What is a milestone for being considered an "ok" runner?

File: 1491245761778.png (547KB, 640x622px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 640x622px

>>41473834

Bump.

>>41473834
One 6 min mile or a 20 min 3 mile

>>41473834
fuck what normies think. they know even less than /fit/

two common 'decent' goals for long distance running are a <1:30 half-marathon and a <3:00 marathon. you can use pace calculators to see what those efforts would (plausibly) translate to when running over a different distance, e.g. https://www.runnersworld.co.uk/health/rws-race-time-predictor

>>41473834

13:00 or under 2 mile. Under 12 is really good.

I don't know much about short distance but I suppose sub 1min 15 sec 400 meter, sub 6 min mile, sub 19 min 5k and a 1.5 hr half marathon would probably be equal to 1/2/3/4

I would say 5k in 20 minutes is very impressive by normie standard. That's 15 km/h for 20 minutes, 95% of guys over 20 can't pull it off.
By runners standards you're a DYER.

>>41473834
>1/2/3//4; not a big deal but impressive to normies
DELET

>>41473834
Tiers for running 5k
Barely running tier: under 21 minutes
At least you finished ahead of most joggers tier: 19:30
Would be competative hs girl: under 18 minutes
No longer laughable: undet 17 minutes
Kind of fit: under 16 minutes
Going to make it one day: under 15
Made it as an amateur: mid 14's
Pro level: around 13 minutes

>>41474621
This times are beyond decent, they're in the good range.
We

>>41475429
i got to a 1:28 HM with trash self-made programming that amounted to "run fixed distances like 15km as hard as you can every time you head out for a run" and i've found the path to 1/2/3/4 to be longer and harder (and i'm still not there: 60kg/97.5kg/135kg/160kg). maybe /fit/izens memeing 1/2/3/4 as being merely 'decent' has distorted things

>>41475399
Approx Mile splits for each tier (5k is 3.1 miles)
7:00 = running
6:30 = faster than joggers
6:00 = fast for hs girl
5:40 = keeping a straight face when i hear your time somehow
5:10 = ok pace
Upper 4's = gonna maek it
made it = 4:30
Pro = rly fast

>>41475399
The 5k world record is 12:37. 13 minutes would have won the last Olympics on a track. Plenty of Olympians put up times longer than 14 minutes.

It's it fun to make up numbers?

>>41475558
>>41475399
>around 13 minutes
>around
>qualifying time for olympic 5000 metres
>13:28.00
pretty close to 13 imho
13:03 won it

>>41475501
1:28 is barely fast for hs girl tier imho

5k in 30 minutes is a realistic beginner starting goal. That's like deadlifting your own bodyweight; anyone with some experience can call it "easy", but it's a milestone nonetheless.

An experienced, top-level amateur will do a 5k in 15 minutes. Do not compare yourself to olympic/professional times, that's fucking stupid.

>>41475660
no it fucking isn't
25 minutes if you aren't a paraplegic with asthma
a milestone is going out and running a 5k in 30 minutes and realizing you're out of shape
you don't hit another milestone until you actually have done something about it

>>41474600
>one 6 min mile
This is my current goal desu
When I started running, it took 8 minutes to do a mile. My current PR is 6:56

I'm going to make it some day...r-right?

>>41473834

Like anything on /fit/, when people post their arbitrarily made up tier times/weights, it is with Captain America as the sample subject.

If you can run a 5k in under 25 that's pretty ok. Most average 'fit' people, especially if they're primarily gym bros will struggle to keep a 8 min/mile pace for a little under 3 miles.

>>41475678
>beginner goal

>>41475707
http://results.active.com/events/human-race-sonoma-county--5/10k-age-group
here's a 12 y/o girl who ran two 24 minute 5k back to back

>>41475690
The biggest factor in the mile is your pacing. Work on running 1:30 400s. Just practice these over and over. Aim for like 6-8 for a workout with like minute or so breaks in between. Once you get used to the pace you'll feel more comfortable running it. Most people start a mile waaaaayyyy to fast and die the second half. Set a steady even pace and you'll have it!

>>41475744
>beginner

the other anon isn't saying it's a good time. it's a "milestone". one of the first. people should then run to the next one

>>41475744
Wow it's almost like 12 year old girls are fucking tiny

>>41475399
>I never ran high school track the post

>>41475748
Thank you for the tip
I'll give it a try
But what you said about pacing is something I've already noticed. My PR was set on a run that initially I thought was going shit, but once I finished I realised that because I didn't kill myself in the first 1000 metres, I could handle the last 600m well

>>41475760
ffs there isn't a set beginner time
there isn't a goal other than to finish
>>41475774
oh but I did anon
I fell into the no longer laughable category

>>41475744
and look at the many adults who are running 10 minute miles: a 30 minute 5k.

File: OB-BU644_4chan2_20080709201928.jpg (49KB, 160x227px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 160x227px

>>41475815
they're doing that so they can tell their friends that they ran a 5k
which is dubious

for 5k anything below 20min is impressive to normies because it's a round number and it's low, most people can't run a 5k in under 25+ minutes. I ran a 19:27 at a local 5k just as training, not even a full on effort because I had to swim after and then gym before bed, the race organizer and some of the girls volunteering were impressed

>>41475811
what are you and i even arguing about? i'm not asserting that there are discrete categories like 'beginner' (cf. >>41475399)

a <30:00 5k can be thought of, by someone who has never run before, as a first goal. a "milestone". it's a seductive, round number that people can shoot for. then they can move on to the next one, say <25:00. why are you arguing with this? you're being obtuse

>>41475884
yeah ok
what if they miss it?
what if they hit 25 minutes on the first go?
if they miss it they will feel bad
if they hit 25 they'll think the person who set the bar at 30 was conning them

>>41475660
>That's like deadlifting your own bodyweight
This is doable on the first day unless you're fat. Not even memeing

>>41475952
i should've made it clearer that when i said 'can be thought of [...] as a first goal', i meant that it could be a self-set goal; obviously that ought to be commensurate with the person's capabilities. if someone weighs 200kg, then a <30:00 5km is not a sensible (short-term) goal. if someone is working up to their first 5k and they're happily running at <5:00/km, then a <30:00 5km is not a sensible (short-term) goal. for most people who aren't obese and are getting off the couch for the first time, <30:00 is a reasonable first goal

that's all i'm saying. the numbers are obviously shit: you're <17:00, i'm 19:29 (basically a HS girl), other anons in here will be faster. but i don't know what's remotely disagreeable with what's been said

>>41476091
I'm sub 16
in highschool I would have been 16:50~
some collegiate athletes will run 31 minute 10k the first time they race that event

>>41475884
>>41475399
I'm trying to quantify tiers of running prowess so you know how good you should feel about yourself about running for any given time with an arbitrary amount of preparation for a specified distance

in reality you should let the people you're running with dictate the pace. stick with them for as long as you can and if they drop you, get familiar with the people coming up from behind you
in a 5000 meter, if you're paying attention, you ought to know if you're pushing too hard within 30 seconds of starting out. a mile can be just as fatiguing as two or 26. in every unseeded race you run assume that there will be at least 20 people capable of running a pace you couldn't maintain for 1/8 of the set distance, so if you go out with the top 20 as they pull away from the rest of the field, be prepared to learn a hard lesson about your aerobic limitations.

>>41473834
Post current PR miles
>5:53 for me
Trying to get to 5 but I've been slacking recently

>>41475690
I sprint half miles it increased my mile time by a lot. I also sprint miles to improve my 1.5 miles for the Navy PRT. Currently at around a 950 on that

>>41476337
433

>>41473834
the only distance impressive to normies is a marathon

>>41474948
I could run a 1:15 400 with no background in running or sports... under 65 would be a better standard

>>41475690
It's a lot of pacing. My PR back when i did track was 5:32 which wasn't very good for the track team, but ive never been super athletic so i thought it was neat

Normies are pathetic dude. Telling them you run one straight mile will impress them.