My clubmate JJ was racing tonight in a 1 km club handicap on the grass. He only managed 4.40.
A couple of years ago he was racing 1500s in low 6s. He was only in his very early 80s back then.
Certainly a 4.40 1 km is not super impressive but in your mid 80s being able to run hard for a km seems impressive.
JJ was still sub 20 deep in his 60s. As he got older he cut back both on training and his race distances. Seems a reasonable thing to do and maybe that is why he is still running.
I started running when I was 28 (team sports in HS & university).
I've never broken 20 minutes in a 5k (closest was 20:04). I've always focused on longer distances and have run Boston.
I've never been ashamed of it and couldn't care less what others think about my times. I run for myself, not to impress anyone else or to gain anyone else's respect.
Do you, boo.
Within 2 years of graduating college.
Old man2 wrote:
Minimum age=65.
Yes. I've seen too many people age 65 and over make the 20 minute barrier look easy.
Coyote Montane wrote:
Alan55 wrote:
To give some perspective, 220 60-64 guys ran under 20 in the parkrun 5k's in the UK in 2019. Only 32 age 64-69 managed it. So, roughly, 20min puts you in the top 1,000 in the US. Pretty respectable, in my opinion.
That's an incredible stat. I don't think you can project UK's numbers to the US in a linear format. No way are there 1000 in the 60 age class going sub 20. I might even be surprised at half that.
Agreed
Old Man Respect wrote:
I'm talking about serious amateur runners/hobby joggers or even once decent competitive runners.
Interesting question, especially if you limit it to your parameters. Obviously many folks never break 20, so your question is targeted towards people who were at some point well under 20. Personally, sub 20 used to be easy, but last time I've gone under 18 was around 9 years ago , but still hoping to go sub 17 for the first time and I'm turning 47 this year, so really going to focus on running. If you do a search of MO state records for the 5k, the oldest male to go under 20 for 5k did it at 70 yrs old.
http://www.staterunningrecords.com/asp/records.asp?action=processsearch&state=&age=&sex=MALE&distance=5+Km&runnername=&NonResident=&orderby=&limitto=I think a good answer to your question would be to look at age graded calculators. My PR in the 5k was 9 years ago at 37, I ran 17:23 which is a 75.12% result. This past weekend I ran a 20:30 for a 68.7% result. If I were 70 and ran a 19:59, that would be a 87% result.
Basically, if you can still run an age graded result in line with past results, keep your head up. If you're way lower on your score, quit wasting time on running forums and get out and run! See ya....
I'd say double-nickel (55). Things really start falling apart for most male runners around this age unless you've got really good aging genetics or you use hormone-replacement therapy, etc. I sustained an acute tendon rupture and several grade 2 tendon strains all after the ripe old age of 55. Several months of downtime for each injury doing nothing but rehab. Weight gain (slowing metabolism) and the inability to recover from hard workouts were other factors. Decades of the high-impact pounding of running finally caught up with me. And not having a Whitlock-type build or his exceptional genetics has sent this ship sinking and running on barrowed time. Bottomline: If you're a middle-aged runner who's not built for running or don't have the superb aging genetics - this sport will knock the snot out of you before you know it. ?
I feel compelled to say "given reasonable conditions of good health."
At 55 I was pleased to have managed a sub-6 min mi pace for 10k and a Half at 1:17.
But after a heart condition and subsequent weight gain and aging (!) I feel like a golden Conquistador doing my 2+ mile slogs around the block in my early eighties.
Relativity, special and general, movement is life and life is good! Viva!
After running in the low 14's on the track, there isn't much motivation to run a sub 20 5K in my 50's. That's partly the reason I haven't raced in almost 20 years. Just not interested in it anymore.
Age graded performance standards:
90 percent = world class
80 percent = national class
70 percent = regional class
60 percent = local class
If you can't consistently place in the high "regional class" percentage, don't bother with racing and take up chess.
A beaten middle-aged man wrote:
I'd say double-nickel (55). Things really start falling apart for most male runners around this age unless you've got really good aging genetics or you use hormone-replacement therapy, etc. I sustained an acute tendon rupture and several grade 2 tendon strains all after the ripe old age of 55. Several months of downtime for each injury doing nothing but rehab. Weight gain (slowing metabolism) and the inability to recover from hard workouts were other factors. Decades of the high-impact pounding of running finally caught up with me. And not having a Whitlock-type build or his exceptional genetics has sent this ship sinking and running on barrowed time. Bottomline: If you're a middle-aged runner who's not built for running or don't have the superb aging genetics - this sport will knock the snot out of you before you know it. ?
Yep. I was on fire in my mid 40s, but the times I run now in my 50s are shameful. I know there are some people that are outliers, but I still put in real work during the week and staying under 20:00 for 5k takes more than just some base training now days.
But what if you can't make the high regional standard in chess?
No matter how bad you suck at everything, you can always become an ultra runner.
A nice round number is 50. I say for respect:
Age 20 - 15 minutes
Age 30 - 17 minutes
Age 40 - 19 minutes
Age 50 - 20 minutes
Age 60 - 24 minutes
Age 70 - 30 minutes
Take a walk around the block and look at all of the older bros puttering around. Today, there's something to be said about even being able to finish a 5k, at any age!
i am going to take this chart and aspire to greatness for the next 35 years!
i mean.....respectability
If you get to late 50s without any significant health probs and you can still run I'd say count your blessings. I was only 15.xx in my younger days and as a masters just missed the mark with 20.04. I have some pretty major health probs but its hard tracking back to say when they started to impact my times and what was just natural aging. I think my cycling performance has held up better possibly as fading stride length isn't an issue.
age grade ranking wrote:
Age graded performance standards:
90 percent = world class
80 percent = national class
70 percent = regional class
60 percent = local class
If you can't consistently place in the high "regional class" percentage, don't bother with racing and take up chess.
I agree with this. A 20 min 5k is something like 78percent at age 60. I'll go with that