What's a decent mile time for 40?

In high school I was a 22 (200), 51 (400) guy...decent speed but never enough strength/endurance. Now, as an old man :), I'm slower, of course, but I think stronger. My recent 4:40 mile was a lot easier than a 17:00 5K. Gah, I'd love to get somewhere near 1:20 in the half. I guess more miles, more miles.

Couch_Hobby_Jogger wrote:

Something decent hobby jogger level.

I ran right around 4:18 at 40.

Velocibuddha wrote:

10k - 37:55 (This was part of triathlon. This is actually my fastest run)

In a triathlon? Probably about 9km then. No-one takes distances within a tri seriously. No wonder its your best performance.

His HM time is the best, worth 36:15 for 10K.

Triathlon? LOL wrote:

Velocibuddha wrote:

10k - 37:55 (This was part of triathlon. This is actually my fastest run)

In a triathlon? Probably about 9km then. No-one takes distances within a tri seriously. No wonder its your best performance.

Trautman - 4:12 - age 47

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9fyYUZCMAAkJgZ.jpg:large

The world is big. There are a few people who will achieve Olympic level performances for old dudes.

(That 4:12 at 47 fits this description).

What I want to point out is this:

BEING ONE OF THE BEST IN THE WORLD IN ANY AGE GROUP IS VERY DIFFICULT.

It is easy to say "of these old guys suck."

Easy to think: "I was I was a division I runner at a mid major college. Running a 4:05 mile in college is a big achievement."

But being 47 and running 4:12 is an altogether different level achievement.

Don't get me wrong. I understand mid-life asperational thinking.

At 38 I thought:

1) Swimming is harder than running

2) I swam something equivalent to a 4:05 mile in college.

3) I should be able to run 4:20 for a mile... no problem.

Ridiculous. Look how close I got!

(My swimming is a little better).

Worse it is kind of insulting.

It was hard for me to get that fast at swimming. Why would being a world class master athlete suddenly be soo easy?

Because I am middle age and need to prove myself?

dork_rothko wrote:

In high school I was a 22 (200), 51 (400) guy...decent speed but never enough strength/endurance. Now, as an old man :), I'm slower, of course, but I think stronger. My recent 4:40 mile was a lot easier than a 17:00 5K. Gah, I'd love to get somewhere near 1:20 in the half. I guess more miles, more miles.

Are you me? :>) I was a 23 (220), 51 (440) guy. At 40 I was trying to go sub-5 on about 40mpw. The best I managed was 5:03.

Ha, maybe. Morpheus? I run 40-50 mpw, but a good portion not-junk: tempos, progressions, hills/stairs, and intervals...3 quality, 1 long run, 2 easy, 1 day off. I ran a 4:59 on a more difficult road course (5 90-degree turns) on about 30 mpw earlier this year, with perhaps 5 seconds left in the tank I was afraid to call on (I've just gotten back into racing after 20 years doing other things).

Average 40-yr old decent would probably be anything under 7:00. Competitive at local races for age group would be anything under 5:30.

In Europe we almost never race the mile but only 1500; that said, there are of course dudes still very good (like sub 4:10 for 1500) at 40-45 years of age, but usually we are speaking about guys that could have race/actually raced the same time (or even better) for a mile while younger.

For the average master runner who trains for middle distances, I see a fair number of men in the high 4:30s/low 4:40s, that would convert roughly to mid to high 4:50s fo a mile, or something like that. So, sub 5 seems like quite a good time. The average (across people who actually trains, not across the general population) IMO is however over 6:00.