My Physics/Engineering friend (who runs) is trying to convince me that most Americans could never run mediocre times

xenonscreams wrote:

EnglishMajorNeedshelp wrote:

Surely any American (without serious physical conditions), could run a 17:30 5k with 15 years of training/eating healthy/at their prime/8 hours of sleep/and a great race.

I'm not sure why so many people on this forum want to believe this sort of statement so badly.

I have a friend who is a nice counterexample to these sorts of claims. He is built pretty big. Not fat, just big, like he could be a successful football player or something. The guy loves to run though, and he trains very seriously, running like 80 mpw with quality. He is in his late twenties. He has gotten a LOT faster - respectably fast, faster than I would expect someone with his build to be - but his half PR is still only 88 minutes. Which is awesome, considering his first half was barely under 2 hours.

He seriously runs 80mpw with quality and only has a 1:28 half marathon to show for it. He's obviously built for (pun intended) other sports.

Looking at his build, I would say yes, he is built for other sports. But he likes running, so he runs. And that is great, because he has improved a lot, and his improvement really impresses me. It also inspires me. If I were to improve 25% from the first race I trained for, I would be a world-class runner. So what is to say that's not possible? I will give this sport my all and see what happens.

xenonscreams wrote:

mspo wrote:

Based on your information presented, there's nothing here that is a strong counterexample. It actually sounds more like your point is more supportive of your opponent's point. 30 minutes is a huge improvement. Especially if he is heavy. How long has he been training?

Five years. But 88 is NOT 17:30. 88 is more like mid-19.

Your information isn't as convincing as you think it is. 30 minutes improvement over five years is great progression! That's as good as you could ask for from even elite runners. And why are you allowing him to have only 5 years to prove your point? Most of the fast runners that I know improved for 10+ years. Furthermore, if your friend lost 10-30 pounds, he'd easily be in 18 or sub 18 5k shape from the weight loss alone.

I don't want to limit him - he might eventually run 17:30 - but my point is that a 25% improvement is huge, I'm not sure most people ever improve that much, and it still puts him way slower than the time OP mentioned. I don't really think he has weight to lose. It is not body fat. He is literally just big-boned.

xenonscreams wrote:

I don't want to limit him - he might eventually run 17:30 - but my point is that a 25% improvement is huge, I'm not sure most people ever improve that much, and it still puts him way slower than the time OP mentioned. I don't really think he has weight to lose. It is not body fat. He is literally just big-boned.

Body fat isn't the only weight to lose. Muscle can be lost too. Bones don't weigh that much. EVERYONE improves by at least 25%. No one runs a 4:00 mile off of nothing.

Everyone improves by at least 25%? Really? So I'm going to be world class?

O.P., you are making too big of a deal out of the science vs. English major thing. I thought all the comments here were good and interesting, but I always find it annoying when someone plays up the English major thing as if it is some big hurdle to understand running.

xenonscreams wrote:

Everyone improves by at least 25%? Really? So I'm going to be world class?

You said something along the lines of "few people ever improve by 25%". Have you or have you not improved by at least 25% in your life? What is your current best mile time?

I don't know much about endomorphs or mesomorphs, but I agree with your friend-I don't think 10% of the population can run an 8 minute mile in their physical prime of age 27 or whatever it is. Here is why.

While there is a physical component to training and improvement, the most important is mental. While much of the population might have the physical ability to run an 8 minute mile-not many have the mental/psychological/emotional makeup to train the necessary amount to run an 8 minute mile. Don't believe me-Goto a RocknRoll half marathon this fall. A 1:45-which is 8 minute miles-will be in the top 15%. Better than half the field will be slower than 2:10-which is 10 minute miles. And these are people who are RACING. They didn't sign up for a charity school 5K-they paid their 90 bucks for no other reason than to run a good time. These folks are among the fittest people you will see at the DMV. We are a nation of couch potatoes. I would say the majority of our country-even 27 year olds-could not run a 10 minute mile-not because they are physically incapable but because they are mentally incapable of turning off the TV and exercising.

I don't see how anybody's elected college major has anything to do with this discussion

and OP, which are you trying to argue? 8 minute mile or 17:30 5k? and male/female?

if you took 100 american men age 20 at healthy weights already and had them train for 5 years, you might see ten or so get 17:30.

with 100 women with the same conditions, you may not see any who could run 17:30.

i wouldn't expect your "average" healthy american to be able to run faster than ~21-23 minutes for a 5k with a few years of training.

First race I trained for was a 98 minute half (female, and I was 18). Now I run an 85.

I ran a couple of races before those, but those were with fewer than 10 miles per week of running. If you want to count those, my first race ever would be ~23 minutes in the 5K. But my friend didn't run the 1:58 on fewer than 10 miles per week of running, he ran it on a standard first half training plan, which is what I did for my 98. So if I were to improve as much as he has, I would run a 73:30, I would qualify for Olympic trials in the marathon with a half time (which is harder than with a full time IMO) by a minute and a half.

Can I do that? I hope so. I want to. Badly. I pretend I can do it all the time. I tell everyone I'm going to be national-level. But IMO 25% from the first race you train for is a huge, impressive improvement that I would not expect from most people.

Uh, the reason most Americans don't run sub-17:30 is because they have better things to do, like go to work, eat fast food, watch The Bachelorette...

I'm 30 years old, lift regularly and probably have the frame of your typical college lacrosse player now. I look pretty fit, but no way could I sniff anywhere near 17:30 for 5k.

However, there's no doubt in my mind that I have the genetic potential to run not only sub-17:30, but even sub-15:00. So sit on it!

23 minutes for 5k is equal to about 106 minutes for a half depending on what table you use. So from the time of your first 5k race to your best half time was about a 20% improvement if my math is correct. And there was definitely a time before that first 5k when you were slower than 23 minutes. Add in the fact that you were only doing 10mpw and i'm sure 106 minutes was way too fast for you anyway. That easily adds up to a greater than 25% improvement.

So, a 25% improvement isn't anything extraordinary.

I went to a high school XC scrimmage this morning. The kids cracking 18-heck the kids cracking 20 minutes had BMIs of 18. Skin and bones.

The average american is carrying about 50 pounds of lard. Even the average "fit" american is carrying 25 pounds of lard compared to these kids.

When I was running 16:xx 30 some years ago, I was 5:11 and weighed 140 soaking wet. Now I tip the scales at 170, and am occasionally lucky to break 20. People with BMIs of 23 don't run 17 minute 5Ks. And most of the country only DREAMS of a BMI of 23.

Went to HighSchoolXC Scrimmage wrote:

People with BMIs of 23 don't run 17 minute 5Ks.

That's bs. I ran low 16s with a BMI of over 24. Wasn't nearly as fast as my college days, but just because you had to be skinny as a beanpole to run 16:xx doesn't mean that the rest of us do. Maybe you should have chosen another sport.

speak for yourself slowpoke wrote:

That's bs. I ran low 16s with a BMI of over 24. Wasn't nearly as fast as my college days, but just because you had to be skinny as a beanpole to run 16:xx doesn't mean that the rest of us do. Maybe you should have chosen another sport.

I think you missed his real point

The reason why weekend 5k runners average 30min is because most of them are overweight and just plain don't care that much about running. It's pretty hard to run a good 5k when you have a BMI of 27 and only do 8 miles a week of slogging at 10:00 pace. Most people also don't have the desire to push themselves to their limits.

I've seen races of 500+ people where the fifth place finisher ran over 20:00. I'd guess there were maybe 10 people total in that race who actually did real "runner" training.

mspo wrote:

23 minutes for 5k is equal to about 106 minutes for a half depending on what table you use. So from the time of your first 5k race to your best half time was about a 20% improvement if my math is correct. And there was definitely a time before that first 5k when you were slower than 23 minutes. Add in the fact that you were only doing 10mpw and i'm sure 106 minutes was way too fast for you anyway. That easily adds up to a greater than 25% improvement.

So, a 25% improvement isn't anything extraordinary.

Did you even read what I wrote? My friend trained for his first half, which he ran in 1:58. I didn't train for the 23 minutes. It'd be more valid to compare the times for our first races we both actually trained for, which were 1:58 on his end and 98 on my end. He has improved 25% from his first race he trained for; I have not, and I think doing so would be hugely impressive for anyone.

Who freaking cares what time you can run when you're running

Sorry, that sentence said "Who freaking cares what time you can run when you're running less than 10 mpw, that's meaningless information"