What's a good 5k time?

RonanP77

What should I be aiming for?

I ran this morning, I did 5.03km in 24:10. If it wasn't for a slow first km (5:06) I would have gotten below 24mins for the 1st time. The last 2km were 4:37 and 4:36 so I was happy with that.

What should I be aiming for, realistically. I'm 36 and I've been running since Feb. but missed almost a month through injury, today was my longest run since I got a calf strain.

Clearlier

RonanP77 wrote: »

What should I be aiming for?

I ran this morning, I did 5.03km in 24:10. If it wasn't for a slow first km (5:06) I would have gotten below 24mins for the 1st time. The last 2km were 4:37 and 4:36 so I was happy with that.

What should I be aiming for, realistically. I'm 36 and I've been running since Feb. but missed almost a month through injury, today was my longest run since I got a calf strain.

Sounds like you could probably go under 24 mins.

What do you want out of running?

You could keep going running 5k's and try to improve your time or you could train for a specific 5k with the aim of finding out how fast you can go or you could.... - there's an endless number of possibilities. Pick one, tell us what it is and we'll give you some advice on how to get there.

RayCun

Run a race.
See who finished ahead of you, and who finished behind.
Decide for yourself if that was good or not.

Krusty_Clown

Where do you live? Sign-up for a nearby Parkrun and see what you can manage. Also, get yourself a training plan if you want to make progress. Just going out and running is good for fitness and enjoyment, but will make it more challenging to progress.

RonanP77

I have a few big events lined up this year, a Duathlon, a Kayak run (run, kayak,bike) some off road events, a 10k, a 10mile and either the end if this year or some time next year, a half marathon.

I've done some 5k events and loved them but the highest I've finished is 10th out of 150ish in a local one. A lot of them would have been walking it.

Amigaman

Ok - after a year of running I feel confident enough to attempt an answer :-)

lets start from this premise you are 36 , I'm 49 , realistically racing is not in our future because there will always be some 18-25 year old that will be faster.

That's a fact - you slow down as you age , cant do anything about that :-)
So given that, you need to compare yourself with people the same age as you the same gender as you and to do that there is really only one tool - Age Grading . I use Age grading to measure my achievement ( or lack thereof :-) ) against a benchmark of the times that others my age can achieve. that then gives me a measure of relative performance that is not tied to those directly around me in either a race or a parkrun . "Age grading is a way of calculating how well all athletes have performed against each other, regardless of age or gender. The higher your percentage, the better you have performed against other runners in your age group". More details here:

http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/agegrading

So for you, your grading for that time would be 54.9% - me doing my current parkrun PB time of 24.04 would have a age grading of 60.8%
Using this method you can give yourself realistic targets for improvement , in this instance to hit 60.08% you as a 36 year old would need to run the 5k in 21.49 - so there is a target :-) - hope this was helpful , as the americans say - "your mileage may vary"
regards
ed

RonanP77

21:49, now that sounds quite impressive. That's my new target, cheers. Having a defined goal always helps me.

Krusty_Clown

Amigaman wrote: »

Ok - after a year of running I feel confident enough to attempt an answer :-)

lets start from this premise you are 36 , I'm 49 , realistically racing is not in our future because there will always be some 18-25 year old that will be faster.

That's a fact - you slow down as you age , cant do anything about that :-)

<My 6th sense just detected that somebody turned on the bat clown signal. Time to bring out the spiel>

At 36 he's just a youth. This forum is littered with runners well into their forties who are competing at the pointy end of races (albeit not on the world stage), who are running faster than they ever have in their lives. Don't settle for comparing yourself against statistics. The only limitations are those you impose yourself.

mozattack

What does 48% mean in the age-grader... is that a grade or does it mean 52 out of 100 people my age would run faster?

Lost here

http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/racepaces/rp?metres=10000&hr=0&min=59&sec=5&age=35&gender=M&Submit=Calculate

spurscormac

Don't run all your training as races, slow down to a pace you can comfortably hold a conversation.
Do this 3 times a week, slowly upping it to say 5 or 6 miles on each run.
Then up one of your runs, usually at a weekend to a longer run, but slow it down even more, again, up this to 7/8/9/10 miles.
This will improve your endurance.
You can also at this time look to add another day but this time make it a faster shorter one, look at doing intervals or hill repeats.
Don't do two hard sessions one after the other, speed work or long run, have easy runs in between.

All the above should easily see you improve times in 5 & 10k, and you should also be able to finish a 10mile or half, though it may be tough.
To get the best from a 10m or half, as you approach them, from a couple of months out you'll need to start upping the mileage of the long run, get up to about 12/13 for the 10 mile and if you can get up to 15/16 for the half you'll fly it.
Remember though, if you do too much too soon, you'll break down, so build up slowly and also every 4 weeks, take an "easy" week - step back the long run a bit & do an easier speed session.

HelenAnne

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

<My 6th sense just detected that somebody turned on the bat clown signal. Time to bring out the spiel>

At 36 he's just a youth. This forum is littered with runners well into their forties who are competing at the pointy end of races (albeit not on the world stage), who are running faster than they ever have in their lives. Don't settle for comparing yourself against statistics. The only limitations are those you impose yourself.

I agree! To the 'you will get slower with age', I say this (see winner's time & age):

http://www.parkrun.ie/stannes/results/weeklyresults/?runSeqNumber=1

Of course a well-trained 80-year-old won't be faster than a well-trained 20-year-old, but it seems until at least your 50s the playing field is level enough, and runners in their 50s and 60s regularly beat younger runners in races. I'm nearly 39, and it's often women older than me, rather than younger, who are much faster. So don't despair, OP, you have years to keep getting faster.

woody1

whats a good time for a 5k.. sub 20 mins is to my mind a good fast 5k time..
( im slower than that in case anyone thinks im being elitist or anything )

im 38 , started 4 years ago at similar stuff to you, adventure races, duathlons etc.. didnt do a 5k for a while but i wouldve been running 5.30 per km ish or slower at the start .. im just over 21 mins now.. i think its achievable to go under 20 mins and i wouldnt have said that when i started or even 2 years ago..


so based on nothing other than my own experience id say thats possible for you too.. but its very hard to know.. keep running.. youl take big chunks off your time as you get fitter.. enjoy it

ecoli

Amigaman wrote: »

Ok - after a year of running I feel confident enough to attempt an answer :-)

lets start from this premise you are 36 , I'm 49 , realistically racing is not in our future because there will always be some 18-25 year old that will be faster.

That's a fact - you slow down as you age , cant do anything about that :-)

Following on from what KC said.

There is an element of truth in the fact that you slow as you get older, but you need to take all the factors into account. These rates of degeneration are based on someone having years of training and a well established aerobic base. The fact is that the majority of people in this country aren't coming from this sort of background. They are coming back after years of sedentary lifestyle so the rate of degeneration is negated by the lack of aerobic base and running background built up.

This is a good thing as it means that improvement can be done into a persons 40s,50s and even 60s.

To give an example I am in best shape of my life (aged 25) at the moment and I am still seeing people nearly double my age around me in races.

In terms of a good time, any time you beat your best its a good time whether than is a sub 13 min 5k or a sub 30. Structure your training you will surprise yourself with the improvements you can make. At the end of the day the only person you are racing the majority of the time is yourself and that goes for nearly what ever level you are (outside of championship races of course)

daithi1970

..I know a, guy in his mid 60's who ran 5k in 19:47 this week in galway.. theres hope for us all:pac:

robinph

A good time is a few seconds quicker than you did in the last race.

The age grade % are a good'ish guide, but the percentage target gets softer the older you get...and especially so if you are female.

The V60+ world record for 10km was broken on Sunday by Martin Rees doing 33:43. I think he only started running really once into his 40's, but now has a whole bunch of records for most age categories.

amcgee

Hi

A good time for me may be a bad time for you, and a bad time for you could be a good time for me and so on. A good time is very subjective and needs to be looked at from a few angles.
Go out and run a 5k race and see how you feal after, if you feal that you could do better thats always a good sign. If you feal you couldn't, well you will be surprised. So i think the best best is to go and do a 5k race and only worry about your own time. Their will always be someone better and someone worse than you.

lbucko

daithi1970 wrote: »

..I know a, guy in his mid 60's who ran 5k in 19:47 this week in galway.. theres hope for us all:pac:

That might have been the lad who was a bit ahead of me, was trying to catch him for about 2.5K and wasn't able to close the gap. He looked like he was going on his ease compared to me. Having said that he turned out to be a great pacer for me. Being 34 I reckon there's still plenty of time to beat PBs and maybe eventually beat or at least catch up with some of the older guys.

rom

Ran with a 36min 60 something year old randomly the other day as we were going the same direction and I wanted to brag about my recent sub 3 only for him to tell me what his 10k time was and how old he was. Would be sub 29 mins for a 25year old in comparison for age graded. M55 guy in my club ran 17:36 last year for 5k.

When I started running sub 20 mins was a great time. Now a great time is sub 16 or sub 15.

Cona

rom wrote: »

When I started running sub 20 mins was a great time. Now a great time is sub 16 or sub 15.

This is probably only in your head and running world. Sub 20 was great because thats what you strived for. When you reached it you realized there was still plenty faster than you, so sub 20 didn't seem all that great after all. I doubt the percentage of 15/16min 5kers has increased that much over the years.

Anyone who gets to sub 20 5k is no slouch in my books anyway....

rom

Cona wrote: »

This is probably only in your head and running world. Sub 20 was great because thats what you strived for. When you reached it you realized there was still plenty faster than you, so sub 20 didn't seem all that great after all. I doubt the percentage of 15/16min 5kers has increased that much over the years.

Anyone who gets to sub 20 5k is no slouch in my books anyway....

sub 20 and sub 23 for a female are on par

lbucko

rom wrote: »

tbh sub 20 mins is a very soft goal for anyone under the age of 40 and male.

Out of interest what would you consider a more appropriate goal?

Mint Sauce

35 year old male. If I can do a sub 21 next month I'll be more than happy. Current PB is about 22.

rom

Mint Sauce wrote: »

35 year old male. If I can do a sub 21 next month I'll be more than happy. Current PB is about 22.

With all goals they are long term. If you hit sub 21 next month then you can go for sub 20 in a few months time.

For me and many others here knocking a 30 secs off a 5k time would be a year 2 or 3 in the making and the goal would be for that long. Hard to compare with a goal for a race 4 weeks away. I wanted to run sub 3. It took from Oct 2011 to April 2014 to achieve. Sub 2:50 is the next goal. No idea how long it will take but I will get there. Just means putting in the work.

The great thing about running is that you get reward for hard work when done correctly as hard work with no structure get no rewards.

rom

lbucko wrote: »

Out of interest what would you consider a more appropriate goal?

A goal should be a checkpoint on your path and not a destination. Who is to say you are not the next steve way (http://www.steveway.co.uk/) who started running at 33 overweight and recently got selected for the commonwealth marathon as M40

So to answer your question I have no running goals only checkpoints and if its 10 secs off my PB then I am happy that I am going in the right direction.

Set short term goals on your path and repeat once you achieve them. Otherwise you probably will give up when you achieve X. I actually have made a big change tonight as I want to get better and if I continue what I am doing I won't improve as fast as I want.

Everything is relative. I was over the moon running 23:10 for my first 5k as it was really hard.

ger664

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

At 36 he's just a youth. This forum is littered with runners well into their forties who are competing at the pointy end of races (albeit not on the world stage), who are running faster than they ever have in their lives. Don't settle for comparing yourself against statistics. The only limitations are those you impose yourself.

Pure Gold KC as usual

Ran 20:15 tonite took a full minute off my PB, slightly disappointed not break 20 but aim to do that before my 48th Birthday.

walshb

HelenAnne wrote: »

I agree! To the 'you will get slower with age', I say this (see winner's time & age):

http://www.parkrun.ie/stannes/results/weeklyresults/?runSeqNumber=1

Of course a well-trained 80-year-old won't be faster than a well-trained 20-year-old, but it seems until at least your 50s the playing field is level enough, and runners in their 50s and 60s regularly beat younger runners in races. I'm nearly 39, and it's often women older than me, rather than younger, who are much faster. So don't despair, OP, you have years to keep getting faster.

People in their 50s are only beating unfit non runners, or beginners in their 20s and 30s. No way people in their 50s (committed) beat committed people 20 years their junior. Sure, there are always some exceptions, but overall you cannot compare.

slingerz

RonanP77 wrote: »

What should I be aiming for?

I ran this morning, I did 5.03km in 24:10. If it wasn't for a slow first km (5:06) I would have gotten below 24mins for the 1st time. The last 2km were 4:37 and 4:36 so I was happy with that.

What should I be aiming for, realistically. I'm 36 and I've been running since Feb. but missed almost a month through injury, today was my longest run since I got a calf strain.

A good 5k time is relative to the individual. You may be a fit 36 year old who has always looked after themselves well therefore 20/21 mins would not be unrealistic with some training.

There may be an unfit 21 year old who has never looked after themselves, is overweight and has no prior sporting/fitness background. for them to finish the 5k is an achievement even if it takes 35 mins

To give a real world example I see a girl who in the past 5/6 weeks has taken up our local parkrun. She is not in peak phyisical fitness and but her times have gotten better from 38 mins to 35 mins. I wouldnt consider her achievements to be any less than the winner who takes 10 secs off his PB to bring it to 17mins.

Chartsengrafs

slingerz wrote: »

I wouldnt consider her achievements to be any less than the winner who takes 10 secs off his PB to bring it to 17mins.

I would have to disagree strongly with this. The gains made for someone running 17 minutes or so for 5km are much harder to come by.
Somebody who gets aound a 5k in 38 minutes could knock 10 minutes off that time in the short to medium term just by simply jogging a few times a week, with little focus. The marginal gains are huge starting off in running. That's my experience of it.

However I do agree with the relative nature of it. I think most of us have come across someone who gets around their first 5k in 18 minutes and wonders what the fuss is about. They're rare, but no less frustrating

rom

Basster wrote: »

I would have to disagree strongly with this. The gains made for someone running 17 minutes or so for 5km are much harder to come by.
Somebody who gets aound a 5k in 38 minutes could knock 10 minutes off that time in the short to medium term just by simply jogging a few times a week, with little focus. The marginal gains are huge starting off in running. That's my experience of it.

However I do agree with the relative nature of it. I think most of us have come across someone who gets around their first 5k in 18 minutes and wonders what the fuss is about. They're rare, but no less frustrating

+1 on this. Sure if this girl simply went on a diet and got down to a healthy weight and didnt run at all she would do a better time. She is probably only doing the parkrun weekly and nothing else.

Why should we reward mediocrity and lampoon people who make a real effort.

slingerz

rom wrote: »

+1 on this. Sure if this girl simply went on a diet and got down to a healthy weight and didnt run at all she would do a better time. She is probably only doing the parkrun weekly and nothing else.

Why should we reward mediocrity and lampoon people who make a real effort.

Mediocrity is relative. She is doing excellently for someone in her position. The attitude you are portraying is all that is wrong with athletics. Makes me glad when the elitiest among the local road race scene get beaten by a random freak of a young fella in his gaa gear.

Basster wrote: »

I would have to disagree strongly with this. The gains made for someone running 17 minutes or so for 5km are much harder to come by.
Somebody who gets aound a 5k in 38 minutes could knock 10 minutes off that time in the short to medium term just by simply jogging a few times a week, with little focus. The marginal gains are huge starting off in running. That's my experience of it.

However I do agree with the relative nature of it. I think most of us have come across someone who gets around their first 5k in 18 minutes and wonders what the fuss is about. They're rare, but no less frustrating

If you have ever been in that persons position you will be aware that going training twice or thrice weekly is as alien to them as not doing any training is to another. Simply saying they should train more or go on a diet is flippant beyond belief.

Surely the 'elite' could look similarly down their nose at those running a 5k in 17 minutes and wonder what all the fuss is about

Chartsengrafs

Rom: I assume you're being sarcastic but I honestly can't tell around here sometimes. Please note I made no reference to weight..?

I'll elaborate as I'm speaking from my own experience. I did my first 10k just shy of 49 minutes, and by doing little more that running 2,3 times a week (albeit consistently year round), I got this down to 46 and gradually 42 minutes over a number of years. Getting to 40 minutes and eventually under 40 minutes took a lot more work than what I was doing previously. Getting under 39 is taking more again. Feel free to disagree but I'm not 'lampooing mediocrity' and it's a shame that one gets pulled out so often.

Slingerz: my following post should explain my position. And again, where did I mention weight?

Ososlo

slingerz wrote: »

Mediocrity is relative. She is doing excellently for someone in her position. The attitude you are portraying is all that is wrong with athletics. Makes me glad when the elitiest among the local road race scene get beaten by a random freak of a young fella in his gaa gear.



If you have ever been in that persons position you will be aware that going training twice or thrice weekly is as alien to them as not doing any training is to another. Simply saying they should train more or go on a diet is flippant beyond belief.

Surely the 'elite' could look similarly down their nose at those running a 5k in 17 minutes and wonder what all the fuss is about

I'd say a 17 min 5k would be extremely mediocre to an elite!

HelenAnne

walshb wrote: »

People in their 50s are only beating unfit non runners, or beginners in their 20s and 30s. No way people in their 50s (committed) beat committed people 20 years their junior. Sure, there are always some exceptions, but overall you cannot compare.

Lots of runners in their fifties can run sub 3hr marathons. I know that's not elite speed, but I think there are people younger than them who don't fit into your 'unfit, non-runners' category but who still haven't broken three hours.

Of course, if you take the fastest 50-year-old man in the world and the fastest 25-year-old the 25-year-old will be faster; I just meant you can continue to improve through your thirties, so the OP doesn't need to think that just because he's 36 he can never be a contender. I know it's unlikely he'll get fast enough to run for Ireland in the Olympics if he's started running at 36, but he could get fast enough to run in the World Masters' etc.

oldrunner

walshb wrote: »

People in their 50s are only beating unfit non runners, or beginners in their 20s and 30s. No way people in their 50s (committed) beat committed people 20 years their junior. Sure, there are always some exceptions, but overall you cannot compare.

Rising to the bait (as a soon to be 54 year old).

In the past number of weeks, I have ran 4:33 for 1500m 4:57 for mile, 9:57 for 3k and 61:55 for 10 mile (not my target distance).
In last year's Dublin marathon, the first man 050 was 28th in 2:35, the second was 67th in 2:41.

I suspect that these times would beat many (but definitely not all) committed runners 20 years younger.

I am about 10% slower than when I was at my peak but I train harder now, so my peak probably should have been a bit better.

walshb

oldrunner wrote: »

Rising to the bait (as a soon to be 54 year old).

In the past number of weeks, I have ran 4:33 for 1500m 4:57 for mile, 9:57 for 3k and 61:55 for 10 mile (not my target distance).
In last year's Dublin marathon, the first man 050 was 28th in 2:35, the second was 67th in 2:41.

I suspect that these times would beat many (but definitely not all) committed runners 20 years younger.

I am about 10% slower than when I was at my peak but I train harder now, so my peak probably should have been a bit better.

It's nothing to do with bait! Your times for that age are very very good. You are not the average 54 year old. Now, compare these times to a dedicated runner in his 30s? I am sure there are better times. Your times would beat me. My friend ran a 9 mins 3 secs for 3 k two weeks ago in Santry. He is 36. Not an elite athlete. I am almost certain that by 54 he will NOT be getting that time.

Bottom line. All things relatively equal a man or woman in their 50s should not be beating someone 20 years younger over ANY distance.

Of course, if the person 20 years younger isn't fit and isn't much of a runner then a man or woman in their 60s who is fit enough could beat them.

I have ran 5 k races. I am in my late 30s and quite fit. Always keep in shape. I saw many 50 + men racing with me that looked in good shape for that age group. Almost all did not beat me. I am sure some did, but those were likely really dedicated and long term runners with natural stamina and speed.

You cannot beat youth, most of the time!

walshb

Ososlo wrote: »

I'd say a 17 min 5k would be extremely mediocre to an elite!

Agreed, but a great great time for someone who runs part time.

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote:

No way people in their 50s (committed) beat committed people 20 years their junior.

walshb wrote: »

I have ran 5 k races. I am in my late 30s and quite fit. Always keep in shape

oldrunner wrote:

Rising to the bait (as a soon to be 54 year old).

Looks like we have one of type A and one of type B. Sounds like it's time for a race!

walshb

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Looks like we have one of type A and one of type B. Sounds like it's time for a race!

Haven't raced in quite a while. Nursing an ankle injury.

Anyway, I agree that there are cases where people above 50 beat people below 40 or below 35. But when all is equal as regards their level and standard, across the whole board, elites, club runners, fun runners etc, the 50s and 60s cannot compete with the 30s and 40s. It's nature. Nothing else.

Eamon Coghlan wouldn't run a sub 4 mile now. He did aged 40. But no matter how much he'd train now he cannot ever get to that level. People retire from athletics and sport for a number of reasons

Age is one very important reason. I would argue that there no physical/atheltic sports on earth where 40 + competitors are routinely better than those in their late 20s or early 30s. Yes, some exceptions, no doubt. But even these cannot match the elite younger sports athletes.

Even 50 + in non athletic/physical sports struggle to match the talent and success of the younger guys/gals. Darts and snooker and golf are there examples. Yes, exceptions to the rule.

40 + in snooker win nothing.

oldrunner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Looks like we have one of type A and one of type B. Sounds like it's time for a race!

Well, I will be racing Terenure 5 this Sunday. I am open to WalshB taking me on - entries are still open.

slingerz

walshb wrote: »

Agreed, but a great great time for someone who runs part time.

agreed so the original point that a great 5K time is relative to the person that does it, their environment and prior history is valid

walshb

oldrunner wrote: »

Well, I will be racing Terenure 5 this Sunday. I am open to WalshB taking me on - entries are still open.

I'll send my 36 year old friend to show you up!:)

What's your PB at 5 k? I'm 18 mins 40. Probably not good enough for you. I am guessing your 54 year old 5k PB is close to 18

Can I ask your history? Have you been running for many years? If so, were your PBs better when in those early committed years than what you are running now?

oldrunner

walshb wrote: »

But when all is equal as regards their level and standard, across the whole board, elites, club runners, fun runners etc, the 50s and 60s cannot compete with the 30s and 40s. It's nature. Nothing else.

I agree with this statement - the 54 year old me is not as good as the 28 year old me.
However, your original contention was that "People in their 50s are only beating unfit non runners, or beginners in their 20s and 30s." I disagree with this.

Mint Sauce

rom wrote: »

With all goals they are long term. If you hit sub 21 next month then you can go for sub 20 in a few months time.

For me and many others here knocking a 30 secs off a 5k time would be a year 2 or 3 in the making and the goal would be for that long. Hard to compare with a goal for a race 4 weeks away. I wanted to run sub 3. It took from Oct 2011 to April 2014 to achieve. Sub 2:50 is the next goal. No idea how long it will take but I will get there. Just means putting in the work.

The great thing about running is that you get reward for hard work when done correctly as hard work with no structure get no rewards.

I have no proper structure to my training though. Started a few years ago, one event was my 23 minute 5k. Felt pretty good.

Last year took on maybe to many events ranging from a 5km to a half marathon, even though ran the 5km in about 22 minutes, done it quicker than I felt comfortable, and was the first event I ever entered where I wanted to stop off the route during a race.

Even though no great structure this year, at least I have introduced intervals to my training, am feeling a bit better, stronger, and more confident.

walshb

oldrunner wrote: »

I agree with this statement - the 54 year old me is not as good as the 28 year old me.
However, your original contention was that "People in their 50s are only beating unfit non runners, or beginners in their 20s and 30s." I disagree with this.

That is fair enough. I meant to elaborate. a 54 year old average man beginning does not really have much chance beating a 34 year old average man beginning. That is it in a nutshell. If the 54 year old is committed, training longer and reasonably fit, then his chances rise considerably vs the 34 year old, who is beginning.

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

Haven't raced in quite a while. Nursing an ankle injury.

Damn... That's a real shame, you being all fit and in shape and all.

walshb wrote:

Even 50 + in non athletic/physical sports struggle to match the talent and success of the younger guys/gals. Darts and snooker and golf are there examples.

Phil Taylor is 53.

walshb wrote:

Yes, exceptions to the rule.

Yawn. Discussion get out of jail free card.

walshb

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Damn... That's a real shame, you being all fit and in shape and all.


Phil Taylor is 53.


Yawn. Discussion get out of jail free card.

It's not a get out of jail card at all. Darts is a sport where physical attributes aren't the be all and end all. But steadiness, eyesight and mental stamina are quite important. Eyesight does disimprove with age.

Scrap darts. Look at snooker...

oldrunner

walshb wrote: »

I'll send my 36 year old friend to show you up!:)

What's your PB at 5 k? I'm 18 mins 40. Probably not good enough for you. I am guessing your 54 year old 5k PB is close to 18

Can I ask your history? Have you been running for many years? If so, were your PBs better when in those early committed years than what you are running now?

My PBs are long in the past. I was never happy with my 5k PB and can't remember it properly - somewhere in the mid / late 15s. I ran 17:03 in Jingle Bells last December - most recent 5k.
Ran casually in BHAA from 21 to 25. Joined club and progressed onto track running until 30 - greatly improved times. Family / Work commitments saw me out of running from early 30s till I was 44. Weight gain / lack of fitness got me back running with no intention of competing but bug gradually took hold again. Been running ever since.
Age is a definite reducing factor - no argument. However, relative to the mass of runners, older runners can and are still very competitive.

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

It's not a get out of jail card at all. Darts is a sport where physical attributes aren't the be all and end all. But steadiness, eyesight and mental stamina are quite important. Eyesight does disimprove with age.

Scrap darts. Look at snooker...

It is a get out of jail card, as I provide an example that specifically disproves your argument, and the response is either 'that's an exception to the rule' or 'let's drop that particular sport from my argument as it doesn't really work for me any more'. I'm going to bow out of this conversation as it's neither on topic nor useful.

walshb

oldrunner wrote: »

My PBs are long in the past. I was never happy with my 5k PB and can't remember it properly - somewhere in the mid / late 15s. I ran 17:03 in Jingle Bells last December - most recent 5k.
Ran casually in BHAA from 21 to 25. Joined club and progressed onto track running until 30 - greatly improved times. Family / Work commitments saw me out of running from early 30s till I was 44. Weight gain / lack of fitness got me back running with no intention of competing but bug gradually took hold again. Been running ever since.
Age is a definite reducing factor - no argument. However, relative to the mass of runners, older runners can and are still very competitive.

Won't argue with any of that. Your times as a 50 + are superb. I don't believe I would get to them times if I trained very hard between now and 40. Had I taken up proper running and training at 30, yes, I think I could do 17 mins over 5 k, and a 4 mins 40 1500.

walshb

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

It is a get out of jail card, as I provide an example that specifically disproves your argument, and the response is either 'that's an exception to the rule' or 'let's drop that particular sport from my argument as it doesn't really work for me any more'. I'm going to bow out of this conversation as it's neither on topic nor useful.

I only brought up darts and snooker as and add on. You didn't disprove my argument. I said there are exceptions to the rule. That can apply to a lot of things in life.

I will stick to athletic sports that require a lot of physical/athletic work/prowess. My point stands. Age is a major factor in the lessening of standards in these sports.

dna_leri

So the rule is:
"All things relatively equal a man or woman in their 50s should not be beating someone 20 years younger over ANY distance" but "there are exceptions to the rule".

If there are many exceptions to the rule then it no longer is a rule but someone's opinion that is not backed up by fact.

I recently ran a local 10K - not my best distance but I did some training for it. I finished 6th out of about 250 but I was the 4th over 40. The next guy behind me was over 50. The majority of the finishers after that were not over 40. Many of them were in their 20s and had also trained for the event.

In my experience it often happens that someone in their 50s beats someone in their 20s. There are too many exceptions to this theory to accept it as a rule. You are entitled to your opinion but it is not a rule.