Good 5k time for novice 16 year old male?

burrenguy

I hope to run a 5k cross country event in March. I'm in okay shape but have never really ran much before... the only running I do is playing soccer at school. What would be a decent time for me to aim at that I could build to in four ish months?

BeepBeep67

burrenguy wrote: »

I hope to run a 5k cross country event in March. I'm in okay shape but have never really ran much before... the only running I do is playing soccer at school. What would be a decent time for me to aim at that I could build to in four ish months?

How long is a piece of string?
Speak with the school PE teacher or join a club and follow a training plan. March is 5mths away so you can make some good improvements, do some races in the meantime and have fun.
BTW XC races usually are inaccurate +/- 10%.

HelenAnne

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

How long is a piece of string?
Speak with the school PE teacher or join a club and follow a training plan. March is 5mths away so you can make some good improvements, do some races in the meantime and have fun.
BTW XC races usually are inaccurate +/- 10%.

Yes, I'd say in cross country, look more at your finishing position than your time, your time can vary so much depending on the course and the conditions on the day, and it will probably be slower than your road time. (I speak from bitter experience! )

Timmaay

20 mins? (for a road 5k, as the lads said, xc never exact)

martyboy48

Timmaay wrote: »

20 mins? (for a road 5k, as the lads said, xc never exact)

burrenguy

ok thanks!

Clearlier

burrenguy wrote: »

I hope to run a 5k cross country event in March. I'm in okay shape but have never really ran much before... the only running I do is playing soccer at school. What would be a decent time for me to aim at that I could build to in four ish months?

you've got to start from where you are not where you want to be. I would have thought that many 16 year olds with a decent level of general fitness would be able to do about 16 mins for a 5k

Getonwithit

16mins for a generally fit 16 yr old? Not too many very fit 16 year olds rattling 16mins!

Terrontress

Getonwithit wrote: »

16mins for a generally fit 16 yr old? Not too many very fit 16 year olds rattling 16mins!

Too right.

Get an idea for times here

http://www.parkrun.ie/marlay/results/latestresults/

No 16 minuters at all.

Clearlier

Terrontress wrote: »

Too right.

Get an idea for times here

http://www.parkrun.ie/marlay/results/latestresults/

No 16 minuters at all.

the op wanted to know what a good time would be. I have assumed that we're talking about males rather than females.

5k is rarely if ever run competitively at that age but an equivalent 3k time is about 9:15 and power of 10 shows that 72 under 17's have run that time in 2013 in the UK. given the level of participation in athletics I think that 16 minutes is about right for a 'good' time for a 16 year old. as i said in my original post though you have to start from where you are not from where you want to be.

Getonwithit

That's in a population of 65million? 72 16year olds in a population of 65 million
So quick maths
That's around 1 16 year old per million of total population.
So that's 4 16 year olds in this country.
The winning junior team today in the intercounties boys races probably won't have 4 sub 16min 5k runners. Stop watching Diamond league and get down to your local club. With those standards we could be world beaters!

burrenguy

alright thanks lads. I was talking to a friend who competed in one of the events there last week and said he placed 10th (although else later said 20th) with a time of 21 mins. Him saying it put it into my head really, so I might have a go at it sure.

Clearlier

burrenguy wrote: »

alright thanks lads. I was talking to a friend who competed in one of the events there last week and said he placed 10th (although else later said 20th) with a time of 21 mins. Him saying it put it into my head really, so I might have a go at it sure.

Do have a go at it. Cross country times aren't comparable to road times so as other posters said you can't compare the two. If you can, include a lap of the course in your warm up and think about what lines you might want to run through corners (particularly if it's muddy).

Don't worry too much about where you finish in the race, compete for sure but know that it's only through training that you'll find out how good you can be. Some people improve incredibly quickly but then plateau. Others need 6 or 7 years of steady consistent training to reach their peak and you won't know how you respond to training until you do it.

Enjoy the race and let us know how you get on.

Lusk_Doyle

Clearlier wrote: »

you've got to start from where you are not where you want to be. I would have thought that many 16 year olds with a decent level of general fitness would be able to do about 16 mins for a 5k

What the heck? 5k in 16 mins? I'd love to see these 16 year olds with a general level of fitness that could do that. In my opinion, that is way off the mark and is bad advice to be giving to a 16 year old.

Clearlier

Getonwithit wrote: »

That's in a population of 65million? 72 16year olds in a population of 65 million
So quick maths
That's around 1 16 year old per million of total population.
So that's 4 16 year olds in this country.
The winning junior team today in the intercounties boys races probably won't have 4 sub 16min 5k runners. Stop watching Diamond league and get down to your local club. With those standards we could be world beaters!

Please focus on the argument. I am a member of my local club and I almost never watch diamond league. I ran in the junior intercounties myself about 15 years ago and even the fact that I was there gives a hint of the standard.

We clearly have different ideas as to what constitutes 'good'. The thought in the back of my mind is that you can't compare yourself to your local contemporaries. Running is a tiny sport in Ireland and the UK. If you're lucky it's squeezed into a month or two at the end of the school year. The numbers of kids turning up at most clubs is tiny. Compete against your contemporaries for sure and you might get lucky ala the Sonia/Catriona duo but if you want to be good you generally have to set your sights higher.

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What the heck? 5k in 16 mins? I'd love to see these 16 year olds with a general level of fitness that could do that. In my opinion, that is way off the mark and is bad advice to be giving to a 16 year old.

Get off that ditch then and tell us what you think is a good time goal for a 16 year old with good general fitness and 4 - 5 months to train for the 5k? It might be worth defining what good is because it's a pretty nebulous term and can easily be understood to mean quite different levels of performance.

BTW - to clarify an earlier comment. I think that 72 in the UK is many.


Mods: I think that there's a good question/debate to be had here but it's no longer relevant to the OP who's running cross country. Is it worth splitting into a separate thread?

Lusk_Doyle

burrenguy wrote: »

I hope to run a 5k cross country event in March. I'm in okay shape but have never really ran much before... the only running I do is playing soccer at school. What would be a decent time for me to aim at that I could build to in four ish months?

Clearlier wrote: »

Get off that ditch then and tell us what you think is a good time goal for a 16 year old with good general fitness and 4 - 5 months to train for the 5k? It might be worth defining what good is because it's a pretty nebulous term and can easily be understood to mean quite different levels of performance.

You see, the OP said "I'm in ok shape but have never really ran much before" and "what would be a decent time for me to aim at..."

You've put the OP, based on your post above, into the good general fitness slot. It may be down to terminology and the understanding that different people have of certain terms but I think that you have elevated the OP up above their own statement.

I would consider a decent time for someone of ok shape and never really having ran much before to be in the region of 25 mins for a 5k.

I would consider a good time for someone, like me, who runs fairly regularly (2 - 4 times a week) and does the odd race, to be sub 20 mins for a 5k. My own PB is 19:07 and I intend on getting sub 19 mins soon enough.

An exceptional time would be that which you mentioned of 16 mins for a 5k. Exceptional because it would certainly not be the norm and especially so for a person like the OP for the wording they had in their own opening post.

ultrapercy

Clearlier wrote: »

Please focus on the argument. I am a member of my local club and I almost never watch diamond league. I ran in the junior intercounties myself about 15 years ago and even the fact that I was there gives a hint of the standard.

We clearly have different ideas as to what constitutes 'good'. The thought in the back of my mind is that you can't compare yourself to your local contemporaries. Running is a tiny sport in Ireland and the UK. If you're lucky it's squeezed into a month or two at the end of the school year. The numbers of kids turning up at most clubs is tiny. Compete against your contemporaries for sure and you might get lucky ala the Sonia/Catriona duo but if you want to be good you generally have to set your sights higher.



Get off that ditch then and tell us what you think is a good time goal for a 16 year old with good general fitness and 4 - 5 months to train for the 5k? It might be worth defining what good is because it's a pretty nebulous term and can easily be understood to mean quite different levels of performance.

BTW - to clarify an earlier comment. I think that 72 in the UK is many.


Mods: I think that there's a good question/debate to be had here but it's no longer relevant to the OP who's running cross country. Is it worth splitting into a separate thread?

A 16 year old, anywhere in the world, who can run 16 for 5k would be considered very talented. Very very few people junior or senior can run 16 for 5k without a lot of good well structured training. If the op goes out in 4 months training having no previous athletics background and runs 16 he will have colleges lining his driveway with scholarship offers. On this board there are a lot of people who train diligently and follow good programmes etc etc and there are still only a handful who can run sub 17for 5k and that's because its a very good standard in the general scheme of things. If the op had asked "I scored 2 goals in a 5 a side kick about with the lads last night. What should I aim for?" would you reply Leading scorer in the Premier League in 2 years time? 16 mins is 5:09 for a mile, one mile in that time would be beyond most seniors who consider themselves "super fit" let alone a causual 16 year old.

Lusk_Doyle

^^^This.

drquirky

ultrapercy wrote: »

A 16 year old, anywhere in the world, who can run 16 for 5k would be considered very talented. Very very few people junior or senior can run 16 for 5k without a lot of good well structured training. If the op goes out in 4 months training having no previous athletics background and runs 16 he will have colleges lining his driveway with scholarship offers. On this board there are a lot of people who train diligently and follow good programmes etc etc and there are still only a handful who can run sub 17for 5k and that's because its a very good standard in the general scheme of things. If the op had asked "I scored 2 goals in a 5 a side kick about with the lads last night. What should I aim for?" would you reply Leading scorer in the Premier League in 2 years time? 16 mins is 5:09 for a mile, one mile in that time would be beyond most seniors who consider themselves "super fit" let alone a causual 16 year old.

Pretty much agree with this but I will say- that "good" is such a relative term- to give an example: I was a decent runner in my teens and twenties. I ran sub 17's from my Junior year forward (so 16-18 yrs old) I thought I was the business(an was a cocky tool) as I competed in a fairly small/ weak conference and had lots of victories/ high finishes. I ended up running in college (in the USA) but was beyond mediocre there even w/ a high 15's 5k. Literally I was the 3rd-5th guy on a good Division 3 team(keeping in mind there are two divisions above D3) The point is, was I good by general population standards? Yes. Was I a particularly good runner in terms of the competitive running population? No.

Put it this way a guy running high mid to high 16mins ay 16-18 in the USA wouldn't have a shot at a sports scholarship at a US university. I guess the point of this post is to highlight that there are many different definitions of what "good" is. I myself (with age and time) think that anyone who trains hard, busts their ass and puts in the effort is "good" but thats just me....:)

ultrapercy

drquirky wrote: »

Pretty much agree with this but I will say- that "good" is such a relative term- to give an example: I was a decent runner in my teens and twenties. I ran sub 17's from my Junior year forward (so 16-18 yrs old) I thought I was the business(an was a cocky tool) as I competed in a fairly small/ weak conference and had lots of victories/ high finishes. I ended up running in college (in the USA) but was beyond mediocre there even w/ a high 15's 5k. Literally I was the 3rd-5th guy on a good Division 3 team(keeping in mind there are two divisions above D3) The point is, was I good by general population standards? Yes. Was I a particularly good runner in terms of the competitive running population? No.

Put it this way a guy running high mid to high 16mins ay 16-18 in the USA wouldn't have a shot at a sports scholarship at a US university. I guess the point of this post is to highlight that there are many different definitions of what "good" is. I myself (with age and time) think that anyone who trains hard, busts their ass and puts in the effort is "good" but thats just me....:)

It gets colder the higher you climb and you climbed to a fairly high level. In that context your evaluation of your then self as mediocre may be correct(or maybe not) but was in relation to a lot of others who had done a lot of climbing too. My post was in response to a reply to a specific question(which were both in good faith I believe) that might lead someone to think that a 16 min 5k is average or easily attainable which I don't think it is.

drquirky

ultrapercy wrote: »

It gets colder the higher you climb and you climbed to a fairly high level. In that context your evaluation of your then self as mediocre may be correct(or maybe not) but was in relation to a lot of others who had done a lot of climbing too. My post was in response to a reply to a specific question(which were both in good faith I believe) that might lead someone to think that a 16 min 5k is average or easily attainable which I don't think it is.

Yup. agreed UP...

Lusk_Doyle

ultrapercy wrote: »

It gets colder the higher you climb and you climbed to a fairly high level. In that context your evaluation of your then self as mediocre may be correct(or maybe not) but was in relation to a lot of others who had done a lot of climbing too. My post was in response to a reply to a specific question(which were both in good faith I believe) that might lead someone to think that a 16 min 5k is average or easily attainable which I don't think it is.

I agree completely with this. I think that it's disingenuous for anyone to suggest otherwise (even if it is without malice).

slingerz

burrenguy wrote: »

I hope to run a 5k cross country event in March. I'm in okay shape but have never really ran much before... the only running I do is playing soccer at school. What would be a decent time for me to aim at that I could build to in four ish months?

do it as fast and as hard as you can.

whatever time that is is a good time for you.

dont be focusing on specific numbers until you know where your at.

Clearlier

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

You see, the OP said "I'm in ok shape but have never really ran much before" and "what would be a decent time for me to aim at..."

You've put the OP, based on your post above, into the good general fitness slot. It may be down to terminology and the understanding that different people have of certain terms but I think that you have elevated the OP up above their own statement.

I would consider a decent time for someone of ok shape and never really having ran much before to be in the region of 25 mins for a 5k.

I would consider a good time for someone, like me, who runs fairly regularly (2 - 4 times a week) and does the odd race, to be sub 20 mins for a 5k. My own PB is 19:07 and I intend on getting sub 19 mins soon enough.

An exceptional time would be that which you mentioned of 16 mins for a 5k. Exceptional because it would certainly not be the norm and especially so for a person like the OP for the wording they had in their own opening post.

we're not answering the same question. probably my fault. I'll get into some detail when I'm in front of a computer again (probably Wednesday).

poeticseraphim

What is a good time for a 16 yr old male averagely fit for a 5k ? That is an impossible question.

Getting a time pulled out of the air by someone who has not seen you could either hold you back or it could delude you.

Secondary school boys who are very very good or competitive will run in the 16s or low 17s. The slower guys on a bys team will be 18-20 minutes, which is considerably faster than average but not competitive at all. Then some people will have to work hard to hit 30 mins not because of lack of fitness but simply running is harder for them. Point being, this is a question without an objective answer. Some people are naturals. The truth is what is good for most people is not really 'good' as in competitive.

If the person asking wanted to run competitively at his age then he simply should be aiming for 16 or 17 mins but that might be killing him as someone who has not run much etc. That is a very competitive time for a young guy and not at all average but it is a 'good time' if you know what I mean.

Realistically you should be aiming lower than you last ran really. I am sorry if this is frustratingly vague. But for people who train hard and might go from not being able to run a 5k any time is good.


When I first started running i was about 22 min 5k's after only a little while. I was in my twenties but long distance suited me. I am female by the way so for me that is very good (or at least in my mind anyway I am not competitive). A lot depends on the course I am small even for a girl and I found my light weight was an advantage on some courses and a disadvantage on others. Some courses will destroy your time.

I think the best advice is really to train the hardest you can and aim to get the best time.

Everyone is individual and only a coach who has seen you could tell you, joining a running club helped me.

Getting a time pulled out of the air by someone who has not seen you could either hold you back or it could delude you.


Realistically you should be aiming lower than you last ran really. I am sorry if this is frustratingly vague. But for people who train hard and might go from not being able to run a 5k any time is good.

If I was pushed I would say 18 , 19 or 20 mins would all be good times for a male in your position. But don't be too hard on yourself if it comes slower than that.

You should decide what you think you are capable of OP once you start training.

Getonwithit

Missed some of this! Clearlier you introduced the stat of 72 British boys running that time, so why can't I comment on it?
Are you answering the question or using te thread as a vehicle for yourself?
One of my local clubs medaled at the inter counties u16. 4 scorers would run between 16.40 and 17.30 for 5k. They're fit well trained boys. A good time for a novice 16yr old is like asking how long is a piece of string! Who knows what's this boys sporting background
If he's a swimmer he has a bigger aerobic base than a hurler?
What sort of shape is he in? Te reason I didn't offer a time was because its an impossible question to answer from behind the computer! Your answer was so ridiculous and dangerous in setting out a far too lofty goal that it deserved to be picked apart.

Clearlier

First apology is for the length of time that it has taken me to come back to this. I've just moved house and am still waiting for broadband.

Second apology is for the confusion that I caused. I distinguished two questions, one from the title and one from the text. Having re-read it it's clear that that wasn't the intention.

I think that the very first response (Beep Beep's) answered the OP's question very nicely. While you should be able to have a good go at predicting the time of somebody that you coach it's asking the impossible to predict the time of somebody you've never met and who has never done any specific training. As BeepBeep put it: 'How long is a piece of string?'.

The question that I answered (aside from my first line) was the title (which I accept was not intended by the OP to be taken independently of the text in the body of the message). To add a bit more confusion to the mix I then did bring in part of the text to my deliberations and was answering the question: What's a good 5k time for a novice 16 year old with 4 - 5 months training. I was not intending to say that this was a time that the OP should aim for (but it's undoubtedly most easily read that way hence my apology).

In the back of my mind here was the question: what would make me sit up and take notice and want to see how somebody progresses with a view to their potentially making an impact on the national/international stage? For that I do think that you're probably looking for something like 16 mins in a road/track 5k.

That doesn't mean that anybody running faster than 16 mins for 5k is going to be great or that anybody running slower than 16 mins is not going to be great. It's a number that shows a high level of pre-training ability and/or response to training stimuli.

If I'm looking to assess an athlete I'll want to look at where they started from, where they are now and what they've done in between the two - if you have a complete novice then an understanding of their sporting background and their general levels of activity is probably enough.

The current athlete is a function of their innate level of fitness allied to their training (where training is basically any physical activity).

Some people seem to have very high levels of innate fitness, some people very low, some people respond very well to training and some people respond hardly at all. These are two continuums where everybody fits somewhere on both but I'm not aware of any correlation between levels on the two continuums so you have people who start off very fast but improve only very slowly and others who start off very slow but improve really quickly. You also have to think about the length of time that somebody responds for so you get athletes that respond quickly but then plateau (although that could be a training stimulus problem too). Theoretically it would seem that elite athletes would be the ones that start off at a high level and respond well to training but somebody's ability to respond to training over a lengthy period of time can overcome that difference. That said, I've never come across a genuinely hopeless runner who through training became a top class athlete (despite what Charlie Spedding might have you think).

I would guess that Dennis Kimetto (Chicago (2:03:45) & Tokyo winner this year) started at a high level compared even to his peers as he appears to have done little running prior to being persuaded by Mutai to join his training group about 2 years ago whereas Stephen Kiprotich (Olympic and World championships marathon winner) famously asked Haile Gebreselassie what it took to be a champion, was told 5 years of hard training, and duly became an overnight sensation 5 years of hard training later.

What relevance does all this have to the OP? Not a lot except to say that you start from where you are and as you train you improve. With rare exceptions the more you train the better you'll do. Get to know yourself, understand how your body responds to different training stimuli and take that into account as you plan your journey. As far you can, manage your environment (sleep, nutrition, general levels and types of activities). Listen to other people but in the end make your own decisions. Winners make mistakes, losers are lead astray.

SnappyDresser

I think we all have an idea of what a good time for a novice 16 year old would be. If they ran close to say 21mins I would be impressed. Someone mentioned 16mins.....nah....no 16 year would bang out 16mins on little running experience...
I did myself however run DCM 3:11 marathon when 17 years old!!
Bloody proud of that!

menoscemo

i008787 wrote: »

I think we all have an idea of what a good time for a novice 16 year old would be. If they ran close to say 21mins I would be impressed. Someone mentioned 16mins.....nah....no 16 year would bang out 16mins on little running experience...
I did myself however run DCM 3:11 marathon when 17 years old!!
Bloody proud of that!

I know a 9 year old who ran a 5k in 20 minutes, he just pipped another 9 year old to the line in that race...

burrenguy

probably could have been mentioned beforehand... but a lad I know had a time of 21 ish minutes at the last race and came 10th.

clear thinking

Just go run one.

Come back here tell us the time you did, and you'll get some good training pointers based on that.

Give up that football rubbish, especially if it's GAA, it just adds unneccesssary muscle mass.

Timmaay

clear thinking wrote: »

Give up that football rubbish, especially if it's GAA, it just adds unneccesssary muscle mass.

Not to mention them GAA idiots will only run the sh%te outa ya with their blunt approach to training, and then make you run in theirown totally 1/2 arsed "charity" race, which instead of being 5k will be only 4.1km (giving you a guaranteed sub16 5k hopefully!!)

(tongue in cheek post before anyone asks )