teh Forum

The top 10 male finishers in the Red Wave:

1 9342 MARK KRUEGER 50 WA 8:31
2 8063 OLIVER WOOD 15 SEATTLE WA 10:14
3 5741 YUZO ARIMA 26 SEATTLE WA 10:17
4 6191 BRIAN BERG 30 SEATTLE WA 10:53
5 8056 JASON WIX 28 TACOMA WA 11:41
6 6091 TOM HELPESTELL 45 OLYMPIA WA 12:30
7 8870 DAVE AUGUSTINE 31 SEATTLE WA 12:48
8 9108 MICHAEL VAN DIJKEN 32 SEATTLE WA 12:56
9 8919 RYAN MURRAY 28 SEATTLE WA 13:15
10 5972 KELLY YOUNG 35 SAMMAMISH WA 14:02


8minutes 31 seconds to run 3.5miles...and the guy is 50 years old

then there is a 15 year old that does it in 10:14... 3.5miles!!!!!!

This seems absolutely INHUMAN!!!!! 2minutes 26 seconds per mile!?!?!!? for 3.5 miles!??!?!?! HOW!???!??!??!?!?!??!?! The same thing happend last year some ridiculous time.

10:14 is crazy too....that's 3.5 sub 3 minute miles...back to back...

If you are curious how fast, in terms of MPH, that the 50yr old ran I calculated it out to be 24.675mph.

The 15yr old was running at 20.521mph...

This is average speed...there were probably times where they were running faster than that...for 3.5 miles...

Teh lowly l2icks0r! when he ran it last year averaged 7.4mph - that's 8:02 minute pace...

This simply cannot be...they must be on bikes or something or maybe wheel chairs? I dunno - I just looked up the world records for a SINGLE mile time - not 3.5 back to back...

Fastest time was set in 1999 in Rome by Hicham El Guerrouj from Morocco with a time of 3m 43.13s

That seems possible to me...

That's entirely impossible. I would be willing to bet large sums of money that I don't have that that was the "per mile" average time. I was running 7 to 8 minute miles when I used to run 5k when I was a kid (3rd grade.) I imagine a good runner could trim that down to 5 minutes per mile, and an excellent runner could get down slightly below 4 minutes. I believe the old target for "professional" runners was the "4-minute-mile" So that should give you an idea of how impossible it is for average 5k running 50-year-old to do a 2 minute mile. If someone could run that fast they'd be in the olympics, not running 5ks around here.

Oh, that totally sounds like the top speed you could ride on a -=<bike>=- on flat ground to me. I think you could hit the 40s going down a hill, but ...

That's unpossible. I think if you go to the official results, you can see how they calculated the "official time".

All results are based on the O’fficial Start Time of each wave. Your O’fficial Start Time is determined based on the color of your bib regardless of the wave you actually ran in.

Net Time is given in the results. This is the time you actually crossed the Start Line minus your finish time. This is given if available, however, not all start times are able to be captured. If your net time looks like it took you 9+ hours (i.e. 9:37:15) your start time was not captured.

All results are based on the O’ffical Start Time to stay consistent with USATF Rules for scoring road races. Net Time is given FYI only.

Age Awards are given to those that participated in the GREEN WAVE ONLY.

Note: Gay way of spelling "Official" is from the site and is not my doing...

So, you should use the Net Results to determine how long it took the participant to cover the official course from start to finish. 50 year old Mark Krueger (for example) took 18:30 to cover the course. This is still impressive for a 50 year old, but hardly as impressive as the speeds posted earlier by the licksor. My only guess for the difference between the Official and Net results is that the Red Wave got a "head start" in the race and the Green Wave is where the real stud runners are. Check the Green Wave results to see some (truly) amazing times.

Wow - very cool....Thanks Goemon... Actually the Green Wave went first at 9am and then at 9:10 the Red Wave got to go. So going by that it looks like I actually ran it faster than the official 28:22 time I got from last year...I remember it taking a little while to get to the start from how far back I started just don't remember how long it was...probably close to a minute I would say...so that would mean my time was more like 27:22...maybe less...so 7:49 minute miles...not bad considering the fastest I had done a mile before running that thing was 7:15...still not the fastest runner though...

You're hovering right around my good mile times from when I was 8. I could actually run a lot better back then. It only took about a half a mile for my running-numbnosity to kick in. (I refuse to call it the more popular thing.) Anyway, I don't even think I could run 5k right now. I'd probably have to start running a mile at a time to start and get back into it.

Hmmm...maybe that's my problem...I've never experienced runners high or numbosity...

Once that switches on, you could just run, and run, and run, and run, and run, and run... You can't really feel your legs, your breathing smooths out, and your head becomes really clear. It's kind of nice.

my feet can only take so much before something painful happens...have to build up the tendon strength in my feet because I have injured each foot twice...was extensor tendon strain that took about 6 weeks to heal each time...oh well...they will eventually toughen up.

That runner's high is great, btw. Recognizer recognizes correctly about "not feeling your legs" at all. The first time I got The Feeling was about 10 miles into a 13 mile run; for the last 3 miles, it felt like my head was just floating over the road.

Damnit I want to get high too!!!

Maybe yer neck's too thick fer floation?

Not any longer...have been keeping the neck in check by not overdeveloping neighboring muscle groups...

Keep dat neck in check.

Based on your mile splits you mentioned earlier and your propensity to challenge yourself, you should be able to attain the runner's high in no time (ie a few weeks).