# Is 13:38 a competitive 5k time for 16 year old

Wondering whether or not I should seriously take up running

181 to 200 of 395 messages
27/06/2013 at 09:15

Agree with SB, if you use a calories burned calculator http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

Then 220 equates to  3.1 km not 3.1 miles.

27/06/2013 at 09:18
Strangely Brown wrote (see)

Calories and distance don't tally Matt.

How do you know how many calories are reported? I could only see the first 2 digits, the rest are cropped

Womble wrote (see)

Matt you'll have to go out and run it on a track. Treadmills are not reliable. There are several in my gym and I'm getting to know which ones are faster/slower!

The treadmill could be under or over speed. My gym has 22 treadmills. They are all within about 2% of a calibrated footpod. GPS can be more inaccurate at times.

So I guess the only way this lot will be satisified is on the track, in which case we should rename the thread to "Is 13:38 a competitive 5000M time for 16 year old"

27/06/2013 at 09:22

I think I was the first to chime in with the calorie output.

The first two calorie digits were 22.

22 calories would be two few, 2200 would be too many.

so I guessed 22x?

27/06/2013 at 09:27
Screamapillar wrote (see)
Dustin wrote (see)

Matt, you really need to get to a track.

^ This. It's important you get proper confirmation. Because if this is anywhere near accurate then you could well have a running career in front of you  - but you won't get it by running on a treadmill in a gym. You'll need a track and a coach.

If it isn't accurate - then at least you'll know for sure.

Come on Screamy, there's no "if" to this.

A low 14 on a treadmill, with minimal warm up and not exactly smashing it? It makes that sub 17 5k woman with the tennis shoes look massively likely.

27/06/2013 at 09:27
Also-ran wrote (see)
Strangely Brown wrote (see)

Calories and distance don't tally Matt.

How do you know how many calories are reported? I could only see the first 2 digits, the rest are cropped

Womble wrote (see)

Matt you'll have to go out and run it on a track. Treadmills are not reliable. There are several in my gym and I'm getting to know which ones are faster/slower!

The treadmill could be under or over speed. My gym has 22 treadmills. They are all within about 2% of a calibrated footpod. GPS can be more inaccurate at times.

So I guess the only way this lot will be satisified is on the track, in which case we should rename the thread to "Is 13:38 a competitive 5000M time for 16 year old"

Well 22 would obviously be silly.  220-229 is what we assume is the figure and it isn't enough. 2200 is also silly.  Whatever the remaining digits are, they don't tally.

27/06/2013 at 09:28

wait...your not saying he ran  3.1 km not miles are you...which is v easy for a 16yr old to hit with no experience, decent warm up or background.

Then that means he isnt currently one of the best athletes in the US and wouldnt have won gold at last years olympics.  i didnt see this coming, Damn we were so close to greatness for a short while

Matt - 1 lap of your high school track will tell you (assuming it full size 400m) if you cant do it in 50 secs you are not the next big thing and it was the machine that was mistaken.

27/06/2013 at 09:29
Pete The Plod wrote (see)

I think I was the first to chime in with the calorie output.

The first two calorie digits were 22.

22 calories would be two few, 2200 would be too many.

so I guessed 22x?

Sorry, you're right, i'm stealing your thunder here!

27/06/2013 at 09:30

Out of interest, being a short term user of Runners World, is this time of year always silly season, or has this year seen a decent crop of threads

27/06/2013 at 09:32

SB, no problems, great minds eh?

27/06/2013 at 09:33

Calories: Matt thought he was entering his weight in Kg, when it should have been pounds.

What is this metric treadmill doing in the the US? I thought it would have been burnt.

27/06/2013 at 09:39

22x calories could be right for 3.1 miles...

...providing he's under 7 stone in weight...

...though it would also mean he'd have to be a maximum of about 5' 0" to be anything like a healthy weight for his height...

...Matt - height and weight?

27/06/2013 at 09:39
Stevie G . wrote (see)
Screamapillar wrote (see)
Dustin wrote (see)

Matt, you really need to get to a track.

^ This. It's important you get proper confirmation. Because if this is anywhere near accurate then you could well have a running career in front of you  - but you won't get it by running on a treadmill in a gym. You'll need a track and a coach.

If it isn't accurate - then at least you'll know for sure.

Come on Screamy, there's no "if" to this.

A low 14 on a treadmill, with minimal warm up and not exactly smashing it? It makes that sub 17 5k woman with the tennis shoes look massively likely.

OK I was being generous.

I think the point is that anyone can imagine how good they might be at something.  At the end of the day you either have to keep your fantasies of fame and fortune (or Olympic glory) to yourself or bite the bullet and find out for sure one way or the other.

Matt's gone public, so to my mind he now has to back his claim up or admit he was wrong.

27/06/2013 at 09:40

I think technology is just bad for us, what I mean by that is.........

to have a 5k road PB of 10:38 confirmed by by nike plus app.

my piece of crap garmin however was telling me I'd only covered 1.3 miles!!!

27/06/2013 at 09:42

What baffles me most is the absurdity of it all.  If you were going to waste your time on this sort of caper (and I really can't fathom why you would), why would you go for such a totally ludicrous time?

As attempted internet wind ups go, it's pretty ill judged.

27/06/2013 at 09:50

I think he genuinley believes it SB.

The fact remains that the chances of his being an undiscovered prodigy are practically nil compared with him being wrong about his distance.

And if he is - well, we heard it here first and can regale our friends and family with the tale when he breaks the world record in 2020

27/06/2013 at 09:51

I can't believe you lot are trying to do detective work on whether or not the calories match up to his stated time for 5K.  He's claiming to have casually cranked out a 13:38 on his own, on a treadmill, at age 16 for f***'s sake!  Of course it doesn't make sense!

Edited: 27/06/2013 at 09:52
27/06/2013 at 09:51

AlsoRan: This is the best thread for a while

27/06/2013 at 09:53
Dachs wrote (see)

I can't believe you lot are trying to do detective work on whether or not the calories match up to his stated time for 5K.  He's claiming to have casually cranked out a 13:38 on his own, on a treadmill, at age 16 for f***'s sake!  Of course it doesn't make sense!

We never said it did. But for some reason it still seems to make sense to him. Hence the advice to go and run it on a track.

We've already compared his times to the world's eites and he doesn't seem convinced so it's the only way to burst the bubble.

Edited: 27/06/2013 at 09:55
27/06/2013 at 09:59

We shouldn't rule out the possibilty that this chap might have seven foot long legs. Or maybe just four legs. Or be an antelope.

27/06/2013 at 10:08
Maybe he has been using my Garmin.
Last on last Sunday's hilly off-road run, miles 18-21 all came in at under 4 min / miles.
181 to 200 of 395 messages
Forum Jump
• 18/04/2014 01:31:40
• 18/04/2014 00:37:13
• 17/04/2014 23:54:07
• 17/04/2014 23:44:08