Is half marathon the most ideal race for average adults over 30?

Op here wrote:

Also about comparing 17 min as being very fast in local 5k scene is bc most except for like five people actually train.

By "training" you mean running 13 times a week, right?

Most people's body will break down before they reach that point.

17 flat for 30 year old age grades at 76.07% So that time is not average at all. Assuming an age grade of 50% is average (big assumption) - a 25:52 for 5k at 30 years old yields an age graded score of 50% Your age-graded score is the ratio of the approximate world-record time for your age and gender divided by your actual time. I haven't really thought of how this translates exactly but to score 100% at age 30 you would have to run a 12:56. So if my math is right, 25:52 is twice as slow or half as fast as the current (projected) world record at 5k for a 30 year old (I guess that's how we get to 50% score). From there would it be fair to say that twice as slow as the current (projected) world record is average? You be the judge.

On the other hand 3/4 as fast as the current (projected for your age, in this case - 30) world record is probably not so average.

And let's not have some dumb-ass tell me that I screwed up the world record. Read again - Your age-graded score is the ratio of the approximate world-record time for your age and gender divided by your actual time.

And for that matter an 18:30 yields an age graded score of 69.9%

To another old guy 48,

First.... 48 ain't old.

Second...my marathon PR was 2:54:51 (I spent a minute in the bushes) The charts indicated that I should have run 2:52

So let's find out (using age grading) which distance was your best:

"I peaked at 37 years old (after 7 years of running) with a 59:28 10 mile, 1:19:50 half marathon, 17:37 5K, 36:25 10K and a 4:51 mile."

17:37 scores 75.79%;

36:25 scores 76.31%

59:28 scores 76.46%

1:19:50 scores 75.53%

Old guy 68 put up some fine times. Can we say that the 10 miler was his ideal race because he scored the highest there? NO! We can see that among his best times for distances between 5k and 13.1 miles, he was incredibly consistent. Less than 1% separates his best score from his worst. My age grade calculator would not let me grade his mile time as 5k was the least distance that could be entered. We can say that he must be happy with "maxing out" at a variety of distances.

Well, I pulled out my DRF charts and a 4:51 mile may have been your best time. A 4:51 mile is comparable to a 16:41 5k; 34:38 10k; and about a 1:16:30 half. I'm estimating that a 4:51 mile at age 37 probably age grades at about 80% Hey maybe the mile was your ideal race?

Mr Anderson wrote:

I'm estimating that a 4:51 mile at age 37 probably age grades at about 80%

It is 79.17%.

Le Foot wrote:

Op here wrote:

I'm writing with my phone. Thank goodness my writing skills on a forum doesn't prevent me from getting a great job that you wish you had.

Nice try, but a phone keyboard doesn't magically make you sound dumber than you are.

Also you are incredibly insecure.

Didn't know I actually getting graded on how I type on my phone where there's a thing called auto correct to wrong words. I don't go back and check all the spellings or go back and read if I forgot to type a word in. Just get to the point with discussing the topic moron.

I still think that someone with average talent can run 5k in 18:30 after a solid year of training. I admit that 17 was off, but 18:30 is reasonable with dedicated training for a year.

Some of you are bringing up about average runners don't have time to run enough mileage or won't dedicate to train for half marathon. I keep saying that I'm talking about someone with average talent but have time to train. Also saying about someone not having enough time to train is just making up excuses. You always have time if you want to do it. Period.

On top of that, this is running where you need much less time commitment than other sports or lifting weights. Yes, running takes less time than lifting weights since you don't have to drive to the gym to work out.

I can see an argument for 10k being the best as that distance is long enough that you need to train in order to be good and your hard work comes into play more than something shorter. In a 5k, here could be some guy who's very talented but doesn't run at all who could kill someone withy average talent who's been training. However, it's less likely for that to happen in distance 10k or longer. So I think the longest distance without high risk of injury is half marathon.

Op here wrote:

I still think that someone with average talent can run 5k in 18:30 after a solid year of training.

If you think anyone who cannot run 18:30 after one year is either below average talent or a lazy pig, you are entitled to that opinion. I'd rather be a bottom half talent than a lazy pig, but I am probably both. I hope you are not showing your contempt for other people openly when you finish ahead of them in races.

You sound like the type of person who blames their genetics for their morbid obesity.

I don't know why you keep talking about this, it doesn't matter.

Okay, so you're saying 1) the shorter the distance, the more being young/natural talent matters, ergo bad for 30+ year olds, and 2) the longer the distance, the more training matters, ergo more injury risk, ergo bad for 30+ year olds.

Likely neither of those is true. But to humor you if you pretend they are, that still doesn't say that the half marathon is the "best event." ALL events would be a blend of speed ("talent") and endurance ("injury risk"). ALL events require many years of difficult training to reach your potential.

Randy Oldman said it correctly, there is no such thing as the best distance.

To Mr Anderson,

Thanks for age grading my times. All my PR's were run within 9 months.

I should have pointed out that my mile PR (4:51) was run on a slightly downhill mile in Golden Gate Park. On the track it was 4:59.

I was the slowest guy on the Excelsior Track Club in '83 and got my 4:59 running with guys doing mile repeats.

Compared to most of today's races my times are decent, but back in 1983 I was lucky to finish in the top ten percent of the field (including women) and I seldom even placed in my age division.

In my 59:28 10 mile I finished 307 out of 820 runners. It was an incredible field.

In the 80's there were some races that drew most of the fastest runners in Northern California. Wharf to Wharf, Cal Ten, Bay to Breakers and The Mercury News 10K.

OP does not seem to understand what "potential" means.

We all have different potential in different distances, and we could reach (or rather approach) our potential in any distance if we train properly for that distance. HM is the "best distance" for some people, meaning they have the highest potential in that distance. Other people have their highest potential in mile, 5K, 10K, marathon, 100K or beyond.

So if you focus on a distance with lower potential, you are not going to achieve much (even if that is close to your potential in the event). If you want to achieve a high level, you should find where your highest potential is.

Le Foot wrote:

thoughts1 wrote:

The 100 is probably harder to improve based on age, injury risk, mastering technique and declining strength past age 30.

Yet Carl Lewis, Justin Gatlin, Dwain Chambers, Kim Collins, and MIchael Johnson all improved past age 30. That's probably as good if not better than the best distance runners post 30.

___________

ANY Sprinter that improves past thirty is using.