It’s takes training to run any time.
But it takes talent to train.
The ability to train without injury is also a talent.
Alan
It’s takes training to run any time.
But it takes talent to train.
The ability to train without injury is also a talent.
Alan
Since there aren't too many states that run 5000m in high school track I'm assuming that this is directed at XC. If that's the case you just need two things.
1) A very accurately measured course
2) A very flat course that is conducive to fast times.
16:59 5k is only a 5:28 pace
Most teenagers who aren't fat and don't half a$$ their training should be able to do that no problem.
Despercito wrote:
Title
I just love the polarized answers on here. I would say it depends on the individual. Certainly someone with little talent, but a lot of drive over a long period of time could do it. Someone with a lot of talent could do it in far less time. The answer: Not a lot of talent. But it may take a lot of work. I know I've worked my ass off, and have only after about 3 years did I find myself in a position to break 17. I would also say there is far more psychology that goes into being a competitive distance runner, than mere physiology.
Milesplit data wrote:
Where are these teams? 90% of the thousands of teams have nobody under 18 minutes. It was pointed out that one of the best coached teams in the country has 60 guys running slower. Providing a bit of anecdotal evidence sort of proves that it requires talent instead of training. HS coaches reading this should chime in.
90% have no one under 18 min. Are we talking the same gender, same distance? My high school coaches turn sub 17 guys year after year and its not like there exceptional talent. In fact, there are sub 18 girls almost every year. This is a public school where they can't recruit outside the school zone. The only case I can see where one of the best coached teams has 60 guys not under 60 seems ridiculous unless its a school where everyone is forced to do an extracurricular and you have a hundred + guys on the team because people choose X-country because its a non-cut sport. This was the case with a Catholic school I ran against that had one of the best programs in the nation. They had about 150 guys on their team so obviously, there will be a large number that are untalented or don't try.
Which school? There are some entire states that had no girls under 18 minutes. That means there were 500 schools with no girls under 18. You must live in Georgia or one of the other states that run short courses.
Does anyone look at results or do they just speak about their opinions? LV is the best team in the country. They ran in a meet yesterday. There were 600 guys in the JV race of which only 8 broke 18 minutes. Five of the varsity teams only had one guy break 18 minutes.
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Milesplit data wrote:
Where are these teams? 90% of the thousands of teams have nobody under 18 minutes. It was pointed out that one of the best coached teams in the country has 60 guys running slower. Providing a bit of anecdotal evidence sort of proves that it requires talent instead of training. HS coaches reading this should chime in.
90% have no one under 18 min. Are we talking the same gender, same distance? My high school coaches turn sub 17 guys year after year and its not like there exceptional talent. In fact, there are sub 18 girls almost every year. This is a public school where they can't recruit outside the school zone. The only case I can see where one of the best coached teams has 60 guys not under 60 seems ridiculous unless its a school where everyone is forced to do an extracurricular and you have a hundred + guys on the team because people choose X-country because its a non-cut sport. This was the case with a Catholic school I ran against that had one of the best programs in the nation. They had about 150 guys on their team so obviously, there will be a large number that are untalented or don't try.
They're not required, it's just a big school with a really strong/popular program. Since other than using Wayzata, nobody has defended their claim with anything other than personal anecdotes. Is someone who breaks 18 in HS extremely genetically talented? No, but it doesn't take almost zero talent like many describe. Just look at the enormous number of people who run versus how many have broken 18, let alone 19.
I love how people say they have no talent because their 400 or mile times are slower, that’s like usain bolt saying he has no talent because his mile time wouldn’t be as fast as a lot of people. When you can run close to your all out speed for an extended period then that’s talent.
Tfm wrote:
Top 8% wrote:
A lot relative to the general population.
Many people couldn't even sprint that fast after a decade of training with Bolt and a Grizzly Bear in pursuit.
That’s so stupid and false.
You must have misunderstood or something.
Cross Country and Track teams are mostly comprised of individuals with some talent for running. There has already been some selection by them showing up.
People act like a team having a several 18 minute guys means that the general population should be able to also.
When I was a high school senior, we kept a busy XC schedule. Plenty of dual meets, and many Saturday competitions too. Probably raced too much!
We had three guys in the low 16:00's over 5K. My best was 16:22 that fall. Two of the Saturday events were over 5K. One was XC, one was a road race with a high school team competition.
We trained 30 - 35 mpw. This includes fartlek, tempo stuff, and some sprinting. We ran XC, indoors and outdoors.
As far as talent, we had a bit. My high school PR over the mile was 4:30 and a few tenths. The other two guys were juniors when I was a senior. They went on to record miles of 4:24 and 4:25 as seniors, and one of them ran a 9:27 2-mile.
In college, one of those guys went on to an 8:52 steeple and a 3:54 1500. But for the most part we drank beer and partied. If we had talent, we left it on the track as we went on to other things.
How does one even quantify talent? You're asking us to answer "how much" but there is literally no way to do this.
I can say for myself that I doubt I was physically capable of doing so as a high schooler. After running maybe 25-30 mpw for two or three seasons (between ages of 14 and 16) I had a hard time running 5:20 in the mile, so 17 min for 5000 m was definitely out of the question. I think something like 18:30 to 19:00 was conceivable for me at that age, however. My fastest time was 19:30 on a 5K XC course, but it was somewhat hilly.
I know my mileage was low but I think this indicates that some people, despite being physically fit, are not well suited for 5K+ racing distances.
On the flip side, I found that I had a little bit of natural speed for shorter events, and ran 11.8 and 23.9 at age 17 with limited training and almost no weight training (I was very skinny, 5'8" and 130 lbs).
Again, I think this indicates that a kid with fitness can do decently well at running, but their "best" distance might simply not be 5K.
Another way of looking at it: how much of your talent do you have to find to break 18/17? Few kids come close to their potential in HS. Here's the problem: most don't train their assess off in HS and many who attempt to risk injury. I had very little talent but managed 16:40s by age 16 off less than 35mpw.
How? I was always moving, not always running. I did a lot of manual /low skill jobs. I roofed houses, did landscaping, set pavers by hand, harvested fruit with a migrant crew. I was so beat up some nights, I'd fall asleep eating dinner. I never played video games, watched TV or spent much time on computers or phone. If I had the energy, I was back outside: I ran, mountain biked & skied. It's only a theory, but I think all that crap I did outside of running helped me find what little talent I had. If I had a comfortable life on my ass with my feet up, what would my pr's have been? What would have happened if I doubled my mileage and my couch time? I did this in college, and found out: I should have kept working on the migrant crew.
These threads are always funny on LR. Theres always the few hs state champions chiming in saying sub 17 takes little talent. Its the equivalent of 6'6 nba players saying genetics had nothing to do with their success
Instead of 17 or 18 minutes 5K, OP could have stated: How much talent is necessary to race 13 or 14 minutes, 5K? There are only several hundred or so sub-14 5K guys. Only a small number of sub-14 5K guys bother to post on letsrun. OP's genius was allowing the sub-17 5K guys an opportunity to brag. Next thread from OP: Does it take talent or does it take hard work to high jump one metre.
Does this blue collar make my ass look big? wrote:
Another way of looking at it: how much of your talent do you have to find to break 18/17? Few kids come close to their potential in HS. Here's the problem: most don't train their assess off in HS and many who attempt to risk injury. I had very little talent but managed 16:40s by age 16 off less than 35mpw.
How? I was always moving, not always running. I did a lot of manual /low skill jobs. I roofed houses, did landscaping, set pavers by hand, harvested fruit with a migrant crew. I was so beat up some nights, I'd fall asleep eating dinner. I never played video games, watched TV or spent much time on computers or phone. If I had the energy, I was back outside: I ran, mountain biked & skied. It's only a theory, but I think all that crap I did outside of running helped me find what little talent I had. If I had a comfortable life on my ass with my feet up, what would my pr's have been? What would have happened if I doubled my mileage and my couch time? I did this in college, and found out: I should have kept working on the migrant crew.
Yes, it is "only a theory," and it's full of holes. The idea that the type of manual labor you described has any carryover/benefit at all to distance running is absolute nonsense.
Jimmy21 wrote:
These threads are always funny on LR. Theres always the few hs state champions chiming in saying sub 17 takes little talent. Its the equivalent of 6'6 nba players saying genetics had nothing to do with their success
I hope you're not confusing me with a state champ - didn't even qualify. I just think that there are 16:40 kids who won't get there in HS (or realize they can run sub 17) because they are on a diet of running alone. My times dropped a lot simply from running but things really took off when I also began doing stuff like carrying bundles of shingles up a ladder all day. I got strong in different ways & not just from maturing - when I went to college I got sorta soft, even tho I ran a lot more. Sure, I had some running talent in HS, but if I had never met my amigos up on the roof would I have found all of it? On 35mpw & Fortnite?
Poppy Cocque wrote:
Does this blue collar make my ass look big? wrote:
Another way of looking at it: how much of your talent do you have to find to break 18/17? Few kids come close to their potential in HS. Here's the problem: most don't train their assess off in HS and many who attempt to risk injury. I had very little talent but managed 16:40s by age 16 off less than 35mpw.
How? I was always moving, not always running. I did a lot of manual /low skill jobs. I roofed houses, did landscaping, set pavers by hand, harvested fruit with a migrant crew. I was so beat up some nights, I'd fall asleep eating dinner. I never played video games, watched TV or spent much time on computers or phone. If I had the energy, I was back outside: I ran, mountain biked & skied. It's only a theory, but I think all that crap I did outside of running helped me find what little talent I had. If I had a comfortable life on my ass with my feet up, what would my pr's have been? What would have happened if I doubled my mileage and my couch time? I did this in college, and found out: I should have kept working on the migrant crew.
Yes, it is "only a theory," and it's full of holes. The idea that the type of manual labor you described has any carryover/benefit at all to distance running is absolute nonsense.
Agree to disagree. When I was pushing lawnmower for 8 hours, or spending days carrying bricks up and down a hill, or operating a piece of orchard equipment that required me to lift & jog in repeated spurts for 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, I got strong. Maybe you've done similar work and haven't seen any benefits to your running, but I did. Even though my mileage was low at the time, I was fit. Is it the perfect way to train as a runner? Of course not. But to say there is no running carry over to something that works your muscles, gets your heart rate up, & gets you acclimated to hard work in the sun & heat is a little silly.
Predictor wrote:
If a HS has 1000 students and you promised to bring in a professional coach and reward the students with $10k for breaking 18 minutes and $5k for breaking 19 minutes, my prediction is that you would get 10 students at sub 18 and another 20 at sub 19. Those are totals for girls and boys so about 1% under 18 and 3% total under 19. Those times therefore require much talent.
No way. I coach at a HS with considerably less than 1000 kids and most are dirt poor. 20 boys on the team and all but 2 or 3 break 19 each year and half break 17. It's just training and culture. Doesn't take talent to run 18 min if you're tough.