Bib #1 wrote:
Sub 5 is impressive for any age. Sub 5 requires a pretty good combination of speed and endurance.
I’d argue even sub 6 is impressive for any age
This.
at what age is a sub-5 mile impressive
Masters Running
Masters Training
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
This.
-
Who among you ran a 4:30 at 17, and a 4:59 at 52? I've decided I have a goal for the next 8 months or so!
-
Predictor wrote:
45. It is still very reasonable but very few people have the dedication to train and eat properly at that age.
Neither proper training nor eating is a large part of running sub five at 45. Trust me. -
BIU wrote:
Who among you ran a 4:30 at 17, and a 4:59 at 52? I've decided I have a goal for the next 8 months or so!
I ran 4:58 at 17, and 4:58 again at 50 (52 I was injured).
My best age-graded performance was 2:10 for 800m age 50. -
Never. 4:10 or faster or kys
-
What’s the oldest age for anyone to have run a sub-5 mile for the first time in their life? I ran my first sub-5 mile (4:55) on the track last year when I was 43(last repeat of a 6x1 mile workout). My mile PR from high school track was 5:02.
-
half assed and Mcdonalds regularly wrote:
Predictor wrote:
45. It is still very reasonable but very few people have the dedication to train and eat properly at that age.
Neither proper training nor eating is a large part of running sub five at 45. Trust me.
what is than a "large part of running sub five at 45"? i'm 46 and down to a 5:25, though i have always focused on the distance side (marathon, 50 miler, etc). i have friends who are short distance guys who suggest if i train for short distance i could get under 5:00.
really asking, what do you think is the key for over 45 short speed besides simply training for it?
thanks
-
I think Steve Spence’s 43 year streak of sub 5 minute is pretty impressive. I hope it continues this year, and he will be 57 years old this year, so that would be from 14 to 57 years old. Pretty cool
https://shipraiders.com/news/2018/1/12/mens-cross-country-steve-spence-85-extends-his-sub-5-00-mile-streak-to-43-years.aspx -
Bruin1996 wrote:
What’s the oldest age for anyone to have run a sub-5 mile for the first time in their life? I ran my first sub-5 mile (4:55) on the track last year when I was 43(last repeat of a 6x1 mile workout). My mile PR from high school track was 5:02.
well done. what was your marathon time? -
BIU wrote:
Who among you ran a 4:30 at 17, and a 4:59 at 52? I've decided I have a goal for the next 8 months or so!
Ran in HS but did not run sub 4:30 until age 23. Did run 4:54 at age 52.
Then I stopped running, after 37 years. Just felt like it was time.
After eight year layoff, got the feeling again a few months ago, age 61. Pretty sure sub-5 is never happening again but shooting for sub-5:15 by end of year.
-
2:42 at 2018 NYC is my marathon PR.
-
It's never impressive! It means you're tall enough and strong enough to run fast, but stupid enough to ruin it all by being too skinny.
It's no man's land. If you want to be skinny, go run marathons with the skinny people and give up strength and speed in exchange for endless endurance. If you want strength and speed, build up the muscle to have them for real and stop worrying about the ability to run for hours on end.
The mile is neither here nor there. It's also an obsolete English peasant measurement equal to 8 times as far as their ox can pull a plow before getting tired. I should be impressed that you can outrun a plow-encumbered ox??? -
Never!
Anyone who isn't under 4 isn't really trying. -
Bad Wigins wrote:
It's never impressive! It means you're tall enough and strong enough to run fast, but stupid enough to ruin it all by being too skinny.
It's no man's land. If you want to be skinny, go run marathons with the skinny people and give up strength and speed in exchange for endless endurance. If you want strength and speed, build up the muscle to have them for real and stop worrying about the ability to run for hours on end.
The mile is neither here nor there. It's also an obsolete English peasant measurement equal to 8 times as far as their ox can pull a plow before getting tired. I should be impressed that you can outrun a plow-encumbered ox???
poor stuff
1.5/10 -
14/40 wrote:
Fourteen and younger and forty and older for a male. For females, sub-5 is always impressive.
+1 -
dsadsadaas wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
It's never impressive! It means you're tall enough and strong enough to run fast, but stupid enough to ruin it all by being too skinny.
It's no man's land. If you want to be skinny, go run marathons with the skinny people and give up strength and speed in exchange for endless endurance. If you want strength and speed, build up the muscle to have them for real and stop worrying about the ability to run for hours on end.
The mile is neither here nor there. It's also an obsolete English peasant measurement equal to 8 times as far as their ox can pull a plow before getting tired. I should be impressed that you can outrun a plow-encumbered ox???
poor stuff
1.5/10
I rarely agree with Bad Wiggins on running matters, but that was certainly funny. He's one of the most entertaining posters here. He should write a book on the history of doping, it would be a riot.
-
BIU wrote:
Who among you ran a 4:30 at 17, and a 4:59 at 52? I've decided I have a goal for the next 8 months or so!
ummm 4:28 at 17 and ran 17:43 at 51 but I got a 4:59 in me and I turn 52 this year! -
Bad Wigins wrote:
It's never impressive! It means you're tall enough and strong enough to run fast, but stupid enough to ruin it all by being too skinny.
It's no man's land. If you want to be skinny, go run marathons with the skinny people and give up strength and speed in exchange for endless endurance. If you want strength and speed, build up the muscle to have them for real and stop worrying about the ability to run for hours on end.
The mile is neither here nor there. It's also an obsolete English peasant measurement equal to 8 times as far as their ox can pull a plow before getting tired. I should be impressed that you can outrun a plow-encumbered ox???
Oh the of little talent or faith....milers are athletes and I neither skinny or young but hold my own in the weight room. Ok just convinced me at 52 to run a sub 5 mile. Get on your bike and hope for a tailwind to break 2 minutes for a K. -
I think one of the attractions of the mile is that it has a barrier (5 minutes) or even two (6 minutes) that are very much respectable, especially for Masters athletes. In fact as somebody recently said in another thread I think, even if you have ran 4:59 you're effectively a 'four minute miler' to your friends and family.
The mile is a good balance between real speed and good endurance. Somebody who can run a mile in 5 minutes or under is likely to be able to outrun nearly all non 'serious' runners at any distance from 100m to a marathon, and certainly the average guy in the street.
You can still pack on a fair bit of muscle and run a decent mile. You don't have to run 60 miles a week to run a decent mile, as you do for a decent 5K. For older guys who can't handle a lot of mileage and who don't have the leg speed they once did, a mile is a good compromise between sprints and 5K.
I think Bad Wiggins has a point though and I would prefer to keep my muscle and challenge myself over 400/800m. The 800m is probably the ultimate athletic test, but there's no real attainable goal that presents itself there. Sub 2 minutes is out of reach for all but exceptionally talented Master's athletes, and sub 2:20 doesn't have the same ring about is as a sub 5 mile, even if both are equally impressive. The 400m has the sub 60, but that's a bit easier than a sub 5 mile.
-
I ran 4:47.8 at age 14. My father ran 4:51.2 at age 48. I think his was more impressive.
