What's a good 5k time?

SamforMayo

Im in shock- Ecoli is 25! How did I not know this?

robinph

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

How about someone aged 61? Hands up anyone here who is younger than 41 and has a 33 minute 10km pb?

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=1359

HelenAnne

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.

yes, I think walshb has created a straw man to argue against -- no one said top-level 50 year olds are routinely beating top level 20 or 30 year olds; I just disagreed with the original contention (above) and wanted to let the OP know that he still has years of improvement ahead of him ESPECIALLY as he started late -- people running seriously since their teens will be disimproving from their best level by their mid-30s, but late starters have years to improve before they start slowing again due to age.

Phonehead

walshb wrote: »

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

I tend to disagree, of course at some stage the body can't do it anymore but 50's is still young now, I think distance is the great leveler. Where power is concerned then yes shorter distances probably would see the younger model winning. However pump it up to marathon level and all bets are off. I recently joined a club and the fastest marathon runner is a guy in his 50's, he does the very same training as guys half his age in their elite pack, yet he still does 2:30 marathons and they at best are chugging in a number of minutes after him on race day. You may say he is one if these exceptions but the thing is most 50 year olds don't give it that kind of effort because they have been there, done it and have other commitments in life.

walshb

HelenAnne wrote: »

but late starters have years to improve before they start slowing again due to age.

Agreed. I only stated that 50s and 60s should not be beating 30s or 20s if both age groups are committed and on the same dedication level. If the younger group slack off, or are not training etc then yes, the older group who are competing can beat them. I am sure that any dedicated 20s and 30s on this forum who have been training for a long period of time will not be posting the same times in 20-30 years.

ecoli

SamforMayo wrote: »

Im in shock- Ecoli is 25! How did I not know this?

My youthful good looks coupled with my sage advice tends to leave most baffled :P

SamforMayo

ecoli wrote: »

My youthful good looks coupled with my sage advice tends to leave most baffled :P

Well I have never seen you but from your wise/sensible advice I thought you were about 45! Now are nt the youth of today lovely:D

corny

Was listening to an old episode of Marathon Talk recently. A man aged 80 ran 42.** for 10K.:eek:

For me, the best way to put it is your potential slightly lessens as you get older but since the vast, vast, vast majority don't approach their potential i see it as a non issue.

walshb

corny wrote: »

Was listening to an old episode of Marathon Talk recently. A man aged 80 ran 42.** for 10K.:eek:

For me, the best way to put it is your potential slightly lessens as you get older but since the vast, vast, vast majority don't approach their potential i see it as a non issue.

Wonder what his best time was at 72/62/52/42/32? If he is a life long runner who is dedicated for all them years I would bet that he was below 42 mins for each of them ages.

Your times/performance lessen and lessen as the years pass your 'peak' year. For committed and dedicated runners most do reach some sort of potential or peak. Not sure what you see as a non issue. On this forum there has to be many committed and dedicated runners in their 20s and 30s who run for both fitness and times and personal bests. Taking one distance, 5 k, when (age) are these people expecting to reach a peak? Would they be expecting to be improving and posting PBs in their 40s? I would think the times would start to stall and dip in the late 30s for many.

Speaking as regards elite athletes I think it's fair to say that, for example, middle distance runners, would peak in their mid to late 20s. Some may get their PBs at 30 or slightly above. After this their times and performances drop.

RonanP77

I haven't logged on in two days because of a wedding and after party. I'm delighted to see so much advice and a good debate on the subject.

My training had been to try setting my best time every time I go out. I see now that that's the wrong approach. I run 2 times a week and cycle once. The one week I decided to step it up to 3 runs a week I got injured, I ran 5k flat out 3 times in 5 days and damaged my calf. I ended up missing a month of training over it.

The new plan;

Sunday. Cycle 40-60k (increasing to 100k+ as my fitness improves).

Monday. 3.65k run at a slow pace but with bursts of speed mixed in.

Tuesday. Rest.

Wednesday. Run 5.5k-8k (increasing as my fitness improves) at a slow pace.

Thursday. Rest.

Friday. Run 5.5k at a fast pace.

Saturday. Rest.

Of course that's subject to change if I get told I'm still clueless and that looks dumb.

Krusty_Clown

RonanP77 wrote: »

My training had been to try setting my best time every time I go out. I see now that that's the wrong approach. I run 2 times a week and cycle once. The one week I decided to step it up to 3 runs a week I got injured, I ran 5k flat out 3 times in 5 days and damaged my calf. I ended up missing a month of training over it.

Hi Ronan, good to see you are taking a more structured approach to your training. Here's an intermediate 8 week training plan (link), that will gradually increase the training load, and reduce the risk of injury (typically caused by trying to improve too rapidly).

By the way, for reference, I started running at age 36 too, and probably would have run around 25 minutes for 5k. I'm 42 now, and ran 16:00 a couple of weeks back and am hoping to get into the 15:xx range in the coming weeks. No reason you can't run significantly faster than that if you train smart and consistently.

RonanP77

I had a look through both the novice and intermediate. I definitely count myself as a novice because I've only been running a few months but the intermediate one does look more suitable. I'll need to change it a little to fit in one days cycling.

The furthest I've run so far is 4 mile so it should be a real challenge. Running at a slower pace should help. I find pacing very tough because I always run alone. I guess I'll just do what's comfortable and maybe stop listening to Runkeeper, it always makes me feel guilty. I'll use it to record runs but keep the volume down.

Mink

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Hi Ronan, good to see you are taking a more structured approach to your training. Here's an intermediate 8 week training plan (link), that will gradually increase the training load, and reduce the risk of injury (typically caused by trying to improve too rapidly).

By the way, for reference, I started running at age 36 too, and probably would have run around 25 minutes for 5k. I'm 42 now, and ran 16:00 a couple of weeks back and am hoping to get into the 15:xx range in the coming weeks. No reason you can't run significantly faster than that if you train smart and consistently.

That's a great link, I've done couch to 5k but still haven't gotten under 30 mins so this is perfect for working up endurance and pace. I've a LONG way to go, started from zero fitness.

I don't think I'd have the neck to go near a 5k race til I get under 25 mins to start with.

Krusty_Clown

Mink wrote: »

That's a great link, I've done couch to 5k but still haven't gotten under 30 mins so this is perfect for working up endurance and pace. I've a LONG way to go, started from zero fitness.

I don't think I'd have the neck to go near a 5k race til I get under 25 mins to start with.

Hi Mink, it certainly can be quite intimidating, particularly when you're relatively new to running, but don't be discouraged from giving it a try. Last night's 5k in Enfield (Bob Heffernan 5k) is probably one of the fastest 5ks in the county and there were at least 30 runners over 30 minutes. Granted, you'd be closer to the rearguard of the overall field, but in plenty of good company. Approximately 1/3rd of the field was over 25 minutes. Also the Parkruns have a huge spread of finishing times, so definitely worth a pop, if you want to dip your toe in a group running environment.

walshb

What made the course quick? Slight downhill throughout?

adrian522

You'll probably surprise yourself in a race situation as well. If you are running 30 mins in training you may find yourself going a good bit faster than that in a race.

I find I can never quite get up to race pace in any training session.

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

What made the course quick? Slight downhill throughout?

Your question is not relevant to this thread.

ariana`

Mink wrote: »

That's a great link, I've done couch to 5k but still haven't gotten under 30 mins so this is perfect for working up endurance and pace. I've a LONG way to go, started from zero fitness.

I don't think I'd have the neck to go near a 5k race til I get under 25 mins to start with.

Mink i just started running 6mths ago doing C25K. I did my 1st 5k race 3 wks ago 1min faster than i had dared to hope for. I did another 2 wks later and knocked 1min 8secs off the previous time. I wouldn't worry about being at a certain pace to race, you'll get faster just by racing but watch out it's very adictive