How fast can the average middle-aged dude expect to get with consistent training?

Slowuk wrote:

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

That's odd - 18:14 would put you in the top 3 of most 5K Parkruns in the UK, let alone age group.

If you're talking about national level, then yeah, 18:14 wouldn't get you far, but I doubt if many at top of the UK Masters rankings have got there off the couch. And actually an 18:14 for a 50 year old would be an 80% age grade which is supposed to be fringes of national class.

An 18:14 would have gotten you 58th place out of 169 at the British Masters 5K road championships last season, and I see only about 20 guys over 50 would be ahead of you.

BTW, you did very well to go from the couch as a middle-aged guy to averaging 40 mpw without getting injured. I've been running for over a year now and still get inflammation and niggles if I go above 25 mpw.

Diazz wrote:

Below average at recognising when you’re delusional? ?

Position in races and times achieved don't lie.

See here:

The runners percentile calculator:

https://runrepeat.com/how-do-you-masure-up-the-runners-percentile-calculator

Below Average Joe wrote:

Diazz wrote:

Below average at recognising when you’re delusional? ?

Position in races and times achieved don't lie.

People actually able to compete in races above local level standard are in the 80%+ pool of talent. So what if you came last in a race full of other above average people. I ran a 4:18 1600 in HS and even I know that although not exactly the fastest, most people could ‘t get within 30 seconds of that if they dedicated their life to training.

Diazz wrote:

Below Average Joe wrote:

Position in races and times achieved don't lie.

People actually able to compete in races above local level standard are in the 80%+ pool of talent. So what if you came last in a race full of other above average people. I ran a 4:18 1600 in HS and even I know that although not exactly the fastest, most people could ‘t get within 30 seconds of that if they dedicated their life to training.

I was and am way slower than you. I just sustained that level of mediocrity for 30 plus years.

Below average Joe wrote:

Diazz wrote:

People actually able to compete in races above local level standard are in the 80%+ pool of talent. So what if you came last in a race full of other above average people. I ran a 4:18 1600 in HS and even I know that although not exactly the fastest, most people could ‘t get within 30 seconds of that if they dedicated their life to training.

I was and am way slower than you. I just sustained that level of mediocrity for 30 plus years.

But the ability to run in middle age without breaking down is also a huge factor which involves natural talent. You would be surprised at the amount of people who run a mere 20-30 mpw for 10 years, pump out a 22:30 5k at their absolute best moment during that and start breaking down due to arthritis in their 40-50s.

Plus, more talented people are more likely to run and find it invigorating. There have been studies (admittedly, not sue how legit these were) about how some people do not get a dopamine boost during exercise vs some people who get a massive boost. The way your central nervous system and certain pathways respond to exercise (to make it easier for some people to enjoy, run at fast paces, run long distances, etc) is wired differently in all of us.

Then there’s muscle fibre composition, VO2max and trainability which is also much, much higher in talented people. Average joe in his 20s has a max of about 38 apparently (which is good for what, a 8(ish)minute mile or something?) , obviously this is untrained but not horribly overweight. He would add about 5-6 points onto this max easily with even a few months of training and weight loss maybe add a further 4-5 points on with coaching and conditioning over the next few years. That would bring his max to around 50. Some of the more talented ones within the population may be closer to 60. Which means most men will top out their aerobicability between a 5 - 6 minute mile fully trained, most closer to 6 I assume.

Carry that fitness over to middle age and that 5:40 mile becomes a 6:20 mile (which is good for about a 22 minute 5k) assuming you don’t have any family history ailments such as arthritis to actually carry out such a feat into middle age. In which case, I would argue that even the 56 year old dude running a mid 22 time is much more talented than his peers.

Most people just CAN’T run. And the ones who can, usually have the talent to excel, enjoy and consistantly do it.

I completely agree that survivorship bias taints these 'studies', as the perennially injured/those working through soft tissue injuries/constantly/etc really start to ramp up in the 40+ age groups

You literally have a survivorship bias study, as in ... those that continue to run are a self-selecting group for those that continue to be ABLE to run---at all.

most masters runners I believe get injured after a couple/three years, regroup, and are lucky to do 15-20 mpw with some cross training, so that means probably peak around 21-22 5Ks, and depending how speed oriented they are the 400 will be all over the map but maybe 76s or thereabouts, and the mile should fall a bit more inline like around 6:00-6:20

And those runners IN those self-selecting groups are often the least to notice that they are head-n-shoulders now above their peers if they continue to run 40mpw+ through their 40s/50s, and continue to think nothing of their ability even tho they are speeding further and further along the age group ranks and getting closer and closer to the top [hey but I didnt even podium tho!]

As far runners go in the mid 40 to mid 50 age group, this is my breakdown:

(Catorgories of talent)

- 1)

Exceptional natural athleticism. Well above average in everything you can relate to running: speed, stamina, great bone health and trainability. Great aging genetics.

-I would consider the ability to run 60+ mile weeks plus intervals and race sub 17 about 3 standard deviations above average and extraordinary talent.

(Top 0.01% of the population)

-2) Excellent natural athleticism. Good natural bone health and naturally high levels of stamina. Decent speed and aging genetics.

-I would consider the ability to run 40-60 mile weeks plus intervals and race 17-20 minute 5ks far above average and very talented.

(Top 5-10% of the total population)

-3) Good natural athleticism. Has good bone health, may be above average in either speed or stamina. Decent aging genetics.

- I would consider a guy running 30 mile weeks plus intervals and racing 20-23 minutes 5k with no injuries above average and moderately talented.

(Top 20-25% of the total population)

-4) Normal natural athleticism. Has average bone health, average ability to train and is aging normally.

- I would consider a guy running 20 mile weeks who races 24-25 minutes (with 1-2 niggles but nothing too serious, has to be cautious with intervals but occasionally adds them) slap bang on average talent.

(Middling 50% of the population)

-5) Little natural athleticism. Sub-optimal bone health, poorer ability to train and decreased levels of natural speed. Relatively poor aging genetics.

- I would consider a guy who struggles to maintain 10-15 mile weeks without battling injuries who races between 26 and 28 minutes in a 5k despite making a real effort to train below average in talent. Intervals for the most part are out of the question (or at least running intervals anyway). These kind of people are probably already at a very high risk of arthurits.

(Bottom 25-30% of the population)

-6) Zero natural athletism.

Bad bone health, bad adaption to training and probably predisposed to chronic pain and coordination problems. Very unlucky. Or might hust be a moderately talented guy who burnt himself out too young.

- I would consider a guy who is arthurtic before age 45, cannot really run any miles at week without pain reguardless of whether he wants to or not well below average. I feel bad for these people, they would probably fare well keeping their health at bay by partaking in leisurely swimming instead.

28+ minutes for a 5k with hobbling or stopping due to pain.

(Bottom 10% of population)

If you fall into catorgies 1-3 and are in that age bracket, I hope to god you are humble about your fitness, are very thankful for the body you have and realise that it really isn’t just hard work alone that got you there.

You guys are way off wrote:

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.

"Can not" is not the same as "do not properly train to." The people you're referring to, and most middle-aged people who started late in life, don't train hard. They jog along and any bit of discomfort and they back off. So they're not going to break 7:00 or in most cases even 8:00. That doesn't mean they can't. A few guys in my running club started from scratch in their late 30s or early 40s. They work damn hard, put in the time, watch their nutrition, and they wind up pretty fast for their age. 5:30 or faster is doable even if someone starts running at 40. Most people lack time, dedication, education, or various other things and will never be able to do it. But it's not a physical limitation.

True. When you get to a certain age, the definition of talent shifts from basic speed, body type and aerobic capacity to whether or not your bloody knees and bones can handle it, the young ones will understand one day.

started running age 41, while working 50 hrs/week and raising a family, so a true hobby jogger, average athlete, my PR's at 46:

19:18 5k

41:40 10k

1:30:40 1/2

3:09:30 full

I'm not special. Don't look at "average guy at 5k last weekend", the OP said "consistent training". This is they key, if you train consistently, you can get to my numbers.

Never ran a mile all out, I could probably run 5:30?

You're all way off. The average mid-late 40s man is obese, with low-level heart disease, and borderline diabetes. None of these prevent a man from kicking a ball around with the kids at the family barbecue, but they sure as hel1 prevent most of them from ever running a sub-24 minute 5k.

Notice the guy upthread who defines below average as "below average for high school track athletes".

That ain't average average, buddy, and neither is your 20 years of running since high school.

The best track coach in the world couldn't get more than 30% of random mid-late 40s men

to run sub-22 minute 5k, and most of those rare few would have lied about their athletic history to appear more average.

Not to mention that a lot of middle age men have been smoking tobacco or marijuana for 25-35 years straight, and/or have drinking-induced high blood pressure.

Just getting the average middle age male to sub-25 minutes would take 3 years. The first just to get in basic functional shape, the second to get sub-29 minutes, and the third to go sub-25.

https://i2.wp.com/thehealthyexec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Dad-bod-is-unhealthy.jpg

I absolutely agree with your first few categories but you lost it on your last 2. The bottom 10% couldn't run 28 minutes in their prime regardless of how much they trained. 25% of the population couldn't run 28 minutes if they started training in their 40s.

I know. I agree with you, I should have been more specific. My guidelines were for specifically for middle aged runners so they could get a realistic view of where they would stack up against other dedicated middle aged people who are attempting/succeeding to train.. NOT for average people in walmart.

25 minute 5k is out of the question for 90% of people without great struggle by the time you reach Masters’ age.

The mistake a lot of people make when quoting their 75% age grade PRs as “slow” or “nothing special” or “dead F last in a national level race” is that the group they are racing against are already 2-3 SD above average.

Just because your times are poor on a national stage doesn’t mean that the median guy can achieve it with all of the training in the world. Comparing yourself to truly average people, if you took 1000 people off the street - you would most likely be faster than all of them.

I'm an 18 years old male and my.best 100m time is 13.28 sec and it results in a 75.75% score age-graded. I just started training sprints strides and plyometrics does this age-graded score mean anything talent-wise?

I have also introduced my best 50m time: 7.35 s and the age-graded score is 79% wow just wow I didn' expect such high scores. ???

100mSpecialist wrote:

I have also introduced my best 50m time: 7.35 s and the age-graded score is 79% wow just wow I didn' expect such high scores. ???

Age-grading doesn't really apply very much to 18 year olds. It's more intended for masters athletes.

You need to go back and read this thread from the beginning :)

It's much easier for a fit and healthy 18 year old to get within 80% of his age WR, even with little training, than it is for a 50 year old.