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

I have a suggestion.

Step I:

1) Find the average HS freshman time.

2) Take all seniors that ran 4 years and determine the average improvement from freshman to senior year (either time or % time change)

I would argue that the freshman team is a decent representation of the total population's as a whole. Since many drop after a year or two of not being successful, we can use the improvement % of their peers that do continue all 4 years to extrapolate how much the average freshman might have been expected to improve if he had trained all 4 years. Establish this as a senior baseline.

Step II:

Assume maybe a minute or two improvement with continued running over the next 5 years.

Example: Average Freshman time = 22:00, Average senior's improvement vs his freshman year = 1:30. Baseline for seniors = 20:30. Assume 1:30 additional improvement possible = 19:00.

Those numbers are totally made up but if you could use your database to get us to the HS senior baseline I described, I'd be curious to see where that is. Then we can at least use that as a starting point for further discussion.

Just sayin dude wrote:

ipso facto wrote:

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.

you've failed to ascertain the pointlessness of your query in regards to the topic at hand in the first place.

go back and reread what I previously wrote, then stop and think for a second about what you're asking and why, and then, if you're still curious about it, DO YOUR OWN READING AND RESEARCH. I don't care about you addressing what I've mentioned regarding VO2max. Honestly, couldn't care less. Not relevant in the least.

But since you're so interested and to further showcase how irrelevant the genetic limitations of VO2max are (yeah, you really do need to go read some) and why it's but one factor of athletic performance and not an overly determining one at that, I'll throw in some other little completely irrelevant teasers. There's a bit of info out there showing a DECREASE in VO2max while the athletes are progressing in fitness and running faster times. Intrigued? Yeah, go educate yourself. I'm not your personal rendition of Ask Jeeves.

Or you can continue to muddle the topic with your irrelevancy.

From my database with about 30 schools I have 5k times for the classes of 2010, 2011, and 2012 from freshman to senior year.

211 out of 595 freshman made it to senior year.

Mean Freshman Time: 22:17

Median Freshman Time: 21:49

Mean FRESHMAN Time for 4-Year Senior: 20:41

Median FRESHMAN Time for 4-Year Senior: 20:19

Mean FRESHMAN Time for quitters: 23:10

Median FRESHMAN Time for quitters: 22:39

Mean SENIOR Time for 4-Year Senior: 18:32

Median SENIOR Time for 4-year Senior: 18:25

54% of 4-year seniors broke 18:30.

42% broke 18:00

11% broke 17:00

5% broke 16:00

66% broke 19:00

83% broke 20:00

97% broke 22:00

The median improvement from freshman to senior year is 1:56 and the mean improvement is 2:08.

Boys who started out over 25:00 on average improved by 6:49 in four years. Boys starting between 22:00 and 25:00 improved by 4:04 in four years. Boys starting between 20:00 and 22:00 improved by 1:49 in four years. Boys starting between 18:00 and 20:00 improved by 1:03 in four years. Boys starting between 16:00 and 18:00 improved by 0:40 in four years.

The "quitters" who started out averaging 23:10 as freshman probably would have improved 3 to 4 minutes with proper motivation. They may have raised the 4-Year senior average by a minute, which still puts it at under 20:00.

First Good Answer wrote:

From my database with about 30 schools I have 5k times for the classes of 2010, 2011, and 2012 from freshman to senior year.

[..]

The "quitters" who started out averaging 23:10 as freshman probably would have improved 3 to 4 minutes [..]

1. This pool obviously only includes guys that have a natural interest in running. When do you not have interest in running? When you s*ck at it.

2. The quitters probably quit because they s*cked. At least I'd bet they weren't in the Top 10%.

I don't disagree with you. I just think it is wise to have an understanding of the real world averages before attempting to answer the proposed question.

The people who say that sub-16:00 is very mediocre and the people who say there is no way you can train an average man below 22:00 BOTH seem wrong to me.

Above I propose a real world average for a high school senior who works for four years is about 18:30. Now what are the things that will raise this average? What are the things that will lower this average? How much will each factor raise and lower the average?

Raise the average:

*Less naturally athletic kids forced to run

Lower the average:

*More athletic kids from other sports added into the average

*More competition from top to bottom

*Perfect ideal coaching and training (motivation included)

*Hypothetically no real world problems (money, work, family issues are non-factors)

*Training beyond high school (10+ extra years)

What is your problem? Why do you have to have an attitude about this? I'm asking to see which articles you have read. I've already told you that I've already read a bunch but it's impossible to know if I'm reading which ones you are reading. What is the problem???

ipso facto wrote:

Steve Martin wrote:

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.

Come on, seriously. Can you not just argue with the guy who is saying something different than you?

Maybe Kenya's a reasonable guide. Most Kenyan kids run a lot, eat well and are lean. Not optimal, but pretty close. What would the average Kenyan 18 yo run 5 k in? Can't imagine slower than 20. Fastest 13, so average 16-17. Americans are naturally a little more fast-twitch and bigger, maybe 17-18.

First Good Answer wrote:

From my database with about 30 schools I have 5k times for the classes of 2010, 2011, and 2012 from freshman to senior year.

211 out of 595 freshman made it to senior year.

Mean Freshman Time: 22:17

Median Freshman Time: 21:49

Mean FRESHMAN Time for 4-Year Senior: 20:41

Median FRESHMAN Time for 4-Year Senior: 20:19

Mean FRESHMAN Time for quitters: 23:10

Median FRESHMAN Time for quitters: 22:39

Mean SENIOR Time for 4-Year Senior: 18:32

Median SENIOR Time for 4-year Senior: 18:25

Hi this is great info. Is this info based on a runner's season PR, average for the season, end of season meet (district) or? Reviewing the data, I may need to revise my estimate downward to 19:00.

Interesting to note that it seems that anyone starting over 20:00 based on your ranges seems to end up in the same senior range of 18:00-21:00. This could indicate only a difference in fitness entering freshman year as opposed to an inherent running talent.

But this raises another question in my mind...I wonder if the only slow runners that are hanging around are those seeing rapid improvement. e.g. A slow 25:00 runner that sees no improvement quits while a slow 25:00 runner seeing vast improvement stays thus skewing the improvement number of 6:00. The kid may have the genetic talent but comes in fat and a couch potato and quickly loses weight and improves, where another kid is already lean and played sports (probably poorly) his whole life and has reached his potential and shows no improvement. Obviously it's impossible to know unless we could see a progression from beginning of season times to end of season times for freshman. Then we could see if those that quit had less improvement given the same starting time compared to those that stayed.

But this info is insightful. Thanks for providing.

First Good Answer wrote:

Above I propose a real world average for a high school senior who works for four years is about 18:30. Now what are the things that will raise this average? What are the things that will lower this average? How much will each factor raise and lower the average?

Raise the average:

*Less naturally athletic kids forced to run

Lower the average:

*More athletic kids from other sports added into the average

*More competition from top to bottom

*Perfect ideal coaching and training (motivation included)

*Hypothetically no real world problems (money, work, family issues are non-factors)

*Training beyond high school (10+ extra years)

did you not read the op? really, did you not read it al all?

what does high school have to do with ANYTHING?

you think optimal training starts and finishes at high school?

Except for your last sentence (training beyond hs, which OF COURSE they'd do), you don't address anything that has to do with the GENETIC potential of the average male.

Ergo, your ENTIRE premise is flawed.

Just sayin dude wrote:

What is your problem? Why do you have to have an attitude about this? I'm asking to see which articles you have read. I've already told you that I've already read a bunch but it's impossible to know if I'm reading which ones you are reading. What is the problem???

your irrelevant ignorance is the problem and your apparent (erroneous) assumption that pestering me about it will rectify the situation.

in addition to that, the general laziness that has been ushered in with the advent of the internet and people's apparent inability to figure things out on their own.

Steve Martin wrote:

ipso facto wrote:

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.

Come on, seriously. Can you not just argue with the guy who is saying something different than you?

can you not just say stupid things like training from birth?

My vote is 17:30. Some may say that sounds too fast, but the original question was "genetic potential", at whatever peak running age, assuming optimal weight, diet, and training. You can't look at average 5K times around the country, because as we all know and point out so often on this board is that very few in this country are at their optimal weight. And even the elites in our sport get ripped on for not having optimal training. And who here has the optimal diet? Not me. If I had to estimate my 5K running ability in terms of a percentile, I think it's around the 60th to 80th percentile. My times are a much higher percentile because of hard work and dediction. Not because of talent. And I've run in the 16s, but probably could have gone low 16 or maybe even sub 16 with optimal training at the right age. So I think 50th percentile could go 17:30, probably without a problem. If the question had been the same, but substituting "average Kenyan male" for average American male, people probably would've guessed 15:00 flat. But we're not that different genetically. It's just that they're not crazy fat like our country, and run everywhere from an early age. So no way are we genetically inferior by 7 minutes in the 5K.

Asker Of Things wrote:

What is the genetic potential for an average American male to run a 5K in, at whatever his peak running age is?

Using whatever training would optimally train him for a 5K, what could he run a 5K in?

Another way to put this is if every American male spent his life training to run his fastest possible 5K at the prime of his life, what would the median (50th percentile) time be?

Assume optimal weight, diet, training. Take into account that mileage and training will be limited by genetics (i.e. some runners can't handle more than 30 miles/week without injury).

Basically I'm wondering what the genetic potential is for an average American male for 5K. What about marathon?

•The average man is 34.4 years old.

•The average man is married with two children.

•The average man earns $36,100 per year and has $3,100 in the bank.

•The average man sleeps about 7 hours on a work night.

•Age when the average guy is in the best shape of his life: 23 years

•The average man is is about 5' 9" tall.

•He weighs 175 pounds.

•Percentage of men who consider themselves "physically fit": 69% ◦Percentage who actually are: 13%

ipso facto wrote:

your irrelevant ignorance is the problem and your apparent (erroneous) assumption that pestering me about it will rectify the situation.

in addition to that, the general laziness that has been ushered in with the advent of the internet and people's apparent inability to figure things out on their own.

This has nothing to do with laziness.

I've stated several times that I've read several papers, but regardless of how many papers I've read, I'll never know which are the ones that you have read. I don't understand how you don't understand that?

Can someone else chime in let me know that I'm not crazy???

Awesome post, nice work man.

I do think valid points are raised about people seeing less quick improvement are more likely to quit as well as those that are obviously at the worse end of the spectrum.

I also want to emphasize that HS training is no where near optimal for the majority of these kids. All but the very serious kids probably run less than 40 mpw, and we have to remember in out scenario here they have another 4-6 years to continue developing as runners.

Just sayin dude wrote:

ipso facto wrote:

your irrelevant ignorance is the problem and your apparent (erroneous) assumption that pestering me about it will rectify the situation.

in addition to that, the general laziness that has been ushered in with the advent of the internet and people's apparent inability to figure things out on their own.

This has nothing to do with laziness.

I've stated several times that I've read several papers, but regardless of how many papers I've read, I'll never know which are the ones that you have read. I don't understand how you don't understand that?

Can someone else chime in let me know that I'm not crazy???

i don't know if you're crazy, but you certainly seem pretty thick.

that you can't figure out how irrelevant your questions and whining are is one of the key indicators to the 'thick' bit.

ipso facto wrote:

i don't know if you're crazy, but you certainly seem pretty thick.

that you can't figure out how irrelevant your questions and whining are is one of the key indicators to the 'thick' bit.

how is it irrelevant? this whole thread is about the limits of training and human beings. i'm asking for information about the genetic limitations. how is that irrelevant? and who is whining?

Just sayin dude wrote:

ipso facto wrote:

i don't know if you're crazy, but you certainly seem pretty thick.

that you can't figure out how irrelevant your questions and whining are is one of the key indicators to the 'thick' bit.

how is it irrelevant? this whole thread is about the limits of training and human beings. i'm asking for information about the genetic limitations. how is that irrelevant? and who is whining?

you're whining by continually whining about research you can do yourself.

it's irrelevant because it doesn't have anything to do with the op. v02max ceiling is but one small factor of an athlete's physiological makeup and is not an indicator of what the average person can do in a 5k with optimal training for an optimal amount of time (you know, what the OP is about).

if you want to start a thread concerning VO2max, the genetic ceiling of that, and its correlation to race times, then do that.

quit hijacking this thread. i'll stop responding to your ignorance concerning this subject now.

feel free to post something stupid about 20 mins being the average or something to get this train back on the track.