What times would you consider good for a self coached person who never ran in school/college?

ShiRan wrote:

Men

Sub 18

Women

Sub 22

That’s just my opinion. What say you?

id say that a sub 22 for women is easier than a sub 18 for men

Men: 19:xx

Women: 19:xx

At the local charity 5k in my town last year there were:

6 men sub-18

vs

10 women sub-22

Considering that every running group around here has way more men than women, I would say that sub-18 for men looks to be more equivalent to sub-20 for women.

sub-15 men

sub-17 women

Agreed. It is easy to do some research these days in order to develop a training plan. Thousands of college runners achieve those times.

I feel like it depends on the age. I'm a senior college student now who has never participated in track or XC (running since 5th grade though) and never had a coach. I'm running high-33's for 10ks but my situation is different than, say, someone who took up running at 50 years old after putting on tons of weight

Faster is better wrote:

Thousands of college runners achieve those times.

I agree. People who didn't run in college can run just like people in college run.

The same times that are good for someone that did run in school or college.

I know people that have run significantly faster than that and they didn't start running until they were in their 30s. I always thought I'd feel like a good runner if I was sub 16 5k as a male, having never run in childhood or early adult hood.

Oh Please wrote:

I know people that have run significantly faster than that and they didn't start running until they were in their 30s. I always thought I'd feel like a good runner if I was sub 16 5k as a male, having never run in childhood or early adult hood.

How did you think you'd feel as a female?

Given times for a 10k instead as I prefer that distance

Sub 45 - decent

Sub 40 - very respectable

Sub 35 - fast, very very fast

Sub 30 - oh F off

Free_the_thigh wrote:

Given times for a 10k instead as I prefer that distance

Sub 45 - decent

Sub 40 - very respectable

Sub 35 - fast, very very fast

Sub 30 - oh F off

Full disclosure my pb 39:xx (as let’s be honest every bases these rankings on their own pbs)

MHR and Vo2Max decline by mid 30s, meaning maximum achievable results for distance running also declines.

Or, put another way, fitness required to obtain a particular result increases as you age.

e.g. At age 55, a 16:30 5K is about 93% age-graded, which equates to sub-14 5K fitness for an equivalently-trained Open runner.

For a "hobby jogger", I think anything above 80% age-graded would be considered competitive.

Use age graded percents..... remarkably consistent over 40+ years of racing when in best shape.... Aim for 80% ("National Class"), but mid-70's is a "good" regional class racer.....

Sub 18M and Sub 21W usually wins podium at local races.I don’t everybody has the right genetics to achieve a podium finish, even at a local race. I had my genes tested via 23andMe, I ran my results through GenomeLink which confirmed I am genetically predisposed to better endurance performance, better speed, better muscle strength and better heart rate recovery. This means that from a scientific perspective, I am pretty gifted at athletics compared to your average person. This seems to be true. However, I don’t have a lot of talent compared to people here. I run 40 mpw with intervals and I usually achieve around 70% age grade, slightly higher for the faster stuff and slightly lower for the long distance.

I just don’t understand this notion here that anybody could be a college runner if they wanted, 99% of people don’t have the talent to fit in on a mediocre D3 team. Scientific studies seem to say that some young and healthy people involved in sport struggle to reach a trained vo2 max of 45+. There are a lot of people who can barely run a 24 minute 5k trained, on the other hand there are people running in the 16 minute range without much effort at all.

So it’s all relative. Sub 22M/sub 25M gets me thinking, well okay, this person is clearly getting out there and challenging their body of a regular basis and I respect that. Sub 17:30M/sub 21W personally I respect, this is the level I run at and I don’t actually think it’s easy to achieve this level of fitness even with my above average talent. Sub 15M /sub18W is just otherworldly, I will probably look at you as though you are some sort of god if you can tell me (and prove) that your PRs are in this range!

standardsbro wrote:

sub-15 men

sub-17 women

^This, assuming the athlete in question did some sort of athletics in high school (soccer, swim, wrestling, etc).

No athletic background whatsoever, or played a contact sport or where weight was required (basketball, football, baseball).

19' men

23' women

You’re clearly trolling because you use 5k times as the standard, and we all know that only high school students care about that distance. Obviously, the marathon times you’re looking for are:

Men: 2:30 or faster

Women: 2:45 or faster

HowFast? wrote:

You’re clearly trolling because you use 5k times as the standard, and we all know that only high school students care about that distance. Obviously, the marathon times you’re looking for are:

Men: 2:30 or faster

Women: 2:45 or faster

An OTQ for women but not for men or are these your new OTQ standards?

The question is if you didn't run in hs/college so imma go with sub-20/sub-22. sub-6:30s for a guy and 7's for a woman. That means you're getting after it to some extent.

I felt like a more legit runner as a sub-40 10k runner. It depends on age and ability but anybody running is cool in my books.

HowFast? wrote:

You’re clearly trolling because you use 5k times as the standard, and we all know that only high school students care about that distance. Obviously, the marathon times you’re looking for are:

Men: 2:30 or faster

Women: 2:45 or faster

So a cross fitter needs to be sub elite to be considered in good shape? Lol