10k differences and Why so few 35,36 minute 10k runners.

reader of LRC wrote:

what's the difference between

A 35 minute and a 31 minute 10k runner?

$100k

reader of LRC wrote:

Theory is 31 and 35 minutes take the same amount of work. Difference is the 31 minute guys are the lightweights that have good genes. The 34,35,36 minute runners get fed up and leave the sport.

As a 175 lb runner who would probably be good for 31 something in the 10k (15 flat 5000 and 1:10 half marathon), I find that theory to be self-serving and diminishing the work many athletes put in. When I reached my full-grown size around the end of high school, I could have run a 10k in maybe 36:xx. By the end of college, I would have probably been in 33:xx shape. In the last 5 years, I have worked down to 31:xx shape. Are you trying to deny the last 9 years of hard work I put in?

I would say most of the 37-39 minute 10k'ers are probably 10-35 mpw types (depending on age and prior ability). They are competitive in a sense, but not really "serious" runners. Those running 31-33 minutes in a 10k are probably 50-100 mpw runners who take their training and racing seriously. While there may or may not be a gap of runners between 33 and 36 minutes, making assumptions about the work it takes to get to the next level is just deluding yourself. Sure, there are some talented people who run fast without much work, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.

In my area whe have a lot of 33-34-35-36 and slower runners.

29-0

30-3

31~5

32~8

33~12

34~20

someone here wrote:

In my area whe have a lot of 33-34-35-36 and slower runners.

29-0

30-3

31~5

32~8

33~12

34~20

Exactly... the OP is full of shit with hypotheses, explaining full of shit "data."

as a late teen and young man, i was a 34-35 min guy. i can vouch that many of my equals quickly lost interest in the sport when they saw that, despite hard work, they lacked talent to ever run with the handful of peers who were running 30-32+ and winning local races and garnering praise and attention.

in actuality, in most communities, there are relatively few guys running under 40 minutes, so if you're in the rear of that group, you see yourself as a loser, because you don't associate yourself with the whole mass of "runners," but just as part of the more "competitive" runners.

I weigh 170 and got down to 34 minutes after about 22 years of running.

someone here wrote:

In my area whe have a lot of 33-34-35-36 and slower runners.

29-0

30-3

31~5

32~8

33~12

34~20

What area and ages? I'm talking 20 and up at local road races. I'm not talking school, cross-country, or "athletics" races.

I'll acknowledge the theory may be complete BS, but I've done enough races to know that 33,34,35,36 minute runners are very rare. Either the 31,32 guys show up and win or someone 37-39minutes wins. If it's a really soft race maybe 40+ will win. I'll try to find data to back it up. There's surprisingly quite a few 31,32 guys and they like to race.

Either the 33, 34,35,36 guys aren't racing or they don't exist. What I mean by don't exist is they made the leap to 31,32 or "downgraded" themselves to the easier training for 37-40.

As for BS hypotheses, doesn't anyone agree that 36 is a whole other level than 37? 36 takes a special talent and/or tons of training.

140? you can weigh 140 and be under 30 minutes, you have no idea what youre talking about. its clearly not all about weight or everyone would fast for a week before a race

If weight didn't matter, they wouldn't have clydesdale categories. 140 may be an exaggeration, but the 31,32 guys are at near optimal running weight. Many are natural ectomorphs and can eat whatever they want too. There's that gene, luck thing again.

Basically, you aren't allowed to talk about weight because it isn't PC and some people get disorders trying to lose too much weight.

So here's the disclaimer. If you have an eating disorder, you won't race well and have many problems. Don't try to lose weight to run faster. It is not worth it.

reader of LRC wrote:

As for BS hypotheses, doesn't anyone agree that 36 is a whole other level than 37? 36 takes a special talent and/or tons of training.

From my perspective as a 30:30 guy, there doesn't seem to be much difference between 36 and 37. At the same time, 29 flat seems to me like "a whole other level." I bet to a 27:30 guy, though, the difference between 29:00 and 30:30 seems about the same as the difference between 36 and 37 does to me. It's all a matter of perspective.

reader of LRC wrote:

Don't try to lose weight to run faster. It is not worth it.

Bullshit

Your question and theory has some merit actually. I have, actually noticed the same thing.

My belief is that most guys who could run such a time are too busy with high school or college races to bother running weekend 10ks.

In our city of about 800, 000 people, I see the same results. There are a few of the former elites running low 30's. Then maybe one or two guys at 34 -35 then the rest from 37 onward.

reader of LRC wrote:

As for BS hypotheses, doesn't anyone agree that 36 is a whole other level than 37? 36 takes a special talent and/or tons of training.

No. It's just part of your horseshit self-fulfilling justification.

Define local.I guess it depends on where you live.http://www.sportstats.ca/displayResults.xhtml?racecode=107691

reader of LRC wrote:

what's the difference between

A 31 minute 10k runner and a 35 minute 10k runner?

As a 37:00 runner, they are both out of reach. 36 is a whole other level.

Funny thing is you don't see many 33-36 minute runners at local road races. You mostly see 31,32 min guys and then a huge gap to 37, 38, 39.

Theory is 31 and 35 minutes take the same amount of work. Difference is the 31 minute guys are the lightweights that have good genes. The 34,35,36 minute runners get fed up and leave the sport.

The 37,38,39 guys are the competitive "hobby joggers" like myself. We don't care to weigh 140 lbs (or can't) and/or do the hard work to get under 37. We just want to be semi-competitive and love running but not enough

I was a 35 minute 10k runner back in the day, in the '80s. There were a lot of us then. But now, the sub elites have drifted out of the sport with the prevalence of participation runners. Now there's just elites like your 31 min. runner and your 37 min. jogger. Looking at New York Marathon lists lately I was astounded to see my 30 year old sub-elite marathon best would have placed in the top 1% of recent races just because there's so many 4 hour marathoners now. The elite guys are much faster, but there's been an explosion of participation runners just out for the experience.

reader of LRC wrote:

I'll acknowledge the theory may be complete BS, but I've done enough races to know that 33,34,35,36 minute runners are very rare. Either the 31,32 guys show up and win or someone 37-39minutes wins... I'll try to find data to back it up.

You have your work cut out for you. From the Peachtree this year:

30:xx 12

31:xx 12

32:xx 23

33:xx 40

34:xx 42

35:xx 43

36:xx 64

Now can you put your hypotheses to rest? And yes, please call it a "hypothesis," not a "theory," because a theory implies some empirical evidence to support it, of which you have none.

I'm a Nerd wrote:

reader of LRC wrote:

I'll acknowledge the theory may be complete BS, but I've done enough races to know that 33,34,35,36 minute runners are very rare. Either the 31,32 guys show up and win or someone 37-39minutes wins... I'll try to find data to back it up.

You have your work cut out for you. From the Peachtree this year:

30:xx 12

31:xx 12

32:xx 23

33:xx 40

34:xx 42

35:xx 43

36:xx 64

Now can you put your hypotheses to rest? And yes, please call it a "hypothesis," not a "theory," because a theory implies some empirical evidence to support it, of which you have none.

Think the OP might have some intuition that there is a bi-modal distribution of talent, e.g. for men at their peak:

- those who can run 31 at optimal end up in 33-34 or better

- those have much less talent end up in the 37-39 range

In your data it would be great to exclude former 31-32 who now run 34-35 in their 40s or later.

You see, most people with no talent will start at 45 min or more 10k, work their way down to 42' then sub 40 then perhaps 37-38 after many years of work. I know because this is MY case. I will never be 32-35. At 100 mpw perhaps 36:59.

On the other hand former college runners can do 36 on no training and with hard work can go down to 33.

These are my thoughts. Much fewer people can naturally run "just" 38-39 on no training and 35 with hard work. Hence the bi-modal intuition.