...presuming a reasonable effort and training and the runner is close to his/her ideal weight?
...presuming a reasonable effort and training and the runner is close to his/her ideal weight?
No natural talent would mean that you could not move at all. So 0%.
I think that with consistent effort, 75% is achievable by anyone healthy and able bodied.
A reasonable target would be 70%, but probably most people with no natural talent would be hard pressed to get to 65%. 65 is halfway between local class and regional class, which is about where you could anticipate winding up with no talent.
I trained for years and barely cracked 70% in the 5k and was even worse in the half and marathon.
This might be a stupid question, but what does ag stand for?
Age group
Thoughts regarding potential talent for someone who runs 60-65% AG% target in the 5k with zero training.
Jack Foster ran a 2:11 marathon at age 41, what could he have ran when he was younger?
Haile Gebrselassie ran a 2:03 marathon at age 45 ish (if you calculate his actual age), what could he have ran when he was younger?
Lydiard Cerutty wrote:
This might be a stupid question, but what does ag stand for?
Age Grade.
It compares your result to the world best taking into account your age. Basically it calculates how much time the WR holder took to complete the distance compared to your time. Thus a 3 hour marathon for a 28 year old has an AG of 68.3 % , the WR is 68.3% of 3 hours. At age 60 a 3 hour marathon is 83.5%. Obviously the higher the number the better.
Here's an exercise:
1.) Look up the results of your local 5K with 300-500 participants.
2.) See the time for... let's say 30th place. Top 10% at least.
3.) Average those times and ages.
Probably comes out to 29 years old with a 5K time of 20:00? That's 63% AG, which is still much higher than the number you're looking for.
Good troll post, though. Add a subjective variable such as "no natural talent," and you've hit a gold mine.
Definer of Terms wrote:
No natural talent would mean that you could not move at all. So 0%.
Correct answer.
73% with lots of hard work
talentless wrote:
I think that with consistent effort, 75% is achievable by anyone healthy and able bodied.
In a runner's peak years, that equates to a 5:00 mile - that seems a stretch to me.
ThatAverageRunner wrote:
Definer of Terms wrote:
No natural talent would mean that you could not move at all. So 0%.
Correct answer.
Suggestion: Before someone can start (the umpteenth) somewhat misguided thread concerning "talent," they have to take a quick lesson making up for what they should have learned in school concerning bell curves and relativity.
fisky wrote:
A reasonable target would be 70%, but probably most people with no natural talent would be hard pressed to get to 65%. 65 is halfway between local class and regional class, which is about where you could anticipate winding up with no talent.
I trained for years and barely cracked 70% in the 5k and was even worse in the half and marathon.
Your answer is pretty much in line with my own thoughts. If I have any natural talent, it certainly isn't a lot.
I'm 55 and have only run 16 races in my life - I recently went back and calculated my AG% for each race and my better races were about 66 (I was in relatively good shape but hadn't trained specifically for any of those races).
My goal is to get a 70% rating across the board for a 5K, 10K, Half and Full. I think that's within my reach.
A few posts down from yours someone threw out a number of 73, which leads me to say 70 is reasonable, 75 is not, and the very best answer is somewhere in-between (I'd guess closer to 70 than 75 though).
Gravy wrote:
Here's an exercise:
1.) Look up the results of your local 5K with 300-500 participants.
2.) See the time for... let's say 30th place. Top 10% at least.
3.) Average those times and ages.
Probably comes out to 29 years old with a 5K time of 20:00? That's 63% AG, which is still much higher than the number you're looking for.
Good troll post, though. Add a subjective variable such as "no natural talent," and you've hit a gold mine.
I've already been looking at races in my area (Tucson but extending out to Phoenix where there will be a larger fields) and seeing where I would finish in my age group (55-59) and overall if I can run 70%. Which indeed is a top 10% finish in both categories. If 70 isn't the limit of what I think I can do, it's pretty close - every % higher than that would be a big deal.
This and the previous reply seem to be pretty accurate; at least in my experience. Having no talent and some minor handicaps I've been at 71% to 78% my whole life at all distances up to the 1/2 marathon regardless of the level of training.
Thinking about anything below 5K is deceptive IMO, because pretty much nobody without talent races track events. It's going to sound very hard because you may never have even run a 6 minute mile in your lifetime. 75% is the equivalent of a young man's 17 minute 5K, 1:20 half, or 2:49 marathon.
I hang around with a ton of middle-aged runners who picked up running in their 30s-40s after years of no obvious athletic ability and avoiding sports in high school, but tired of being totally winded climbing stairs and fearing their mortality. Pretty much everyone manages to safely BQ eventually if they keep up reasonably consistent training on Daniels or Pfitz schedules. That right there is ~68% already, and that's true of the guys who started with couch-to-5K and were utterly delighted the first time they broke 30 minutes.
75% is very tough, and squeezing out that last bit means a lot of consistent training, so of course most people won't hit it. I just don't think physiological limits or genetic potential come into play before then, your lifestyle and your priorities are what matter. I don't think you should allow yourself to throw in the towel and start blaming your "talent" until you're there.
fromtheheart wrote:
This and the previous reply seem to be pretty accurate; at least in my experience. Having no talent and some minor handicaps I've been at 71% to 78% my whole life at all distances up to the 1/2 marathon regardless of the level of training.
You have talent.
fisky wrote:
65 is halfway between local class and regional class, which is about where you could anticipate winding up with no talent.
Everyone needs to stop saying that 70% is regional class. And 80% is not national class, folks.
70% is barely local class. Regional class is more like 85% and national class is north of 90%.