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

Are we talking "Team in Training" type people? That's your average American attempting to train optimally at their level.

ipso facto wrote:

Do explain what exactly would limit someone from progressively building their mileage to 70 mpw over the span of nearly a decade. What physiological factor would cause them to be unable to obtain that?

A lot of people get injured consistently on considerably less than 70 MPW. A lot of people are just not built for running and would not be able to do that much at any sort of reasonable speed. A lot of people straight up hate running, and just wouldn't run that much.

But I know, I can't produce a peer reviewed study in some leading journal to back up any of my positions, but then again, neither can you.

Keep this in mind Bekele has probably not realized his full potential. Who knows what people could run if they made all the right moves, never got sick, ate the perfect diet whatever that is, etc....

Consider This wrote:

A lot of people get injured consistently on considerably less than 70 MPW. A lot of people are just not built for running and would not be able to do that much at any sort of reasonable speed. A lot of people straight up hate running, and just wouldn't run that much.

But I know, I can't produce a peer reviewed study in some leading journal to back up any of my positions, but then again, neither can you.

You didn't understand the topic of this thread

The median NYC finish time for men ages 20 to 34 is approximately 3:50. While some might argue this is a self-selected group of individuals (that includes non-Americans), I would argue that a 3:50 marathon is exactly what happens when an average American male spends his time trying to achieve their optimum fitness level.

3:50 Marathon = 23:36 5K

Consider This wrote:

ipso facto wrote:

Do explain what exactly would limit someone from progressively building their mileage to 70 mpw over the span of nearly a decade. What physiological factor would cause them to be unable to obtain that?

A lot of people get injured consistently on considerably less than 70 MPW. A lot of people are just not built for running and would not be able to do that much at any sort of reasonable speed. A lot of people straight up hate running, and just wouldn't run that much.

But I know, I can't produce a peer reviewed study in some leading journal to back up any of my positions, but then again, neither can you.

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. You have no concept of what people can or cannot do when conditioned from childhood. It's borderline stupid.

And we're not dealing with motivational factors here. The question revolves around GENETIC POTENTIAL. And to postulate that the genetic potential of an average male is 20 minutes or 40 mpw or whatever is asinine.

I seriously think that all you guys throwing out this 20 minute garbage are only doing so because a) you think you're so special and trained so hard to hit sub 16 or whatever and are incensed at the idea that any average joe could do it with optimal training or b) you think you trained so hard but aren't 'talented' enough to hit sub 16 and the thought that an average person could do it only showcases how you didn't optimally train.

Cholly wrote:

The median NYC finish time for men ages 20 to 34 is approximately 3:50. While some might argue this is a self-selected group of individuals (that includes non-Americans), I would argue that a 3:50 marathon is exactly what happens when an average American male spends his time trying to achieve their optimum fitness level.

3:50 Marathon = 23:36 5K

another person who can't read the thread.

are you seriously attempting to say that the average male optimally trained from childhood onwards could not better a 3:50 marathon?

READ THE QUESTION in its entirety and THINK.

No one is talking about pulling a 26 your old chump off the couch!

ipso facto wrote:

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. You have no concept of what people can or cannot do when conditioned from childhood. It's borderline stupid.

And we're not dealing with motivational factors here. The question revolves around GENETIC POTENTIAL. And to postulate that the genetic potential of an average male is 20 minutes or 40 mpw or whatever is asinine.

You don't have any more idea than I do what people can or cannot do when conditioned from childhood. And you just can't disregard motivation, because it comes from the brain and is probably part of someone's genetic makeup too, at least to an extent. I mean, if you are going to disregard the role of the brain in training, why not disregard the role of say, the lungs? And if you are going to disregard one function of the brain, how about others - for instance, let's say you believe in Noake's central governor idea, are we just going to assume that everyone would run so hard that they died?

could you make any more of an irrelevant tangent?

suffice to say that you've done nothing to discount the idea that the average person has the physiological capacity to do what I've said.

I think your brain may be fried. According to this line of logic taken to its logical conclusion, everyone should be able to handle 200 mile weeks as well. Look, not everyone has perfect mechanics. Have you seen some average runner's stride? Some have feet flailing, pronation, supination, low arches, weak knees, IT band issues, etc, etc. Yes some might be issues related to weight or things that could have been prevented, but others are just genetic: some people have genetically weaker body parts. Some things can be improved, but others can't and result in there being more strain on certain body parts thus resulting in injury at lower mileages than your number. Even Fernandez who in my mind has a perfect stride, cannot handle more than 50-60 miles a week without injury. Part of what makes the elites elite is their ability to handle high volume and to recover quickly. Not everyone can.

That's ridiculous. How do you get from 70-80 to 200?

And how would 200 be relevant to running a 5k in the first place?

Mechanics and stride have little to do with the issue at hand. Genetically weaker body parts? Are you kidding me?

Strength can be achieved as a result of adapting to stress. Bone density ('strong bones') is a DIRECT RESULT of stress. Having children running (in a natural setting, not in a structured, training regime) from an early age positively stresses joints and bones and increases strength and endurance. I.e., the AVERAGE ACTIVE child has no such 'weaker body parts'.

And your personal example has nothing to do with the situation either because I seriously doubt you train any where close to optimal. Same goes for Fernandez. Hell, I bet you both could hit 70 and hold it for as long as necessary provided you ran the appropriate paces on the appropriate terrain and had appropriate recovery. But you don't, you won't, and it's irrelevant anyway because it's unlikely that anything about your running is optimal in the first place.

There would be a lot less injuries if people were training optimally. All that gradual build-up of mileage through the early teens strengthening your body, no-one is overweright, plenty of playing barefoot outdoors at a young age etc. etc.

Every time you post you appear more and more illiterate. Please show me where I gave a personal example, or cited what my mileage is, or listed a time or any reference to my running ability.

"An Average active child has no weaker body parts"? so then everyone has exactly the same strength of bones, tendons, muscles, etc. Did you even take rudimentary biology or genetics class in middle/high school? You sir are a moron.

G Cup wrote:

There would be a lot less injuries if people were training optimally. All that gradual build-up of mileage through the early teens strengthening your body, no-one is overweright, plenty of playing barefoot outdoors at a young age etc. etc.

precisely.

Asker Of Things wrote:

Every time you post you appear more and more illiterate. Please show me where I gave a personal example, or cited what my mileage is, or listed a time or any reference to my running ability.

"An Average active child has no weaker body parts"? so then everyone has exactly the same strength of bones, tendons, muscles, etc. Did you even take rudimentary biology or genetics class in middle/high school? You sir are a moron.

yep, must have read something else and then attributed it to your post, so disregard that part.

still stands for Fernandez.

so your rebuttal is to call me a moron. that's absolutely brilliant in and of itself. please cite where I ever said anything about everyone being biologically identical?

if you'll take a second to read, you'll note how I stated that stress improves strength and that impact stress has a HUGE IMPACT on bone density (strength). Ergo, you can't refute what I said and resort to ad hominems. Ergo, you can't debate. Ergo, my assertion that the average male being optimally trained from child hood would NOT be subject to some stupidly low mileage ceiling like 40 mpw STILL STANDS.

Ergo, well, catching on, yet?

Asker Of Things wrote:

"An Average active child has no weaker body parts"? so then everyone has exactly the same strength of bones, tendons, muscles, etc. Did you even take rudimentary biology or genetics class in middle/high school? You sir are a moron.

oh, and go look up the word 'average' one more time before calling other people morons. it'll save you some embarrassment. maybe.

and if you're going to put quotes around something and allude that someone else said it, you might want to actually write out an accurate quote. Otherwise you're just being disingenuous and it appears you're intentionally misconstruing what someone says to further your (very weak) rebuttal.

ipso facto wrote:

yep, must have read something else and then attributed it to your post, so disregard that part.

still stands for Fernandez.

so your rebuttal is to call me a moron. that's absolutely brilliant in and of itself. please cite where I ever said anything about everyone being biologically identical?

if you'll take a second to read, you'll note how I stated that stress improves strength and that impact stress has a HUGE IMPACT on bone density (strength). Ergo, you can't refute what I said and resort to ad hominems. Ergo, you can't debate. Ergo, my assertion that the average male being optimally trained from child hood would NOT be subject to some stupidly low mileage ceiling like 40 mpw STILL STANDS.

Ergo, well, catching on, yet?

At a certain point one has to just admit there's no reasoning with a chimp. Ergo, you're an idiot.

Asker Of Things wrote:

At a certain point one has to just admit there's no reasoning with a chimp. Ergo, you're an idiot.

that, my friend, is a concession.

glad I could teach you something today.

My vote is 16-18 minutes (I know that's a really wide range). I know it's true that many people, at first, end up running track or cross country because they want to get in shape or couldn't make the football team, but I don't think that means there's lots of potential 13:30 5k guys out there who never found their way to running. Someone with loads of natural talent like that should be able to run a 5:00 mile in gym class no problem off of soccer/basketball/whatever training, at which point someone will try to talk them into running.

Some of it depends on how well you convert from fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fibers, if at all, and as far as I know research isn't really conclusive. I think it would be hard to turn e.g. Walter Dix into a good 5ker. Even if he wanted to he'd have a hard time losing enough muscle mass to lighten up without having other problems from lack of protein.