Why do most runners like to believe that....

Welcome to my life. People stare at you at the park, and act awkward if I try to say hello in passing like I don't belong there or something. Kids make nasty comments, and girls giggle and point out the 350lb sweaty man trying to be active and shed the weight. They don't think I hear them, but I do. I still go, but I get severe social anxiety every time I go somewhere to exercise that's outside of my home.

I know it's my fault I'm fat, but I'm trying to change that. I had some mental health issues that I neglected for years. It sucks to be looked at and treated as less of a person for it though. It makes me want to just stay in my house and not see or talk to anyone ...and of course eat to feel good.

Straw man argument? I think we're all aware just how important talent is. For a man under 40, breaking 20 minutes in the 5k just doesn't require intrinsic talent unless you consider "Not obese" and "Not disabled" to be talent.

Most people can't run fast because they don't really care enough to do it. I mean, look at the quote on the front page. What we're saying is that most male runners COULD, given a year or two of good training, break 20 minutes. Fewer women could, but they could do the equivalent of ~22:00. It's not a need to push ourselves up or anything like that.

ssssss wrote:

Any, ANY able bodied man or woman can run sub-20 on decent training.

Do you really believe that?

You realize we're talking about 5,000 meters here right (3.1 miles)?

I already did this in another thread with high school boys which showed that only 42% in a late season 5,000 meter race could break 20 minutes...boys that were supposedly trained, and in a group of people who actually liked running and were decently good at it (those who weren't good at it didn't even join the team).

Now lets see about high school girls with regard to the 20 minute barrier in a late-season 5,000 meter race.

Here's the varsity race:

1 girl in 113 broke 20 minutes, and she ran 19:57!

Here's the JV race:

0 girls in 122 broke 20 minutes.

Here's the open race:

0 girls in 164 broke 20 minutes.

So, 1 in 399 broke 20 minutes.

You think that with proper training all 399 would be able to break 20 minutes?

No way.

Ho Hum wrote:

Straw man argument? I think we're all aware just how important talent is. For a man under 40, breaking 20 minutes in the 5k just doesn't require intrinsic talent unless you consider "Not obese" and "Not disabled" to be talent.

Most people can't run fast because they don't really care enough to do it. I mean, look at the quote on the front page. What we're saying is that most male runners COULD, given a year or two of good training, break 20 minutes. Fewer women could, but they could do the equivalent of ~22:00. It's not a need to push ourselves up or anything like that.

Well, I'm saying that most MEN even could NOT break 20 minutes for 5k no matter how much training they did.

To run 19:59, that's a 6:25 per mile pace. No freakin' way can most men (under age 40 even) do that...not even with the best training in the world.

25%-33% tops, and I think it's closer to 25%.

hruner2 wrote:

Until you are running in olympics or at the least the olympic trials or are making money road racing - you are the same as everyone else - a never was. Deal with that rather than this stupid talent issue.

So you're the same as the 37 minute 5k guy?

Flagpole wrote:

Well, I'm saying that most MEN even could NOT break 20 minutes for 5k no matter how much training they did.

To run 19:59, that's a 6:25 per mile pace. No freakin' way can most men (under age 40 even) do that...not even with the best training in the world.

25%-33% tops, and I think it's closer to 25%.

How do you know this unless they have actually done the best training in the world?

Flagpole, your cross country example is flawed. 1, it's a cross course, so a lot more kids would be sub-20 on the road. 2, a good chunk of those kids are still going through puberty. Many of them will break 20 by the time they graduate. Many more if they continue running into their 20s. 3, most high school kids don't train all that hard or all that well, especially on JV teams. How many of those kids do you think run more than 20 miles a week? How many ran over the summer? I'm not inclined to take a bunch of 16 year old kids who probably run 5 days a week, if that, as a good example of physical limits.

Because I believe in statistics. We have PLENTY of data to suggest that this just isn't possible. World class training would help, but the Law of Diminishing returns tells us that it won't help that much. When we already have tons of young fit high school kids (boys) running cross country and only 42% of them are able to break 20 minutes at the end of the season, that tells me that if you then add all those who didn't go out for a sport (mainly because they knew they had no talent for it) and also train them that that 42% would drop. Would SOME of those in the 58% who didn't break 20 minutes do so with more training and better training? Yep. Would enough do so that when we added the non-talented that we would get to MOST breaking 20 minutes? No way.You can't drop a 25 minute 5k guy into Alberto's training group and suddenly see them running 19 minutes. There's a reason why he starts with Rupp and Ritz and Mary Cain...they have demonstrated that they have TALENT.

jsjjs wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, I'm saying that most MEN even could NOT break 20 minutes for 5k no matter how much training they did.

To run 19:59, that's a 6:25 per mile pace. No freakin' way can most men (under age 40 even) do that...not even with the best training in the world.

25%-33% tops, and I think it's closer to 25%.

How do you know this unless they have actually done the best training in the world?

Ho Hum wrote:

Flagpole, your cross country example is flawed. 1, it's a cross course, so a lot more kids would be sub-20 on the road. 2, a good chunk of those kids are still going through puberty. Many of them will break 20 by the time they graduate. Many more if they continue running into their 20s. 3, most high school kids don't train all that hard or all that well, especially on JV teams. How many of those kids do you think run more than 20 miles a week? How many ran over the summer? I'm not inclined to take a bunch of 16 year old kids who probably run 5 days a week, if that, as a good example of physical limits.

Well, you DO make some good points.

I see what my daughter's high school team does...they run up to 60 MPW, JV, Varsity, doesn't matter, and less than half of them can break 20 minutes.

Also, even if we took the best possible scenario of all those kids, I say the 42% who broke 20 minutes MIGHT get up to 60%. The thing though is that there are a TON of kids in that high school who are not obese who couldn't run a 7 minute mile even with training let alone 3.1 miles at 6:25 pace. Once you add all of them in there, the average drops WAY below 50%...I say 33% max and more likely 25% could ever break 20 minutes.

Flagpole wrote:

Ok, so do you believe (as was mentioned in another thread) that anyone (men) can break 20:00 for 5k if they just trained properly?

Also, the other thing people need to consider is that those who run just to run and not to race likely have discovered that they aren't all that talented. If you train and bust your butt and run as hard as you can and run 23:46 and you get beaten by a few 9 year old girls, that can put you in the mindset of running just to run awful fast.

No, I don't believe that ANYONE can break 20 for the 5K if they train properly.

However you asked "Why do most runners believe that..."

so I put in a few reasons.

You often see people train badly then jog it and that's why.

If we're talking about the average guy, if you offered them 5 million if they could break 20 for the 5K (no time limit) then I think most of them could. Not all, but most.

Also, all of these "statistics" about peoples finishing times in races - a lot of the people who aren't breaking 20 aren't motivated to do it. They aren't that bothered! That's fine, it's up to them what they want to focus on... but you can't use them as an example. Some of those people in the race, if they trained a lot more or whatever, would end up breaking it. Also you've no way of knowing if those who didn't break 20 in that race broke it in another, or a year later and so on. That's too much statistics!

track chick wrote:

No, I don't believe that ANYONE can break 20 for the 5K if they train properly.

However you asked "Why do most runners believe that..."

so I put in a few reasons.

You often see people train badly then jog it and that's why.

If we're talking about the average guy, if you offered them 5 million if they could break 20 for the 5K (no time limit) then I think most of them could. Not all, but most.

Yeah...ok...I get how you were answering.

I still disagree with the assertion though that most could break 20 minutes...even with that HUGE incentive.

I know that even though I had run 14:58, if I were given millions if I could break 14 that I could not have done it. Incentive doesn't just make it happen.

track chick wrote:

Also, all of these "statistics" about peoples finishing times in races - a lot of the people who aren't breaking 20 aren't motivated to do it. They aren't that bothered! That's fine, it's up to them what they want to focus on... but you can't use them as an example. Some of those people in the race, if they trained a lot more or whatever, would end up breaking it. Also you've no way of knowing if those who didn't break 20 in that race broke it in another, or a year later and so on. That's too much statistics!

Law of Diminishing returns says that it wouldn't be many more...AND again, when looking at a high school CC team, you are looking at the cream of the crop...probably 95% or more of the other kids left in the high school couldn't train to break 20 minutes. It's harder than you think it is.

honestly, 20 minutes is VERY slow for anyone who has reached maturity - lets say 18 years - and has actually trained for it, not just jogged around a bit, and actually races it - not just doing it to finish.

Certainly not everybody could go sub 20, but the vast majority of males definitely could. We are talking about people who trained for it and are ready to race. This assumes, for one, that they are not overweight (because they have been training and are ready to race) and that they are actually racing for time. Plenty of people plod around on their runs barely going anywhere and then treat the race as a fun run, and plenty of those people are not in shape, this means they aren't training and racing to be fast, or they just have no idea how to train correctly. In the real world this describes nearly all of the people who can't run sub-20 for 5k. Sure maybe the bottom 5% of the male running talent pool might legitimately not be able to break 20, but nearly everyone with PROPER training should be able to do that. Afterall, 20 minutes is something a very bad high schooler can do (and usually they aren't training seriously or have very bad coaching), so an adult with proper training, even if they are very bad, should be able to do it.

Don't confuse the fact that many people in western culture are overweight and out of shape and lazy when it comes to physical fitness - plus the fact that there are many bad coaches out there that won't get much out of their athletes - with what people are capable of when they are fit and appropriately trained.

Flagpole wrote:

AND again, when looking at a high school CC team, you are looking at the cream of the crop...probably 95% or more of the other kids left in the high school couldn't train to break 20 minutes. It's harder than you think it is.

What! Are you serious?

Also, saying even if you were given millions you couldn't break 14 is a totally different thing, that's much more difficult. I accept that one (applying it to the general population) but if we're talking about 20 min for a 5K I think most men could do it.

I think if you gave the incentive of 5 million for breaking 20 mins it would help a lot.

I think there are a lot of folks in here who's parents were waaaaayyy to nice to them.

"You can do ANYTHING honey! The world is yours!"

You guys must live in a big bubble of denial.

Flagpole wrote:

CORRECT! And that's the right attitude too...even high school state champions might never amount to much after that...it's all about being the best you can be.

To show you how unfair it all is, when I was a freshman, I ran my very first 1600 ever...in 4:54. We hardly trained much back then too - about 15 miles a week.

Something interesting to think about -

There was once a high school boy who as a sophomore ran his first ever mile time trial. He ran 5:38.

His name was Jim Ryun.

While I get your point Flagpole I just think hearing these sorts of stories are interesting when we consider how other runners started out before going on to do great things.

No doubt you had a lot of natural talent to run a 17 min 5k or a sub 5 minute mile in your first races at those distances. But consider Ryun's beginning. 5:38 is very average. But he trained incredibly hard. Harder than probably any high schooler (save fore maybe Gerry Lindgren who trained equally as hard) before or since.

Certainly genetics plays a role in performance. An obvious example is muscle fiber type which will determine your best event. But there are many ways to measure talent. And I don't think how fast you run right when you start the sport is a good measure of it.

One thing that I'm certain of is while an athlete is training and competing, the last thing they need in their mind is self doubt or a voice that says I can only run x:xx fast because of my genetics. That is self limiting. Regardless of if it is true or not true it is just an unhelpful mentality to have.

Bring up Jim Ryun to disprove the role genetics play in running may be one of the stupidest "points" anyone has ever tried to make on here. And due that is saying something!

I don't think talent can be judged simply by the times you start off running. There's a lot that goes into talent IMO. Like the ability to handle heavy training without getting injured, or the ability to recover from a workout or race quickly. For women, the ability to naturally attain and maintain a low body fat percentage without breaking down or starving oneself is pretty advantageous too.

It's not really clear, which is why IMO it's not worth limiting yourself because of the existence of talent. I thought I'd plateaued last year, but then I switched up my training and had several breakthrough races in a row. That should be the fun part: You have no idea how fast you're ultimately capable of becoming.