Is 5k in 30 minutes slow?

Options
2»

Replies

  • CindyFooWho
    CindyFooWho Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    If you really want to compare yourself to others, see if you can find a 5K result listing. Here's one I did: http://kutztownfoolsrun.com/uploads/16_kutztown_fools_run_5k_results.pdf . No particular reason I'm posting that one other than it's one I know of. It was my first and only (so far) 5K, so before I registered for it, I did look through the previous year's results just to make sure I was not going to be crawling last through the finish line, as everyone else was headed for home, haha. I mean, I really had no idea what was normal. I looked through and compared my time to others of my age/sex.

    In the end, I got 3rd in my age group.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    LazSommer wrote: »
    tomhurst wrote: »
    I just would have thought people that have been running for years have improved and reached a particular pace :)

    "Runners" often run sub 7 minute miles. A 5k is 3ish. What kind of answer do you want? It's always going to be relative.

    I'm a runner, I don't run any sub 7 minute miles....

    There's another thread where someone has repeated the rather stupid trope that it's only running if it's faster than a six minute mile.

    fwiw I'd be disappointed with a 30 minute 5K .

    At my last 10K we had a mass start for both 5 and 10 runners. I passed some of the 5K runners in the last K. Then stood beside the funnel and applauded them coming in. We each run our own race.
  • naculp
    naculp Posts: 225 Member
    Options
    Here's a 5k that I took part in just this past Saturday. I was ok with my performance, but I wasn't trying to PR or anything. I wouldn't consider myself a fast runner, but I somehow managed top 10%

    For reference
    Fastest runner: 15:42
    Slowest runner: 1:01:42
  • jtcedinburgh
    jtcedinburgh Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    You'll certainly never be the fastest, but at 30 minutes you'll not be the slowest either. 30 is respectable. Not competitive, but respectable. Better to run 30 than not to run at all.

    FWIW, I started out around 30 minutes, but persistence has got me down to ~24 minutes. However, I'm far from a good runner, with no natural running ability. It does illustrate what putting in the miles can do. The best way to decrease the times is to run for longer distances I find - doing a few weeks of 7Ks can improve your 5K time more than the same number of 5Ks would, in my experience.
  • pondee629
    pondee629 Posts: 2,469 Member
    Options
    "Is 5k in 30 minutes slow?"

    Depends on what your 5K times are. If you usually run 5K in 25 minutes, yep, it's slow. If you usually run it in 30, nope it's just about right. If you usually run a 5K in 32, it's real fast. Unless you really think you can compete to win the race, time is relevant only in comparison to your times. If you're improving, you're doing good. If you're static, maybe just OK. If you're slowing, you should be looking for the reason why.

    "What is a good time to aim for if I'm interested in becoming fit (low body fat, strong heart, etc) "

    Depending on the course, (some are faster/slower/more hilly/less hilly), faster than your last race and not quite as fast as your next race. Improvement, feeling better and being in better shape are the goals.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    The woman who won the Olympic10k race, ran 10k in 29 minutes, so compared to her quite slow for a 5K, but compared to someone that can only run 1 min before needing to walk, quite fast, take your pick.
  • headwind2015
    headwind2015 Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    pondee629 wrote: »
    "Is 5k in 30 minutes slow?"

    Depends on what your 5K times are. If you usually run 5K in 25 minutes, yep, it's slow. If you usually run it in 30, nope it's just about right. If you usually run a 5K in 32, it's real fast. Unless you really think you can compete to win the race, time is relevant only in comparison to your times. If you're improving, you're doing good. If you're static, maybe just OK. If you're slowing, you should be looking for the reason why.

    "What is a good time to aim for if I'm interested in becoming fit (low body fat, strong heart, etc) "

    Depending on the course, (some are faster/slower/more hilly/less hilly), faster than your last race and not quite as fast as your next race. Improvement, feeling better and being in better shape are the goals.

    Well said, I couldn't agree more with this line of thinking! The only relevant comparison that can be made is with yourself.
  • Philtex
    Philtex Posts: 912 Member
    Options
    jtcedinburgh wrote: »
    30 is respectable. Not competitive, but respectable. Better to run 30 than not to run at all.

    "Not competitive" is relative. I have had podium finishes in my age/ gender category for a 30 minute 5K. The number of runners entered in a race also factors in.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    Philtex wrote: »
    jtcedinburgh wrote: »
    30 is respectable. Not competitive, but respectable. Better to run 30 than not to run at all.

    "Not competitive" is relative. I have had podium finishes in my age/ gender category for a 30 minute 5K. The number of runners entered in a race also factors in.

    should have used the term, Not Elite instead of not competitive

Categories