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.