Let's say you were to take a large sample of middle-aged guys in their mid to late forties who have no track experience but are of reasonably healthy weight. They aren't in any organized sports but do play an occasional game of frisbee, beach soccer, or hide and seek with the kids. If they trained consistently for a few years, how fast could they reasonably get? My guesses:
100 - 13.5 seconds
400 - 60 seconds
Mile - 6:00
5K - 20:00
Does that sound right?
Try
14.8
68
6:10
21:00
Average dude 13.5 100m and 5:15 mile trained to maximum fitness.
Average vO2max points to 20:00 5K for an average male. But at 47, age-related decline is a real factor. At 25 (which means no slowing due to age), a 20:00 5K is AG 64.5%. For a 47-year-old male, you'd get the same AG% at 22:20, roughly equivalent to a 6:34 mile.
Mile: 6:30-6:40
5K: 22:15-22:45
You guys clearly hang around the wrong crowd.
Mid 40s guy can not break a 7:00 minute mile from what I’ve seen over the years. You former track standouts, that’s a different story.
Go from there. I live in a very warm weather climate and tons of running paths here, am yet to ever see a 40 something yr old running faster than a 7 minute mile. If they are going that pace, it’s usually intervals they are doing and maybe 1/4 of a mile. Just an observation.
You guys overestimate how fast non runners can get just by being fit looking.
You guys are way off wrote:
You guys clearly hang around the wrong crowd.
Mid 40s guy can not break a 7:00 minute mile from what I’ve seen over the years. You former track standouts, that’s a different story.
Go from there. I live in a very warm weather climate and tons of running paths here, am yet to ever see a 40 something yr old running faster than a 7 minute mile. If they are going that pace, it’s usually intervals they are doing and maybe 1/4 of a mile. Just an observation.
You guys overestimate how fast non runners can get just by being fit looking.
But just because they are running 8:30 minute miles on the trials doesnt mean they can’t get far under 7 minutes. They might be running 50mpw and doing their easy mileage at that pace and actually be capable of 19 minute 5ks.
I assume we talking about the median. So for a 45 year old it would be 75 seconds, 7 minutes, and 24 minutes. I have many friends who are right in that category running 40MPW and doing intervals.
That 60s 400 is way fast.
I was average as a kid and just kept running and can still do sub 60 and sub 18 at 49 despite the " inevitable decline of age".
Based on that times like this seem possible.
Oh please, where you are getting your information from? Runners World?
I got a few examples:
5K 3/31/2019
3 263 Samuel Valentin M 49 Adjuntas _Individual 18:06 18:06 5:50
Another 5k 4-07-2019
6 1/132 M45-49 6 LUIS COLLAZO COLON M 46 UTUADO 18:05 18:05 5:50
7 2/160 M40-44 576 RAYMOND RIVERA M 43 GUAYNABO 18:12 18:11 5:51
11 3/160 M40-44 686 ZE DAGHER M 41 FALLS CHURCH 18:54 18:54 6:05
12 4/160 M40-44 4324 EDDIE DIAZ CHARRIEZ M 42 TOA ALTA _18:56 18:54 6:05
13 1/88 M50-54 3470 RICHARD NEGRON RODRIGUEZ M 54 NARANJITO 18:55 18:55 6:06
16 1/23 M65-99 386 JOSE SEMIDEY M 69 SAN JUAN 19:43 19:21 6:14
See that 69 yr old? Gun time 19:43, clock time 19:21.And I got countless of other examples .
Live and learn before reaching ignorant conclusions.
You are optimistic overall but especially in the shorter distances. I’m a 55 yo male who can run sub 19 minutes in 5 km, but I can get nowhere close to your 100 or 400 times.
Jus Wondering Aloud wrote:
Let's say you were to take a large sample of middle-aged guys in their mid to late forties who have no track experience but are of reasonably healthy weight. They aren't in any organized sports but do play an occasional game of frisbee, beach soccer, or hide and seek with the kids. If they trained consistently for a few years, how fast could they reasonably get? My guesses:
100 - 13.5 seconds
400 - 60 seconds
Mile - 6:00
5K - 20:00
Does that sound right?
Sort of Average Joe wrote:
I was average as a kid and just kept running and can still do sub 60 and sub 18 at 49 despite the " inevitable decline of age".
Based on that times like this seem possible.
So you weren’t as average as you thought then huh
Diazz wrote:
Sort of Average Joe wrote:
I was average as a kid and just kept running and can still do sub 60 and sub 18 at 49 despite the " inevitable decline of age".
Based on that times like this seem possible.
So you weren’t as average as you thought then huh
Correct. I was below average as a kid. At least as far as those who ran organized races.
Below average at recognising when you’re delusional? ?
Well you are very fast at 49 with a sub 60!
Jus Wondering Aloud wrote:
Let's say you were to take a large sample of middle-aged guys in their mid to late forties who have no track experience but are of reasonably healthy weight. They aren't in any organized sports but do play an occasional game of frisbee, beach soccer, or hide and seek with the kids. If they trained consistently for a few years, how fast could they reasonably get? My guesses:
100 - 13.5 seconds
400 - 60 seconds
Mile - 6:00
5K - 20:00
Does that sound right?
Umm, not even close.
Take a look at the mean finishing time of the 45-49 age bracket of any major 5k in the US. We are looking at 10+ minute pace/mile. That is for people who are actually runners and have the gumption to show up for a race.
You guys are way off wrote:
You guys clearly hang around the wrong crowd.
Mid 40s guy can not break a 7:00 minute mile from what I’ve seen over the years. You former track standouts, that’s a different story.
Go from there. I live in a very warm weather climate and tons of running paths here, am yet to ever see a 40 something yr old running faster than a 7 minute mile. If they are going that pace, it’s usually intervals they are doing and maybe 1/4 of a mile. Just an observation.
You guys overestimate how fast non runners can get just by being fit looking.
hahaha, so true. There's like Smoove and a few other guys in Florida. It's rare to see 40+ doing 7:00.
Unfortunately, you can't assume that people finishing a race are actually runners, or that they actually ran much during the race. For the OP's question - what's the average guy going to run if he trained? - you have to look at the trainability of the average midle-age male, and average vO2max is maybe the best thing we have to go on. It's hard to say from actual race results if the people are weirdly talented outliers, completely undertrained couch potatoes who jog a race for fun, or both.
doctorj wrote:
Oh please, where you are getting your information from? Runners World?
I got a few examples:
5K 3/31/2019
3 263 Samuel Valentin M 49 Adjuntas _Individual 18:06 18:06 5:50
Another 5k 4-07-2019
6 1/132 M45-49 6 LUIS COLLAZO COLON M 46 UTUADO 18:05 18:05 5:50
7 2/160 M40-44 576 RAYMOND RIVERA M 43 GUAYNABO 18:12 18:11 5:51
11 3/160 M40-44 686 ZE DAGHER M 41 FALLS CHURCH 18:54 18:54 6:05
12 4/160 M40-44 4324 EDDIE DIAZ CHARRIEZ M 42 TOA ALTA _18:56 18:54 6:05
13 1/88 M50-54 3470 RICHARD NEGRON RODRIGUEZ M 54 NARANJITO 18:55 18:55 6:06
16 1/23 M65-99 386 JOSE SEMIDEY M 69 SAN JUAN 19:43 19:21 6:14
See that 69 yr old? Gun time 19:43, clock time 19:21.And I got countless of other examples .
Live and learn before reaching ignorant conclusions.
Are you really claiming that these people are just average middle-aged dudes who took up running in their mid-forties with no previous experience at all?
The 5k times here seem way slow to me.I was a lazy couch potato for 20 years,I then started running,average 40 mpw,no speed work and have just done 10k in 38:22,5k in 18:14,yet finish nowhere in my age group