coahc wrote:
Now what is more impressive sub 5 min mile or sub 17 5k that is another one to think about.
From personal experience, I went sub-5 before I went sub-17 and I don't have much speed.
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.
-
From personal experience, I went sub-5 before I went sub-17 and I don't have much speed. -
what is than? wrote:
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
Balanced training. Older folks tend to get wildly one-sided with the stuff they do. Or they do more than the required amount even if they get the balance right.
You'll want to keep doing what you're doing and also adding in all the stuff your friends recommend. -
sub 5 minute mile is impressive at any age.
it means you can run. you're a runner.
pat yourself on the back.
-
this is all in the perspective of runners...If at any age you tell some hobby jogger scum/sedentary loser, that you can run a mile under 5 min they will most likely be blown away (that is if they care at all).
-
I think sub 17 is more impressive than a sub 5. That's faster than a 5:30 pace. I'm sure all conventional grading shows that a sub 17 is considered better.
These are impressive at any age, but a lot of young athletes are able to go sub 5 thanks to their speed and with minimal distance training. Once people are older or out of running for a while it's very hard to go sub 5 or sub 17 and so it all seems about the same difficulty.
I get that a ton of people on this board can run sub 17, but considering that would win most local 5Ks you have to objectively admit that it's noteworthy to be able to do so. Only when you're hanging out with your college team buddies can a sub 17 not seem commendable. -
1979 wrote:
I competed against a 49 year old guy who ran a 4:16 1500m last summer, so that equals a 4:33 mile.
I'm ten years younger, ran a 4:27 1500m that day, but a lot of masters runners are faster than me on the 1500m. I'm more of an 800m guy.
There is much disagreement about that. My best time in college for 1500 was 4:12.
My coach immediately walked up to me and said I ran a 4:35 equivalent.
Before that I had been told that you add 17 seconds for the extra 100+ meters, which
would make it 4:29. That is your formula.
I will tell you what, there is no way I could have ran another 101 metres at sub-17
when I ran the 4:12.
I tend to think that 20 seconds would have been more accurate for me that day.
(I would have had to use a slightly different pace as well to get that!)
When you ran the 4:27, you might add 30 seconds or so to it. So you might have broken 5 minutes for
a full mile. -
IAAF tables equate 5:00 with 17:10 for 5K, 2:13 for 800m. WMA figures are 17:00 and 2:16
-
SteakSauce wrote:
I am a high school junior and my classmates are still impressed by my 4:58. Especially girls lol. I once read a post that said "it doesn't matter how far below you get below 5, as long as someone hears a 4 at the beginning they'll yell "this guy ran a four minute mile!!"
First, yes I can remember experiencing that.
Second, how long are you going to claim you did that? Maybe you actually did it,
but there are many out there who would brag about false times they truly believe they actually ran.
Third, courses can be wrong.
Fourth, you could have miscounted the laps.
Fifth, the man saying this could actually be telling about something he did 5 years ago.
Sixth, you timed yourself incorrectly.
Seventh, the course was downhill.
It's similar to saying you can do 100 consecutive pushups or pullups. Yes, but what's a pushup?
What's a situp? -
a sub 5 mile is almost unfathomable to me, my lifetime 400m PR is 65s lol, and I'm currently at 1:12 [45 yo]
getting a sub 6 by a hair is all I'm good for, anyone under 5 is fast as hell imho, and I'm impressed
Yea if you're a HS/college runner and male, thats not particularly amazing [but its still fast] -
Impressive to a person who was a competitive runner I would say is 40+. Like it's solid in your 30s, but doing it in your supposed middle-age when nearly everyone's quit doing speedwork and track races gives it more juice.
-
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Impressive to a person who was a competitive runner I would say is 40+. Like it's solid in your 30s, but doing it in your supposed middle-age when nearly everyone's quit doing speedwork and track races gives it more juice.
That just shows that people stop trying to do any sort of athletic feats, not that they can't. -
Yes, and it's impressive to stay committed to something like a sub-5 mile when most have hung it up. It'd be similar if we polled former basketball players on at what age is dunking impressive.
-
Well Lagat ran 13 consecutive 4:43 miles at age 43, so that's pretty impressive I think! Gives me hope that a single measly 4:59 can be mine at age 45 or 46.
-
Your typical letsrunner wrote:
9 and 62
This
Although, I would go even further and say 11 and 61 -
Tristate wrote:
Your typical letsrunner wrote:
9 and 62
This
Although, I would go even further and say 11 and 61
That's actually less, not further. -
Conversion calc wrote:
1979 wrote:
I competed against a 49 year old guy who ran a 4:16 1500m last summer, so that equals a 4:33 mile.
That's an extremely generous conversion.
Probably closer to a 4:36-37 mile, but still very impressive.
WHAT? "Extremely generous"? 4:37??
No.
4:34.
-
coahc wrote:
From my 35 years of experience in running and coaching I would say that for males 13/14 year old or middle school runner running sub 5 is pretty impressive, and after 40 if you can still run a sub 5 then yea that is pretty good going.
For females 15/16 and sub 5 is very good and really at any age after that as it isn't easy to do.
Now what is more impressive sub 5 min mile or sub 17 5k that is another one to think about.
Good post. I think you're right: for any pre or post "HS/college/open" athlete this is impressive. (e.g. middle school and even freshmen males), all masters.
Females it is good any any age. -
half assed and Mcdonalds regularly wrote:
what is than? wrote:
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"?
Balanced training.
So you definitively and arrogantly state that proper training is not important, but balanced training is?
Just shut up?
-
Speed becomes more and more difficult as you age obviously. Endurance and strength can be maintained a lot longer. For a 50 year old male to run a 4:59 mile, that age grades to 85.11%, which is above what most runners are doing at that age. That same 50 year old would have to run about a 2:44 marathon to reach the equivalent 85% age grade, or a 16:57 5k. How many 50 year olds at your local races are hitting that time?
So yes, running sub-5 at age 50 is an accomplishment to be proud of. -
For boys, up to 8th grade.
For girls, anytime.
