I disagree on your “equivalent” of an 18:30, or even a 20:00, 5k time with a 1:40/100 swim pace. Those run times take a little work. That swim pace you can pretty much be doggie paddling.
if only that were true!
it’s weird. runners get out of shape and there times go way down. non-runners start running and get in shape and get good times.
swimmers get out of shape, with beer guts (I’m not talking about you, but about people I see at the pool) and still swim fast. in-shape people who didn’t grow up swimming work and work and still swim 2:00/100s, 2:30/100s.
if you’re talking about competitive swimmers only, then i’ll have to take your word for it.
I disagree on your “equivalent” of an 18:30, or even a 20:00, 5k time with a 1:40/100 swim pace. Those run times take a little work. That swim pace you can pretty much be doggie paddling
I’m with you tigerchik. 1:40/100 swim is pretty slow. It does not take me long to get to 1:25/100 pace, and I am a pretty poor swimmer. But my fastest ever 5k was 19:30, and I thought I was going to have a heart attack. By no means am I great runner… but those equivalences are WAY off. Most of the winners of the 5K’s around here seem to be in the 15:MID range. I guess by ratios that would put the swim equivalence at about 1:15 range with a 18:30 5K, which I am thinking is much closer. But the whole thing is ridiculous in any case. Swimming, by and large is so technical that a good swimmer can stay out of the water for a long time and get back in and in short time get back to a reasonable pace. I think that running requires a longer time to achieve. Not that either is easy…just different and hard to compare.
I don’t really train specifically towards the 5K and my 5K PR actually came during a duathlon where I was chasing down a guy for second place. My best stand alone 5k is 20:19. Some day I am going to have to try and rectify that. I would never say that a 20:00 5K is super fast for anyone except me though, and quite frankly I have never heard anyone with any experience say that it is. I’ve heard of the sub-1:00 hour IM swim, or the 1:00 hour 40K TT, and the sub 3 marathon thrown around as benchmarks.
I disagree on your “equivalent” of an 18:30, or even a 20:00, 5k time with a 1:40/100 swim pace. Those run times take a little work. That swim pace you can pretty much be doggie paddling.
if only that were true!
it’s weird. runners get out of shape and there times go way down. non-runners start running and get in shape and get good times.
swimmers get out of shape, with beer guts (I’m not talking about you, but about people I see at the pool) and still swim fast. in-shape people who didn’t grow up swimming work and work and still swim 2:00/100s, 2:30/100s.
if you’re talking about competitive swimmers only, then i’ll have to take your word for it.
Yeah i never understood swimming. For competitive swimming where the guys have really broad shoulders, large hands/feet, great physique and impeccable form; sure nobody is really going to go faster than them without some natural talent/lots of training. But for the everyday joe swimmer, fitness doesn’t seem to equal success. I swam a long time ago with a close friend. I was in great shape at the time, and my friend was absolutely obese. He was damn fast in the water though. The only thing I could think of at the time was perhaps, Fat floats, Muscle sinks. All things being equal perhaps a large portion of my effort was put towards buoyancy, where he could just float and push forward…
I’m just your Average Joe Runner (Jogger), but I worked hard and finally broke the 20 minute barrier a few months back. Now I want to see if I can go sub 40 in a 10K.
Comparing “equivalent” swim and run paces could be a whole 'nother thread - figure out what vo2 is required to run the 6:26/mi pace (easy to do I just don’t have the equation handy) and the same swim pace at that calculated oxygen consumption (I’ve never seen a table of 1:10/100 = X ml/kg/min … you can measure oxygen consumption in the pool but it’s a lot harder). But I think that would be the only fair way to compare them.
That is the best exercise-phys student answer I can come up with at the moment
now I’m going to act like a slowtwitcher and draw some ridiculous conclusions: a 500 free, if you’re good, should have you racing at pretty near your vo2 max… a 5k is also run at pretty near your vo2 max. One day in April I ran a 20:14 5k in the morning and had a swim meet in the afternoon. I went 5:54 in the 500. I conclude that 20 min 5k = 1:11/100. YRMV.
LOL. Technique is the key in swimming. I fight to turn in a 1500m in 30 minutes- only done it 2-3 times in the pool, never in OW. I can (could? that broken ankle is healed, but only 3 weeks back to running…) run sub-20, and am decent on the bike for 40k (in a tri- TT racers would kill me). Sad to think that my poor swimming is leaving 45+ sec/100 on the table
For the OP- it’s a cool benchmark (I never did a 5k until age 30, my only one so far- 19:31), but just a stop on the way. I’m proof you can take an inappropriate body type from the wrong athletic background, give them a few years of decent base, and see some decent results. You sound like you have a little more the body type for running- I bet sub 19, at least, is possible for you this year.
Since I’ve gotten into tri and started doing the 3 sports. I noticed that for running, both locally and online, people making a big fuss about doing 5km in 20min. At first I thought this sounded really insanely hard. But I’ve been slowly improving, running once or twice a week over the last 2-3 weeks, and after my 5th run last night I did 8km in 37min without pushing that hard. It seems pretty close and I think I can do the 5km in 20min, which I’ll try on my next run.
I was ectatic at these results at first. But then I got to thinking. Is this even THAT fast? If I can come somewhat close after my 5th time running, and obviously I’m no pro or anything. Then does it really mean anything? Well, I knew A LOT of people out there were definately faster than me so I went on my University’s website to look at the Cross Country results for 10km. The students were doing it 10km in avg. of 35 min. the leaders were doing it in about 32min. That’s a blistering 16min per 5km! and that’s with saving energy for the ADDITIONAL 5km added on!
These are just the local university cross-country results, so they’re not indicitive of worldclass performance either. So all this being said… 20min for 5km? WHO CARES? I don’t understand what the big deal is? Does anyone know why it’s such a common benchmark?
20 min is good for a female. When I was in college we only had a few girls who could break the 20 min. And not that I coach I only have one female athlete who can run sub 20 min.
But you are correct 20 min for a guy isn’t good at all. It may be fast for some and if their goal is to hit the 20 min that’s great. But for any serious male age grouper 20 min should be pretty easy.
I popped out a mid 29 min 8k after not running in about 6 months in very poor conditions. I believe that I ran it at about 5:53 pace which would have been a sub 19 min 5k pace. I’m not trying to toot my own horn because I don’t think that a 29min 8k is something to be proud of but I’m supporting anixon’s point that a sub 20 min 5k isn’t all that fast.
now I’m going to act like a slowtwitcher and draw some ridiculous conclusions:
Now that is funny.
a 500 free, if you’re good, should have you racing at pretty near your vo2 max… a 5k is also run at pretty near your vo2 max.
I don’t like where you are going with this…
**One day in April I ran a 20:14 5k in the morning and had a swim meet in the afternoon. I went 5:54 in the 500. I conclude that 20 min 5k = 1:11/100. YRMV. **
DOH!!! I’m totally busted! Completely inadequate in the pool. This past winter I did a 7:35 for 500M. I was tired but I don’t think I was near my VO2 max. Honestly, I don’t spend a whole lot of time in the water. I like swimming, it is just hard to fit it in with the inconvenient times the pool I swim in is open.
You and Rahaung are going to be perfect for Slowtwitch. You both just got off the couch, you haven’t done anything yet and you’re telling us how easy it is. You’re perfect. Stop admiring yourself in the mirror, go do some training, then some races, then post something after you at least have some experience. Please!
haha Are you sure? I already have lost 33 lbs, upgraded from Cat4 to Cat2, have been 2nd overall at Presque Isle TT, have a course record on a local TT course (broke a 10 year old record) and have done 51:56 38k and 53:12 39k in less than 23 months from couch potatoism. And now I just started running.
As athletes posting on a forum-arent we all a bit conceited and looking for some attention if we post?!?!?!
I do admit I do admire myself quite a lot-that you did get right. Thats why I got a blog.
ahhh-but if your talking about just running-why yes I havent done anything.
FWIW, I looked up the results of a local 5K. 25 out of 384 people broke 20 minutes. 20 minutes puts you in the top 7-8% of the population who would consider running a 5K. That’s pretty good.
I just looked up the results for the 5K I did for fun on the 4th w/ my wife who is training for her first half-marathon. The 2008 results aren’t posted yet (it’s a smallish race on St. Simons - go figure) but in 2007 only 21 people out of 440 broke 20 min. I’m guessing Barry’s example and this one are pretty consistent with most races.
That said, I also think that most people / adults who start running a lot move quickly past that relatively short distance…
FWIW, I looked up the results of a local 5K. 25 out of 384 people broke 20 minutes. 20 minutes puts you in the top 7-8% of the population who would consider running a 5K. That’s pretty good.
I just looked up the results for the 5K I did for fun on the 4th w/ my wife who is training for her first half-marathon. The 2008 results aren’t posted yet (it’s a smallish race on St. Simons - go figure) but in 2007 only 21 people out of 440 broke 20 min. I’m guessing Barry’s example and this one are pretty consistent with most races.
That said, I also think that most people / adults who start running a lot move quickly past that relatively short distance…
My perception of running events growing up was that people went out to win. I guess I’ve realized that North America in general seems to take running less as a competitive sport and more of a be fit and be active, get out there and do something activity. Must have been all those Hal Johnson and Joann McLeod Body Break commercials in the late 1990s. When you describe local 5kms now, i guess it brings up images of toddlers running behind their mommies, tax accountants and marketing execs running in team-building corporate groups, and some overweight people jogging/speed walking their way to healthier hearts. The 21 that broke the 20min, I guess were all from a local high school cross-country team on a field-trip looking to “clean house”.
Ok, I might be a little bit sarcastic up there, but i can’t really get a handle on what it means to be top 7% of… I don’t know what these local events are.
FWIW, I looked up the results of a local 5K. 25 out of 384 people broke 20 minutes. 20 minutes puts you in the top 7-8% of the population who would consider running a 5K. That’s pretty good.
Thanks for bringing that up. People continually ask me whether I am fast and I struggle to answer. On ST my 20:14 PR is awful, but in the “real” world maybe I could say was not-so-bad
Years ago I talked to an old triathlete who had done Ironman when it was only in Hawaii about his race at the 5K National championships. He said "All races are painful’'. Now I’m an old guy with 29 years in running and triathlon and I add ‘‘If they are done properly’’. At one time I raced a lot of 5K’s and 18 or 19 minutes was expected but it was never ‘‘easy’’. Now, with two surgically repaired knees and a balky lower back, I wish I could run enough to be back at that pace. When you go to your next (first) race, talk to some of the fast people. They’ll all tell you the same thing. If they weren’t out there breaking their asses every day, they’d be back at the back of the pack. This sport is never easy.
Years ago I talked to an old triathlete who had done Ironman when it was only in Hawaii about his race at the 5K National championships. He said "All races are painful’'. Now I’m an old guy with 29 years in running and triathlon and I add ‘‘If they are done properly’’. At one time I raced a lot of 5K’s and 18 or 19 minutes was expected but it was never ‘‘easy’’. Now, with two surgically repaired knees and a balky lower back, I wish I could run enough to be back at that pace. When you go to your next (first) race, talk to some of the fast people. They’ll all tell you the same thing. If they weren’t out there breaking their asses every day, they’d be back at the back of the pack. This sport is never easy.
That holds true for every sport, pretty much. I’ve been competing in something or another for 37 years, and in the sports that I do/did at a high level were fun after the fact, rarely during.
I guess I’ll find out how far off from this I am tomorrow morning. Although Ive only run 5 times maybe I signed up for a 5k just to get a baseline. I just hope I dont try and run too fast and end up sore for a few days. Even if it takes me 24 minutes I’ll post it up.
My PR for a pretty flat 10K is a shade under 40 minutes - and I probably should have been hospitalized for heat stroke afterwards. That was when I was twenty years younger, 15 pounds lighter, and before kids. Today if I could run a 23 minute 5K I’d be pretty happy.
You and Rahaung are going to be perfect for Slowtwitch. You both just got off the couch, you haven’t done anything yet and you’re telling us how easy it is. You’re perfect. Stop admiring yourself in the mirror, go do some training, then some races, then post something after you at least have some experience. Please!
What are you talking about? We’re having a conversation regarding something that relates to our experiences. Nobody was saying the sport of Tri as a whole is easy. We’re just discussing one small aspect of training, 20km in 5min. And yes, perhaps it might seem a bit easy, most of the subsequent posters have agreed. You don’t need to have hundreds of hours of training, and years of competing under your belt to discuss a training benchmark. To think so is just silly.
Yeah, I agree. I have spent a lot of years running, and on a good day, can go 23:00 for a 5K. Granted, I’m 29, and have a lot of health issues. You should accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, you have a modicum of talent that a lot of other folks do not have, and stop inadvertantly talking shit to those of us who would fall over in convulsions if we ever looked at the race results and saw a sub-20 5K. I know you’re new and have a limited frame of reference, but it ain’t that easy for everyone, especially me. I’ll be ready and waiting to pounce on ya if you ever post in a thread whining about “why can’t I hold 1:10 100’s in the pool”, since that is my forte. The bike and the run tend to be depreesing for me. But I LOVE the swim threads, so watch out…
"I disagree on your “equivalent” of an 18:30, or even a 20:00, 5k time with a 1:40/100 swim pace. Those run times take a little work. That swim pace you can pretty much be doggie paddling. "
Evidence that the talented really don’t have any perspective on how it is for us mere mortals in the context of their sport.
I was the same when I was a gymnast. I just couldn’t comprehend how it could be so hard for people to do a simple somersault, but I watched the mandatory gymnastics class as my schoolmates at USNA flopped around like fish out of water, and that’s how it was.
I’ve been swimming for awhile now, and couldn’t come close to a 1:40/100 if I was rocket propelled.
