What Is the Best 5K Time An Average American Could Optimally Be Trained To Run?

ipso facto wrote:

Just sayin dude wrote:

This is what I'm asking about. Where is the evidence that VO2max is genetically limited?

at this point I'm forced to think that if you really cared, you'd spend .7 seconds googling it.

what is the point of saying that? just answer the question if you have the answers. i want to address the same evidence that you are using. i won't know which evidence you're using unless you post about it.

Even though 50% of high school seniors break 20 according to that database, I'm not sure that's a good indication because each year is a positive selection process. The worst freshman and sophomores are less likely to return the next year. The best are more likely to return.

I went to a school where we had 25 freshman on the XC team but only 5 or so made it to senior year running (no one was cut). So if you say 2 or 3 of the 5 broke 20, you're forgetting the largely slower ones that never came back after running 23:XX freshman year.

ipso facto wrote:

KPack wrote:

btw, my prediction is still 19-20 minutes. I was just saying that the 16 minute estimates were laughable.

it's laughable because it makes your prs embarrassingly 'normal'?

again, trained from childhood, what physiological factors would limit an average male from training and hitting the relatively mediocre time of 16 minutes?

spell it out for us, don't just copy and paste some links.

My pr long ago in xc was in the 16s, and I did not train optimally, my weight was not optimal, form, etc; I was always faster than others from birth, though. I simply think that the numbers are off. When I was younger and even now my ego wasn't terribly dependent on my speed on the track, although I am trying to set a pr again. Let me look at lore of running and see what he actually says about the distribution of talent and what that means.

I would say that simply based on adjustments for vo2, height/weight ratios, body design, and other physical/mental differences I'd think that going from elite to average is worth at least a 30-40% increase.

My guess would be that differences in body design and weight would add 20-25% to the time of an elite(avg weight of 130 for a runner vs 170 for average), v02 would be worth 5-10%, muscle fiber distribution and explosiveness would be worth 5-10%, coordination would be significant.

Like any sport, elite athletes are far better than average, but they make it look easy.

Asker Of Things wrote:

Even though 50% of high school seniors break 20 according to that database, I'm not sure that's a good indication because each year is a positive selection process. The worst freshman and sophomores are less likely to return the next year. The best are more likely to return.

I went to a school where we had 25 freshman on the XC team but only 5 or so made it to senior year running (no one was cut). So if you say 2 or 3 of the 5 broke 20, you're forgetting the largely slower ones that never came back after running 23:XX freshman year.

Okay, fair enough. I know it's a small sample size and is flawed for the reason you gave and others, but I wanted to try to use stats as a basis to begin with instead of all the speculation.

LM says that 90% of his team runs under 20:00 before graduation. Some schools have one or no boys under 20:00. How often do we see a kid start up a thread asking for coaching advice because his coach "sucks" and he is the only person under 20:00?

The sample size that I used with 200 seniors across three seasons included about 30 schools. Some of those programs are great, and some of those programs "suck."

Ideally I could dig into Milesplit's database and see what they offer as a median, but the public stats only go to the 10,000th runner. The 10,000th boy in the US last season is at 16:19, but how many boys ran 5k's in the US last year? Maybe 10,000 per state for a medium state?

Actually the 10,000th boy on Milesplit is 17:02. I was filtering it wrong. 10,000th senior is 17:57.

According to NFHS, about 247k boys run cross country in America. That puts 17:02 in the 4th percentile of all high school boys running cross country.

wepmad wrote:

11:50 5K doesn't even seem too crazy, if Daniel Komen could run a 7:20 3K it doesn't strike me as completely crazy that with perfect conditions and genetics that someone could run an extra 2K at the same pace.

Unfortunately, that would yield a 12:15. You'd have to run a 7:05 3K and keep up the pace to run 11:50.

Just sayin dude wrote:

KPack wrote:

a lot of a person's potential in the 5k is genetic, although you can push some levers

Meh. From the glance I just took of the VO2max stuff (if that's what you're talking about). I see nothing that soundly indicates that VO2max is genetic. Does anyone know of any studies that soundly show that VO2 max is genetic? Or that fitness period is genetic?

Or that fitness period is genetic? Much of athletic potential is genetic. See the article on the front page about the Australian long jumper.

KPack wrote:

Or that fitness period is genetic? Much of athletic potential is genetic. See the article on the front page about the Australian long jumper.

What evidence do you base that on? I want to see it so I can understand. And I don't see the article about the long jumper. What does he/she have to do with this?

I used to believe that I was pretty average to MAYBE just above average in talent. This stemmed from the fact that when I first started running my junior year of high school, I was way back of the pack and even got beat by some of the girls when running the 3200m races. With some modest training my senor year of probably 20 to 35 mpw, I was able to routinely run 18:00ish 5ks and right around 5:05 for the mile in practice during cross-country season, eventually set PR's of 4:45 in the mile and 2:02 in the 800m in track. In college My PR's improved to 1:59, 4:03 1500m, 8:38 3000m, and 15:14 5000m. Even towards the end of my college career, I viewed myself as pretty average overall, and very below average in Division I.

Looking back on it, I see that I was way off in my perspective. I know many people that put in a lot of work in running who could never dream of breaking 20min for a 5k, or under 4 hours for a marathon. Body type, exercise background, and motivation do not really matter. A vast majority of people who are passionate about running could not come close to running even mediocre times by LetsRun standards. That is just the way it is.

Also, the idea that other sports end up taking away the talent that could excel in running is overrated. And even if we "discovered" a lot of potential athletes that excel in running from other sports, those numbers would not significantly impact the true "average" (I would estimate that less than 10 percent of the student body participates in a sport in high school).

Here is the article on the Australian long jumper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sports/18iht-sroljump18.html?_r=2&ref=global

Interesting stuff. Some people just have it, although of course hard work is involved in any sport.

Longrun5 wrote:

Body type, exercise background, and motivation do not really matter. A vast majority of people who are passionate about running could not come close to running even mediocre times by LetsRun standards. That is just the way it is.

evidence man, evidence!

Just sayin dude wrote:

Longrun5 wrote:

Body type, exercise background, and motivation do not really matter. A vast majority of people who are passionate about running could not come close to running even mediocre times by LetsRun standards. That is just the way it is.

evidence man, evidence!

Dude, it's impossible to provide concrete evidence for such claims. What do you want? Pictures? Data that I've gathered on an excel spreadsheet? Video interviews? How could I possibly provide evidence?

Maybe the simple solution is a study.

I propose a longitudinal study where early to mid grade schoolers are randomly selected and put into a running program. If we could get a sample size of say, at least 1000, this could provide some insight about what the true averages are.

Longrun5 wrote:

Just sayin dude wrote:

evidence man, evidence!

Dude, it's impossible to provide concrete evidence for such claims. What do you want? Pictures? Data that I've gathered on an excel spreadsheet? Video interviews? How could I possibly provide evidence?

Maybe the simple solution is a study.

I propose a longitudinal study where early to mid grade schoolers are randomly selected and put into a running program. If we could get a sample size of say, at least 1000, this could provide some insight about what the true averages are.

Yes, a study is exactly what I'm looking for. That's not impossible

I agree. There is no way the average male even with 10 years of amazing training can break 6:00 min per mile pace for a full 5k, so I'm going with a lower bound of 18:36. The upper bound is tricky, I think its about 21:45 or so. I think that the majority of males can run 7:00 min pace for a 5k after a long period of great training (most of them will likely get better bodies during that time period).

Just sayin dude wrote:

ipso facto wrote:

at this point I'm forced to think that if you really cared, you'd spend .7 seconds googling it.

what is the point of saying that? just answer the question if you have the answers. i want to address the same evidence that you are using. i won't know which evidence you're using unless you post about it.

the point is to showcase your laziness and apparent willingness to remain ignorant.

Longrun5 wrote:

Body type, exercise background, and motivation do not really matter. A vast majority of people who are passionate about running could not come close to running even mediocre times by LetsRun standards. That is just the way it is.

that's a ridiculous assertion.

we are talking about active children active throughout puberty who start incorporating running at the onset or just after puberty.

Exercise background is controlled for, motivation isn't a factor, and body type isn't nearly as significant for running 16 minutes as it would be for running 13.

So none of what you wrote has absoluty any bearing on the physiological capacity of the average male to hit 16 under optimal, 'life-long' training conditions.

Jakethefake wrote:

I agree. There is no way the average male even with 10 years of amazing training can break 6:00 min per mile pace for a full 5k, so I'm going with a lower bound of 18:36. The upper bound is tricky, I think its about 21:45 or so. I think that the majority of males can run 7:00 min pace for a 5k after a long period of great training (most of them will likely get better bodies during that time period).

why? what would limit the average man from doing so?

details, bro.

Steve Martin wrote:

Just sayin dude wrote:

we're not talking about 3-4 years. we're talking about a from birth, arent we?

I am not sure. The OP said "spent his life", but does that mean he started from birth, or from the age that kids begin athletics? My guess is he means taking the time that is usually spent doing other sports, which usually begins in elementary school.

no one is talking about 'from birth'. you're not doing anything at birth (or as an infant) except eating, pooping, and sleeping so why would that even be mentioned?

come on. seriously.

ipso facto wrote:

Just sayin dude wrote:

what is the point of saying that? just answer the question if you have the answers. i want to address the same evidence that you are using. i won't know which evidence you're using unless you post about it.

the point is to showcase your laziness and apparent willingness to remain ignorant.

you apparently have no reading comprehension. I said that I want to see what evidence YOU are looking at, because it's impossible for me to know exactly what you are looking at even if I do a search.

And I never said that I didn't look for any. I looked and didn't see anything conclusive. But that still is irrelevant, because I don't know what YOU are looking at.

so i guess we've showcased your lack of reading comprehension.