All seriousness, if you are just a random hobby jogger and you are running sub 20 mins I think you actually try and probably push yourself hard sometimes and respect that
I'd appreciate anyone with a goal who works hard. Not everyone has immense talent. But I'd say if a young man can't break 18, they are not a fast distance runner by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd also say that people are discredited when others attribute ability to pure talent. It's not like they sat on their couch their whole childhood. The "talented" ones were outside running around, busting their butts playing sports or exercising with a dedicated mindset. None of them were couch potatoes. They earned that astute physiology.
For the rest of this discussion, let's talk about guys who are just running for fun and didn't run at any level above high school. Much like you mentioned in this comment. How fast does someone like this need to be to not be mocked here for being slow? That's what I had in mind with my 16 estimation.
I was in the army in a pretty fit/infantry unit that deployed a ton. no one was fat, nearly the entire battalion was in shape and worked out a lot outside of the required morning PT.
our battalion commander was huge on running/rucking and made everyone run at least 30 mins a day as part of our PT program.
Anyways, if you could swing together two back to back 6 min miles in our 2 mile PT test, it was considered VERY good. And this was a group of fit young men that worked out and ran a lot together.
Of course there was the occasional "runner" who would do that in his sleep but for 99.9% of people in the unit going sub 12 in the two mile was considered pretty damn respectable.
I dont really know what an 11:59 2 mile equates to a 5k (maybe sub 19?) . That probably the time to use here for being "respectable".
For the rest of this discussion, let's talk about guys who are just running for fun and didn't run at any level above high school. Much like you mentioned in this comment. How fast does someone like this need to be to not be mocked here for being slow? That's what I had in mind with my 16 estimation.
I have a good metric for this
I was in the army in a pretty fit/infantry unit that deployed a ton. no one was fat, nearly the entire battalion was in shape and worked out a lot outside of the required morning PT.
our battalion commander was huge on running/rucking and made everyone run at least 30 mins a day as part of our PT program.
Anyways, if you could swing together two back to back 6 min miles in our 2 mile PT test, it was considered VERY good. And this was a group of fit young men that worked out and ran a lot together.
Of course there was the occasional "runner" who would do that in his sleep but for 99.9% of people in the unit going sub 12 in the two mile was considered pretty damn respectable.
I dont really know what an 11:59 2 mile equates to a 5k (maybe sub 19?) . That probably the time to use here for being "respectable".
Yeah, but they wouldn't laugh at the people not sub-12 either. So, the slowest in that group of "fit young men that worked out and ran a lot together" have no reason to be laughed at. Even people here know context in real life, so no one really laughs at even 30-minute 5Ks.
A 12:30 flat would still get sniggers from some at the back, others asking how many repeats you did at that speed and some dude saying he can do that barefoot in the snow because supershoes are the spawn of the devil…
What should be applauded is not time but approach. Any age group runner who is using sound training methodogy and not gimick training. Who takes the time to really learn the sport. Who is consistant and dedicated.
Over 25 min and you are either overweight or not athletic.
5K under 30 minutes at age 60 and over is outstanding. 5K under 30 minutes at age 70 and over is attained only by those at the highest level of elderly physical fitness.