RunnersWorld defines the "average runner". - Thoughts?

If you run once, are you a runner? After all, if you murder someone once, you'll always be a murderer.

In other words, the data doesn't make sense since I would be most if not all of us would agree that completing a race doesn't make one a runner. Neither does absolute speed or some other time goal. Probably running frequency. Do you run regularly? I'd like to see the data filtered for those that run at least 3 times per week year round. It will be a heck of a lot different.

Interesting that the 10K times are less than double the 5K times. Fewer walkers in the 10K, more actual runners. 10K averages are at a faster pace for both men and women.

OMG you "runners" are slow.

and SCRAWNY

Define "quite a few".

My thoughts: they took all the runners and averaged their times.At least someone there knows how to do that

Would be interested to see the standard deviations...

luv2run wrote:

Would be interested to see the standard deviations...

I can tell you the standard deviation.

Slow / SCRAWNY

Slower / SKINNY FAT

Super Slow / FAT-FAT

I sometimes see those clowns when my bros and I are doing some outdoor workouts (sprints, flipping tractor tires, etc.)

ReallySlow wrote:

...

Average 5k time for a man - 28:46. I know quite a few people on here could run a 10k in that time.

So?

First of all I doubt there are a whole lot of folks on here who could run a 10k in 28:46.

Second, even if there were thousand of 'us' able to do so, that would not be relevant in any way.

Go to any of thousands of 5ks out there. Finish in under 20 minutes and you are what, top 5%? There are a handful ahead of you and hundreds or thousands behind you. So, average for a man at 28:46 - sounds about right.

So Man wrote:

Go to any of thousands of 5ks out there. Finish in under 20 minutes and you are what, top 5%? There are a handful ahead of you and hundreds or thousands behind you.

I have always criticized these Mickey Mouse running events (e.g. World Major Marathons) for being bottom heavy. Few fast runners and then all the "Skinny-fatties". The problem with running is there is no incentive to be fast. When you're fast, you still don't look like a real man (i.e. BUFF). So, what's the point?

What more proof do you need that drug testing is effective?

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

So Man wrote:

Go to any of thousands of 5ks out there. Finish in under 20 minutes and you are what, top 5%? There are a handful ahead of you and hundreds or thousands behind you.

I have always criticized these Mickey Mouse running events (e.g. World Major Marathons) for being bottom heavy. Few fast runners and then all the "Skinny-fatties". The problem with running is there is no incentive to be fast. When you're fast, you still don't look like a real man (i.e. BUFF). So, what's the point?

Good to see you back posting on these boards X-Fit Guy

luv2run wrote:

My thoughts: they took all the runners and averaged their times.At least someone there knows how to do that

Would be interested to see the standard deviations...

____________________________________________________________

Those aren't average times, they are median times. Half the field ran faster, half the field ran slower.

No surprise. What's nice to see in the article is the rise in running participation and racing events. No matter what kind of runner you are you should feel good about growth in our sport, even if it is mostly amateur growth. The more runners, the more interest. The more interest, the more talent.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

So Man wrote:

Go to any of thousands of 5ks out there. Finish in under 20 minutes and you are what, top 5%? There are a handful ahead of you and hundreds or thousands behind you.

I have always criticized these Mickey Mouse running events (e.g. World Major Marathons) for being bottom heavy. Few fast runners and then all the "Skinny-fatties". The problem with running is there is no incentive to be fast. When you're fast, you still don't look like a real man (i.e. BUFF). So, what's the point?

It seems quite obvious that no one, in the whole history of humanity, has had a smaller penis than you.

LK wrote:

What more proof do you need that drug testing is effective?

lol!

Yup I'm back folks. I ran out of boxes to pound.

Don't you mean men?

"Average finisher" would be more accurate. I'd say less than 5-10% of people running a big race are real runners.

I'm not sure if either of the xfit guys on this thread are the 'real_one_1'

Please let me know if I'm wrong, but I thought his name was:

Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1

(copy and pasted from another thread)

luv2run wrote:

Define "quite a few".

My thoughts: they took all the runners and averaged their times.At least someone there knows how to do that

Would be interested to see the standard deviations...

I suspect that comes from race results and the numbers include a number of walkers. But the stat results from Running USA are available. Might not be free, though.