Not using myself, since I'm faster than average, but here are some 30s-40s dudes I follow on strava who don't run shorter distances (mostly started later).
I'd say these are guys who are dedicated and about average for people who can run 70(+) mpw. But being able to run 70 mpw is a talent in itself, so they are above average runners:
A: 18-low, 36-mid, 1:19, 2:41
B: 16-high, 34-mid, 1:15, 2:47
C: 17-mid, 1:18, 2:39
D: 4:20 1500, 16-high, 35-high, 1:20, 2:52
krispy kremlin._._._._ wrote:
70 mpw for, say, 8-12 consistent months without injury and with 2 workouts per week (one fast, one higher volume) for an averagely-talented runner under 40yo should be:
1:57
4:24
15:59
32:59
Consistent mileage, over time, can turn an average runner into an above average runner with the right mentality.
I'd say this is correct for a decently athletic man. Not average, and definitely not "talented".
800 is way too fast on that chart.
15:50 seems about right to me.
Talent beats training wrote:
Male
2:30
5:40
20
42
If that's your personal experience you'd better do some other sport.....
The above average wrote:
800?
1600?
5K?
10K?
There would be at least 2 other factors (besides the obvious, talent) that are more important than mileage in predicting performance: age and running age.
Also, with both age and running age you're getting relatively better at longer distances (or worse at shorter stuff).
The above average wrote:
800?
1600?
5K?
10K?
How long do they have to train like that. I did it for 4 weeks then dropped from
16:51 to 16:06
4:39 to 4:33
Agree with this.
The 800 is far too fast. 800 speed is not particularly helped by mileage, and 1:57 is far above average. Even 4:24 is pushing it. I think 16:00 or just under in the 5k is a good “average.” Considering probably 80% of D3 runners run 70+ mpw, and 16:00 is a slightly above average D3 time, once you consider all of the D1 guys who are running well south of 16:00, you end up with an average around 16:00 for 70 mpw. In the 1500/3000 I would say 4:20/9:20.
The above average wrote:
David46 wrote:
Given that a lot of people probably can’t run 70 mpw and stay healthy, this is very difficult to answer.
Heck I have had 2 all conference awards in college and I’ve never run close to 70 mpw due to injury issues.
The new and improved david is a winner and not a whiner? Who woulda thought?
Anyways, I guess I shoulda been more specific. If your average 16:30-18:00 HS 5K XC guy that just runs the coach prescribed 35 mpw successfully moves up to 70 mpw and sustains it, how fast would they get?
This was actually me in high school, 17:45 for 5k xc and 4:44 for 1600 off of 30 mpw. In college on 70 mpw I ran 26:15 for 8k, 15:45 for 5k and 4:05 for the 1500
was a 50mpw guy, extra time now after job shifted to remote. Hovering around 80-95 the last couple months.
800: 1:50
Mile: 4:01
8k: 24:15
ah yes, the old 70 mpw wrote:
The above average wrote:
800?
1600?
5K?
10K?
FWIW, I only averaged 70 mpw for one season (9th grade cross country) and my times for that year (including 8th grade track) were 2:18, 4:58, 17:52 & ~40 min. Not sure it’s enough to affect the average but there are likely at least a few other poorly coached youths forced into that kind of mileage too early who can’t handle it well for long.
WTF I've never heard of a freshman running 70 mpw, especially one that can barely break 18. Most of the best high schoolers in the nation aren't even doing 70 mpw.
I think this message board is getting dumber. The question was about the average runner doing 70 MPW. My numbers were probably too fast especially at the 800 and 1600. There are entire running groups who do 75MPW at 9 minute miles. There are thousands of Americans who run marathons and half marathons at 9 minute pace.
wow. you must have monster aerobic fitness
Talent beats training wrote:
The average marathon runner does 70MPW and runs 4 hours so I was pretty generous.
No way. Recreational runners run 70 mpw when they want to qualify for Boston and they can't do that on lower mileage. So for males up to 35 yo marathon time would be around 3 hours. Those who can't break 3 on 70 mpw don't often have enough motivation to push for another cycle or two so they won't slow the average down as much as the more talented would speed it up.
Too many unkown variables to make an accurate calculation. Your talent level and ability to handle mileage also factor into it. Even if you're the most talented runner ever, if your body can't handle the mileage you could run a 10 minute 800 because you'd be injured, hobbling around the track.
2:08
4:34
The "average athlete running 70 mpw" is probably going to be a pretty decent runner, because no one is going to put in that much work if they aren't somewhat good at it. Of the guys I know that run around 70 mpw, almost all of them are running at least low 16s for 5K and sub 34 for 10K (road times). The "average" runner of that group I'm thinking of is around 16:00 and 33:30 (again, road). Some are also a good bit faster than that.
Of course, as I said, "average" people don't run 70 mpw. These are all guys that ran in high school and college, take training seriously, and are naturally lean. I don't know anyone who regularly runs 70 mpw that didn't also run in hs/college.
well yeah wrote:
2:15
5:00
17:40
37:00
2:55
These are the only decent numbers I’ve seen. The average runner doing 70mpw is a marathoner who is probably an ambitious age-grouper. That person does NOT have sub-2:00 800m footspeed and is nowhere near breaking 16:00 in the 5k. Not too many guys outside of college doing 70mpw just to run 5K/10ks.
FWIW, I’m 39, average around 60mpw and peak near 80 in a marathon build, with a 2:49 marathon and a 16:50 5K. I beat most folks that train similar to me locally, but I’m not the top of the heap.
As an 18 YO I was a 1:58 800m runner off of probably 25-30 MPW. These days I couldn’t touch that. I MIGHT be able to hit 2:10, but it would darn near kill me.
nonary ant wrote:
No way. Recreational runners run 70 mpw when they want to qualify for Boston and they can't do that on lower mileage. So for males up to 35 yo marathon time would be around 3 hours. Those who can't break 3 on 70 mpw don't often have enough motivation to push for another cycle or two so they won't slow the average down as much as the more talented would speed it up.
Ummm... I think your assumption is wrong. Those who can't break 3 on 70 mpw do not have lower motivation than those who break 3 on 70 mpw. So they keep repeating the cycles, and slow down the time of the average runner. And the more talented runners getting faster does not change the time of "the average runner." (It will lower the average time of all runners who run 70mpw or more. But that is a different thing.)
the4:40miler wrote:
krispy kremlin._._._._ wrote:
70 mpw for, say, 8-12 consistent months without injury and with 2 workouts per week (one fast, one higher volume) for an averagely-talented runner under 40yo should be:
1:57
4:24
15:59
32:59
Consistent mileage, over time, can turn an average runner into an above average runner with the right mentality.
I'd say this is correct for a decently athletic man. Not average, and definitely not "talented".
It's all about what is meant by average and talented. Specifically, talented at what? Most highly talented athletes at basketball, football etc are never going to run a 33 minute 10k. In a sense the top talent in the 10k are the most untalented athletes.
So we are talking middle distance/distance talent which are their own things. I'd say in a HS with 500 boys, maybe half dozen to a dozen have the talent to eventually run any one of these times in their best event at their peak athleticism. Is that average? It's mediocre among people who run in college but we are still talking top roughly 1% talent.