Does it take talent to run a 15:xx 5k? (male)

It takes talent 100%. I trained my ass off in high school 50 mpw, and only got down to 18:30. With perfect training and 100 mpw I could have gone sub 17 tops but no faster. It takes talent. Some people just show up and run 17 5ks like its nothing. I unfortunately wasn't one. Anything under 16:30 you have to be talented to get.

Flagpole wrote:

AVERAGE healthy 20-year-old? No. You need some talent to break 16:00. 99% of 20 year olds couldn't run a sub 16 minute 5k, even with ideal training conditions.

Hear, hear. When I read the title/premise for this thread, it reminded me of the recent one that was started by a guy who was really tired of hearing well-performed people pat themselves on the back for their "lack of talent"--implying, of course, that through their awesome dedication, work ethic, and mental toughness they have come much closer than the common herd to maximizing their potential.

What a crock. I think that Flagpole's 99% figure is about right, though perhaps generous by as much as an order of magnitude: If you didn't do a good job of picking your grandparents, you're not gonna break 16:00.

In Brian Hewson's autobiography, he talks of his coach's (Franz Stampfl's) boast that he could make anyone into a four-minute miler. (Stampfl did coach, or at least advise, three of the first five men to break four.) Right, so a TV personality shows up and says, do it. Of course he came nowhere near to four minutes. Hewson says the TV guy didn't stay the course, but "the course" could have been infinitely long--the man just didn't have the talent, which (esp. in the Britain of those days) would probably have already been revealed in school sports.

And sorry, I won't even get into the hypothesis of "ability to train 100mpw and run a sub-60 quarter," a combination of talents that is much *rarer* than one in a hundred, and stretches "healthy" completely unreasonably. Fast, even "reasonably" fast, runners mostly have done some decent work, and all have talent. Period.

Talent is not boolean. It is a continuum.

5kquestion wrote:

I would think the average person in their 20s would be capable of hitting around 20 mins + or - 1 minute for the five k after one year of unstructured training. Assuming this is the starting point, what type of progression in racing times over the next years would be suggestive of being capable of hitting 15:xx.

I went from 23 5k to 20 5k in 3 weeks. And im 20.

I am living proof that you need neither consistent 100 mile weeks or sub 60 quarter speed to run a sub 16 5k.

I started running in HS and ran through college (D-3)and beyond with PRs of 15:55 (5K) and 32:30 (10K). My 5,000m track PR came AFTER running a track 10,000m earlier in the day so I would like to believe I could've run a bit faster if fresh that day, but regardless of what I could have done I did break 16.

While I trained very hard and consistently for several years and got over 100mpw a few times I never stayed there for more than a few week or two. I did have a three year stretch where I got over 4000 miles (75+ mpw). I started having injury problems since then and haven't gotten back over 3000miles in a year in over a decade.

In the 400m I ran one open 400m in high school in 61 sec and ran a leg of a distance runners 4x400 in college in 60.xx (I had the slowest leg on the team, but could beat all of them at anything 1500m and up). Much like my 5,000m PR I would like to believe that if I had trained specifically for the 400m I could've broken 60, but I did what I did and it wasn't sub 60.

As to the original question I would say that the vast majority of males could not break 16 even with excellent training. It certainly does not take phenomenal talent, but it takes some level of innate running ability + lots of hard work.

The bottom line is that you'll never know for sure unless you put in all the hard work and see what YOUR personal potential is. I've been around and trained with lots of folks over the years and frankly, a large majority of people are content to be average. They'll push, but only up to a point.

It's very, very difficult to put in hard miles, tempo runs, hill workouts etc day after day and week after week. You have to have tremendous dedication and focus. Most people don't. That's why very few people make it to the top levels in any sport or even business for that matter. Heart is a big factor too. A lot of folks just give up on their dreams after getting a little discouraged or getting injured. You have to have the mental toughness to stick it out and remain positive.

These attributes are not as common as most people think they are. It's a rare combination. However, I'll say this. Very few people, if any achieve top level success without some combination of the attributes and personality traits I've listed here.

A person with talent definitely does NOT need to do consistent 100 mile weeks to run sub 16 for the 5,000. I ran 15:48 in high school on about 15 MPW. Our coach was all about quality and not quantity (as was the most common belief of the time). I did have sub 60 second 400 meter speed though, but I agree that is not necessary.

I think it takes hard work more than talent.

I took up the sport of running at age 28, weighing 235 pounds. I was fat and needed to lose weight.

5 years later I ran 14:56 indoors, 8:35 for an indoor 3K during that 5K training block and am consistently in the 15:00-15:20 range on the road right now at 33 years old.

Maybe I'm talented and just never knew it as a kid, but I also know that there aren't many people out there willing to work as hard as I do to improve. I built up to 100 MPW over the course of 5 years and do weekly tempo, interval and long run sessions.

Not sure if that answers the question. I mostly just like talking about myself because I'm an insecure idiot. I'd say that probably half the healthy 20 year olds out there could get there with sufficient time and motivation.

Average/Healthy Person - let's say that's someone who would be capable of training at 100 mpw consistently (yes, I understand that being able to train at 100 mpw could be considered part of talent in and of itself, but lets assume that the person is capable of good training.) and doesn't have any pre-existing conditions or diseases that would adversely affect their running.

If you think that the average person can run 100 mpw consistently, you're absolutely delusional.

EVERY achievement requires talent to accomplish. The question is how much.

In this particular case the answer is 3.

Of course it takes talent. I know people who, if they trained their asses off, couldn't even scratch a 17 minute, hell, even 17:30 5k. When I was in High School there were several kids who, despite doing the same workouts I did (albeit much much slower) didn't even break 6 minutes, or just barely dipped under. Meanwhile, I have a friend who did MAYBE 25-30 miles a week at most during summer, and he pops off a 15:55 5K his first race of the seasion. Same goes for track; even ran maybe 1 or 2 interval workouts a week, then just worked out in the gym (I don't even know if he ran on the other days, I say probably not..) and he ran a 4:35 mile his 3rd race of the season. In short, of course it takes talent.

I graduated HS same year as Bob Kennedy. I did very similar training and mileage. I ran 4:40 for the mile, he ran 4:05. With similar training, did I just not want it enough? Gasping, puking, pounding headaches after races and soreness for days would suggest otherwise.

A sprinter on my HS team was nationally ranked in the 400m and 300H. He got a 760 on his SAT. I got a 760 on the Math portion of my SAT. Yet we were in many of the same classes from elementary school through HS.

I dare say that these are all clear examples of talent. My sprinter friend has an inborn ability to run fast. BK had an inborn ability to sustain a fast pace. I had an inborn ability to understand math and physics. Each of us fostered those inborn abilities and became exceptionally good at them.

It would have been a waste of my time to chase a 13min 5k or a 46sec 400m, no matter how hard I trained. It would have been a wast of my sprinter friend's time to chase an academic scholarship to MIT.

And BTW, I believe I was more talented at distance running than at least 70% of the population.

LR Posers have some of the lowest self esteem of anybody. The attitude seems to be "I'm a loser and I did it, so anybody could". Geez. Go to a local road race and see how many people break 17min. It is a single digit percentage. Maybe 5X that many could if they trained harder, but it would still be a minority.

IveSaidItBefore.... wrote:

A sprinter on my HS team was nationally ranked in the 400m and 300H. He got a 760 on his SAT. I got a 760 on the Math portion of my SAT. Yet we were in many of the same classes from elementary school through HS.

I dare say that these are all clear examples of talent. My sprinter friend has an inborn ability to run fast. BK had an inborn ability to sustain a fast pace. I had an inborn ability to understand math and physics. Each of us fostered those inborn abilities and became exceptionally good at them.

It would have been a waste of my time to chase a 13min 5k or a 46sec 400m, no matter how hard I trained. It would have been a wast of my sprinter friend's time to chase an academic scholarship to MIT.

Or maybe your friend spent more of his time developing his speed and not paying attention in class like he could have been. And the opposite for you. Talent is something you develop, not are born with.

You even provide some evidence. "It would have been a waste of my time to chase a 13min 5k or a 46sec 400m, no matter how hard I trained". You did not want it enough. You did not believe in yourself. You weren't willing to risk wasting years of your life on running. That is the difference between you and Bob Kennedy. And the puking might mean that you are just physically and mentally weak, not that you were working hard.

Do you believe that all people have the same intellectual ability?

Do you believe that you can run with a Kenyan just by training like him?

Do you believe a tone deaf person can become a world class opera singer?

If you can't run a 60sec 400m, you can't break 4min for the mile. It is a cold hard fact. To say somebody just does not want it enough is a pretty weak argument in the face of statistical facts. My sprinter friend ran 53sec for the 400 in 2 weeks after joining the track team with no prior running experience or other athletic team participation. Does that sound like Talent?

I worked hard at running, loved it and still do. I worked harder at running that I did at academics. However, the place I had greater talent prevailed. Why? Because when I did apply myself where the talent was, I exceeded most in that field. Just as BK did in distance running, because the starting point was higher.

BTW: look up Talent in the dictionary. It is a natural endowment or aptitude. Sounds like "born with" to me.

I'm guessing that you are a sub 13 5k runner like BK so tell us who you are so we can look up your amazing rise from "can't break 5min for the mile" to world class distance runner on pure guts because it can so easily be done without talent. Thanks.

Your mindset is all off. You got really hostile towards the end of your post. Hostility is a sign of a weak mind.

Someone running a 53 after two weeks is not a sign of talent. I hope you have more to base your conclusion on than that. 400 speed can be acquired through sports like tag, soccer, basketball, and weight lifting. Heck, even variations on walking can improve 400m speed, core strength, and leg strength. Maybe your friend did more of those things than you did growing up. Also maybe he inadvertently did more of them in the "correct" way than you. For ex, two people can both do barbell squats that look identical, but externally imperceptible differences in muscle use designation can cause one individual to gain much more than the other.

And the thing about academics is that little things missed in 1st grade can cause differences in ability as big as several grades by the time two individuals are in the 12th grade.

Now addressing your hostility again, it has led you to bring up an argument that didn't exist - I never claimed that I was Bob Kennedy or that I had some rise from slow to fast. You said that, not me - unless I missed something then excuse me please.

However, I have no doubt that I could run that fast if I wanted to spend the time training for it. But I have other, greater interests in life that take away from the time that I would have to spend training and recovering to get to that level. However, I will say that I have had a somewhat slow to fast experience. My mile time in 9th grade was a 7:50. My personal best is 4:02 now. I also managed to eventually excel at other sports and become nationally ranked or hold national records. But it wasn't easy all of the time nor was it hard all of the time to get there. Sometimes I was able to take big chunks off of my times, and sometimes I frustratingly slowed down a bit and wouldn't improve. It took a lot of trial and error in finding the correct training methods to improve in the areas that I needed to improve as fitness inadequacies presented themselves. I varied from as much as 10mpw to 100mpw and from no quality to all quality and everything in between.

It took lots of time and frustration, but I knew I could do anything if I wanted to. You have admitted defeat, limited yourself, and given up.

I imagine that if I had your mindset, I would have never done much. I guess I hope that at the least you will understand that there are several (many possibly uncontrollable or unnoticed) factors that affect running ability, so to immediately jump to a birth talent or genetics excuse is a weak and defeatist thing to do. I've never heard of a 'running gene', correct me if I'm wrong.

Some people are born with a shit load of talent. Like you Mr. 402 miler. You don't run that fast if you're not a genetic freak (no offense). I understand you found youre optimal training zone and reached your potential but there are many many many runners who are just as dedicated that don't get within 1 minute of your PR. Some people hit the genetic lottery, what dont you understand?

mr myth wrote:

Some people hit the genetic lottery, what dont you understand?

one thing i don't understand is what in the world is a genetic lottery? exactly what is that? what does it consist of? what are those genes? and why are you so determined to believe in it?

Hey OP, good job breaking 16 in the 5k!

Btw, have you learned the secret sub-16 handshake? Because if not, we'll be sure to send someone around and show it to you.

Is it safe to assume wrote:

I've never heard of a 'running gene', correct me if I'm wrong.

While science has not found a single "running gene" there have been studies done that clearly point to certain athletic groups having greater, or fewer, occurences of certain genes.

It isn't one single gene, but a whole collection of biological factors as well as what an individual does with it (nature vs. nurture)

By the way the search for these and reading through them only took about 10 minutes, try educating yourself.