Apologies if this has beaten to death.
I don't mean seasoned runner, I just mean someone who is in good shape.
Apologies if this has beaten to death.
I don't mean seasoned runner, I just mean someone who is in good shape.
Wow. Very dumb question.
* 5K time is independent from health and fitness. For example, Galen Rupp could lay around on the couch drinking beer and eating McD's for years, leading to hypertension and arrythmia, then get off the couch and probably run sub-16:00 in spite of horrible health and fitness.
* Michael Phelps is one of the fittest people on the planet and might not be able to crack 20:00 because his fitness and body type is specific to swimming.
* Cardiovascular fitness is independent from cardiovascular health. In fact, there is some evidence that more cardiovascular fitness means more chance of heart attack or other complications.
Depends on your age. Assuming you are in your 20s, a biological male and within the standard deviation for average height and aren't fat, I would say under 19 minutes would put one in the top 1% for running fitness.
jamin wrote:
Wow. Very dumb question.
* 5K time is independent from health and fitness. For example, Galen Rupp could lay around on the couch drinking beer and eating McD's for years, leading to hypertension and arrythmia, then get off the couch and probably run sub-16:00 in spite of horrible health and fitness.
* Michael Phelps is one of the fittest people on the planet and might not be able to crack 20:00 because his fitness and body type is specific to swimming.
* Cardiovascular fitness is independent from cardiovascular health. In fact, there is some evidence that more cardiovascular fitness means more chance of heart attack or other complications.
There's answering a question sincerely, then there's being petty and disingenuous. Either way, I'm glad my simple question, written in short hand for your convenience, made you feel big and strong.
Its actually not a dumb question, there is scientific evidence that correlates lower 10k times with lower cardiovascular risk.
Now, of course there are other sports that do that aswell, but its consistent and prolongued high cardio pulse that gives you cardiovascular benefit, 100m runner wont get that benefit
If your a man, ima go wit sub-18.
If your a woman, ima go wit sub-21.
If you’re over the age of 50, add two minutes to those times.
Don’t listen to jamin.
He’s a douche.
How long is a piece of string?
Boris The Russian Troll wrote:
If your a man, ima go wit sub-18.
If your a woman, ima go wit sub-21.
If you’re over the age of 50, add two minutes to those times.
Don’t listen to jamin.
He’s a douche.
Interesting. Those are faster times than I expected, but I realize my question isn't very specific.
I downloaded the results from a local 5K (not a serious race of any sort).
Total runners : 2780
Median Time : 0:38:30
Runners sub 20 : 18
Runners running sub 25 : 128
I was surprised to see that running sub 25 min puts someone in the 95th percentile.
Even for young men who aren't runners, 8 minute pace is good. Adjust according for women or older men.
For average people aged 18 to 40:
Good fitness (top 10% of population)
Men: sub 21
Women: sub 25
Excellent fitness (top 1% of population)
Men: sub 18
Women: sub 22
I'd probably go with that, as a reasonable estimate.
Sub 25 male.
Qn estimate wrote:
For average people aged 18 to 40:
Good fitness (top 10% of population)
Men: sub 21
Women: sub 25
Excellent fitness (top 1% of population)
Men: sub 18
Women: sub 22
I seriously doubt that 10% of the population 18 to 40 is running sub 21.
I don't understand wrote:
Qn estimate wrote:
For average people aged 18 to 40:
Good fitness (top 10% of population)
Men: sub 21
Women: sub 25
Excellent fitness (top 1% of population)
Men: sub 18
Women: sub 22
I seriously doubt that 10% of the population 18 to 40 is running sub 21.
Sub 21 indicates a VO2 max of high 40s, that is an above average to good max for a young male but not lightyears away from average. So even if they couldn’t run sub 21 in a race because of lack of running-specific training, 10% of the young male population could probably still hit a high 40s max score of a beep test or a Bruce Treadmill test or another equivalent aerobic test.
PIK wrote:
jamin wrote:
Wow. Very dumb question.
...
There's answering a question sincerely, then there's being petty and disingenuous. Either way, I'm glad my simple question, written in short hand for your convenience, made you feel big and strong.
It's clear that Jamin has never known what it means to "feel big and strong".
He knows he's small and weak, and does everything in his limited power to bring others down to his size.
Ivanka wrote:
PIK wrote:
There's answering a question sincerely, then there's being petty and disingenuous. Either way, I'm glad my simple question, written in short hand for your convenience, made you feel big and strong.
It's clear that Jamin has never known what it means to "feel big and strong".
He knows he's small and weak, and does everything in his limited power to bring others down to his size.
He’s most likely faster than 90% of people on this board, including you.
Big whoop, he can beat a woman.
Is that what makes YOU feel big and strong?
Ivanka wrote:
Big whoop, he can beat a woman.
Is that what makes YOU feel big and strong?
Lol my bad, I bet he age grades higher than you. Does going on a message board bringing others down make you feel strong?
lol, age-grading.
You're such a cute fan-Boi.
Ivanka wrote:
lol, age-grading.
You're such a cute fan-Boi.
Whatever, go jog your 20 min 5ks lol.