 40-45 miles a week, with a tempo every week or other week, and some race-specific and speed work into the schedule, I bet a drop of a minute +/- 30 sec is possible.