Why is everyone so slow?? (Serious Question)

Welcome to letsrun, where EVERYBODY has a pr of 14:xx/30:xx LMAO.

Sub 15 is not slow and sub 16 is not slow either. Even running below 6 min pace on a sidewalk in a semi-large city will startle most other pedestrians as you go by. Somebody on here mentioned that sub 15 is an easily achievable feat for the top 3% of runners. That is simply absurd. Show me statistical proof that the top 3% of runners in the US can run under 15 min. It's not close to being true.

Your perspective of races being "slow" is simply a small sample bias based on the races you have attended.

^THIS POST ^ +10

And i agree 100%, you have to be born with a gifted aerobic capacity even to go under like 17:00. I've seen people who literally spend years training for 5K (lean, good build, athletic, etc.) and can't get below 18:00. People on letsrun make it sound like "hard work" and "dedication" can net anyone a 15:xx 5k time. That is beyond delusional.

I've won two 5ks in 19:17 and 18:58. much prefer getting bootyblasted by the college guys running 15s

Even 17 or 18 takes considerably more talent than the average person has. I would argue that only about 50% of males would end up going sub 20 in a 5k when trained.

The average male with no competitive xc/track background can barely do “Tabata HiiT sprints” at their local GoldsGym/PlanetFitness at 10.0mph (6:00pace) on a treadmill. For a decent college runner this probably close to marathon race pace

It's caused by a generational shift from competition to participation. The average young-ish runner is now a millennial. I'm a Gen Xer, and the focus was more on running fast, and not as many people worked out. Fitness for the sake of fitness is a bigger trend now, and that means Gallowalking through a 30:00 5k sometimes. Twenty years ago, a local 5k in this smaller city would go in 14 high to 15:20, with a 17:30 maybe cracking the top ten. Maybe 100 people showed up. Now, a local 5k might attract 500 and the "winner" (if they even label it a "race") might run 20 flat. I'm not making value judgments about it, but our society has gotten more collective with a focus on equity rather than equality.

In a real, honest-to-God footrace equity has no place.

Well the difference is, the top tier runners are still there, and probably in bigger numbers, they are just diluted to many other races, since there are more races now, and as others have said these top runners are drawn to specific races with prizes and known fast times, and good courses. The shear number of races is a lot different. But is that a bad thing? the number of people "running" brings attention to the sport, and thus more money for sponsoring professional runners. Think of how many more running shoes are sold to these people, thus putting more money towards professional running. And all of the participants of marathons allows for the big prize money, all of this is good for the serious runners, who in no way have declined in numbers...

I'm a mediocre talented runner. My 5k PR is low 15s (at elevation, I never raced a decent sea-level 5k). So, with a time in the low 16s, I can win the majority of hobby jogger 5k races. But I rarely run a 5k unless I know there is prize money in it. If there is no prize money, showing up and easily winning a hobby-jogger 5k is just a waste of time and money.

Case in point, I ran a 5k this last weekend just for the sake of running a race since the last time I raced was in the fall. The race was $27.50 to sign up for. I won. I was done running at about 7:45 (race started at 7:30). Afterward they gave away a ton of stuff in raffle prizes. They did a fairly good job of quickly giving the raffle prizes away because they posted the numbers on a big poster board. There were about 500 people in the race, and they gave away about 150 things and some of it was pretty good stuff like sleeping bags or 4-man tents. I didn't get anything. No problem. Maybe with such good raffle prizes, they will give something decent away for the race prizes.

The raffle prizes where all given away by 8:30. It's starting to really warm up and standing around in the sun is getting a bit annoying. The last 5k joggers are walking in. There are two big boxes with "race prize mugs" sitting on a table under the a tent. A few people ask a volunteer who seems to be running things, "so when are the race prizes going to be given away?" He says, "I'm not sure, I'm not the race director, but just 1 minute." 10 more minutes goes by. Nothing is happening. More people ask when results will be announced. Again, "just a minute." Another 10 minutes goes by. The laptop computer on the table next to the finish line is just sitting there, closed. The inflatable archway over the finish line is now being dismantled. I ask a few volunteers "so is it worth waiting around for the race prizes, what are they?" Answer "we don't know, but it will just be 1 minute. But if you get a ribbon, we can mail it to you." I hesitate for another 5 minutes and decide it's time to leave.

So, unless it is an established well-run race, this is a very typical race experience. I could repeat at least 2 dozen stories with this sort of experience that I've had. If I was just a hobby-jogger (I know some on letsrun will say my 5k pr makes me a hobbyjogger, let's set that debate aside) and I ran a 5k on a Saturday morning, it would be a fine social event and I would leave right after I'm done. But when you are the winner or another top finisher, you kind of want to stick around just on the off chance they will give you some nice swag. I tend to try one of these races about once a year hoping it will be well organized, and 90% of the time I'm disappointed and reminded why I don't want to run any races I don't already know are well organized.

So the bottom line is that unless it is one of the few races in a given year that you know is run well, and gives away decent stuff as prizes (not just as raffles), there is no reason to show up. Doing your own solo 5k TT on a Satruday morning is more enjoyable than going to all the trouble of running a race.

Races that are well organized and can be relied upon to give decent prize money will attract the post collegiate talent that will show up and win the thing in sub 15. Otherwise, the decent runners have learned to not bother.

Recreational running is a big pastime, more people seeking basic fitness get out and run races, so it's natural that lots of races cater to mostly slow runners.

If I run one of my club races, maybe I'm in the top 30%, as we have a bunch of nominally motivated trainers.

If I do a local run that is marketed to the public, I'll usually be in the top 10% (bear in mind, I'm over 60).

When I started road racing as a teen in Massachusetts in the 70s, the standard distance was 5 miles. Anytime there were 100 runners or more toeing the line, there was a good chance the winner was going to be under 25 minutes. We were having fun, but just the same it was serious business. Different times, quite literally!

wow everyone on here is so fast wrote:

Welcome to letsrun, where EVERYBODY has a pr of 14:xx/30:xx LMAO.

Sub 15 is not slow and sub 16 is not slow either. Even running below 6 min pace on a sidewalk in a semi-large city will startle most other pedestrians as you go by. Somebody on here mentioned that sub 15 is an easily achievable feat for the top 3% of runners. That is simply absurd. Show me statistical proof that the top 3% of runners in the US can run under 15 min. It's not close to being true.

Your perspective of races being "slow" is simply a small sample bias based on the races you have attended.

I didn’t say that 3% of runners are able to run a sub-15. I said 3% of (implying male 20-35) runners have the talent to go sub 15 if they trained for years, ran workouts twice a week, ran doubles, 80-90 mpw, etc. Almost no one does this so ultimately sub 15 puts you in the 99.99 percentile.

Either way, sub 20 is *potentially* achievable by more than half of this same population and a good number of runners outside the male 20-35 group and yet that time is winning races nowadays. There are a good number of reasons why as explained on this thread, but it’s still not a comforting fact that 500 people could show up and no one break 20. There may not be great runners in the race, but there’s still 500 people and to see none of them come anywhere near their potential is disheartening to the spirit of the sport. I can’t help but wonder why so many people don’t want to try nowadays. It’s a shame.

Because you dont live in Colorado

this change is good for serious runners wrote:

Well the difference is, the top tier runners are still there, and probably in bigger numbers, they are just diluted to many other races, since there are more races now, and as others have said these top runners are drawn to specific races with prizes and known fast times, and good courses. The shear number of races is a lot different. But is that a bad thing? the number of people "running" brings attention to the sport, and thus more money for sponsoring professional runners. Think of how many more running shoes are sold to these people, thus putting more money towards professional running. And all of the participants of marathons allows for the big prize money, all of this is good for the serious runners, who in no way have declined in numbers...

This could be true, but I don't find it anecdotally or empirically here in a small, Midwestern city. The depth of talent is abysmal. I'm a master now, but I can still go to the bigger cities within a two hour drive and finish top five in about any distance. That's sad. There should be 15-20 guys in their 20s mixing it up and stomping me into the ground. Again, I think it's a societal shift; I just don't think the average (faster) kid in their 20s has the grit, moxie, and drive they did 20 or 30 years ago. Our society is just too much more comfortable, convenient, and softer (also pudgier).

Races are for old people who still use Facebook and have AOL and Yahoo emails.

Fair enough. I misread/misinterpreted the 3% comment. I can get on board with most of your response.

However, I still think that it is a stretch to say 3% between 20-35 have the born talent to go sub 15 if they trained for years, did the workouts, etc. Perhaps petty of me, but i'd say it's closer to 1% or below. Sub 15 is no joke and i just don't think most people are born for it.

I had the previous post about the race where I waited around forever and gave up waiting for the prizes. My post was to illustrate why the post collegiate semi-talented runners don't show up. Obviously the current college runners don't show up because they aren't allowed to take prize money or gifts (which is a ridiculous rule). But now that you mention it, I am surprised that there aren't more decent high school kids at these races. It does seem like when I was in high school, I would go to many of the summertime road races and find other high schoolers to run against. Maybe there are just more races for them to choose from, or maybe the race cost is too high.

Why doesn’t let’s run start a section for good races with competition so people know where to show up to competitive local races?

Like others have said, 95% of all races are participation jokes. It would be nice to have a list of races worth showing up to if you’re a decent runner by region or whatever.

We're doing a post run tomorrow with a few thousand Army soldiers. We'll go about 4mi at around 10:00 pace and a good 10% will not be able to keep up with that pace.

An avg male soldier runs around 15:00 for 2mi and this is an all-out effort.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

We're doing a post run tomorrow with a few thousand Army soldiers. We'll go about 4mi at around 10:00 pace and a good 10% will not be able to keep up with that pace.

An avg male soldier runs around 15:00 for 2mi and this is an all-out effort.

Alan

I was really glad I was never in the Army but those guys are faster than we were in the Air Force. Once when I was in, I was in a PhD program and we ran our PT test with the local ROTC cadets at that school. I was in my late 30s and did the 1.5 mile run in just over 12 minutes and beat almost all of those kids. That was 15 years ago and since I got out I've had more time to run and can go quite a bit faster now.

Most people don't want to train that hard. There are probably a lot of people with a good deal of talent who really just aren't interested in that commitment. I saw it on my high school team. Our girls' 4 x 800 ran 10 mins flat but only one of the girls on that team was training and racing to her potential. The rest were soccer girls just staying in shape, content to run 2:30 and change - these girls could have been close to 5 minute milers if they cared, but running isn't everyone's jam and that's fine.