Do you believe breaking 20 in the 5k is a major accomplishment?

Please Stop wrote:

david45 wrote:

Don't most people start off with a 5k in around 30 minutes?

No. Any healthy, active man in his 20s or 30s who is not fat should be able to run 22 minutes any daybof the week. That's 7 min mile pace. 22 min is like a base line that most can do without any training at all. Age and weight and activity level can mess with that.

this is most definitely not true.

high school xc coach wrote:

Please Stop wrote:

No. Any healthy, active man in his 20s or 30s who is not fat should be able to run 22 minutes any daybof the week. That's 7 min mile pace. 22 min is like a base line that most can do without any training at all. Age and weight and activity level can mess with that.

this is most definitely not true.

It’s like saying it’s easy to cycle 100k in less than 2 hours 30mins, did it one my first day at cycle club and just got faster from there....

Probably could have run sub 20min at high second if I was not a 110m hurdler, 20 years later with running or training a 26:50 non track 5k, 6 months to get to sub 20 mins on 2 days non training runs a week.

It really goes to show that lung and aerobic development occurs when you are young and if you are actively through childhood it gives you the lung aerobic development, coming at it as later life there is only so much you can develop.

Hence why you get a let’s run echo chamber of I can run fast so everyone else must be able to do too

I started with a 31 minute 5k, after 6 months training I got a sub 20 minute 5k but I also lost 30 pounds during that period of time. I would say it is a big achievement, 99% of human beings will never get close to that and 90% of people who start running as a hobby never achieve it.

The first two months of training I could only manage 10 miles per week due to my body being to sore, after that I did 15 and eventually 20 miles per week at the time I ran under 20 minutes. This talk of needing 50 miles per week is nonsense! I never ran "slow or easy" though, I was pushing pretty hard on every run.

its not hard wrote:

It doesn’t take talent or even a ton of work to be able to break 20. People with no talent just need to put in more miles. But pretty sure anyone who runs 50 miles a week can break 20 even working doing any serious speed work. Throw in some tempos and some strides, anyone can hit 20 at 50 mpw.

Please Stop wrote:

david45 wrote:

Don't most people start off with a 5k in around 30 minutes?

No. Any healthy, active man in his 20s or 30s who is not fat should be able to run 22 minutes any daybof the week. That's 7 min mile pace. 22 min is like a base line that most can do without any training at all. Age and weight and activity level can mess with that.

OMG!

Some people live in such a fantasy world. No touch with reality at all. How do you even survive?

No, I started running seriously at 40 and I broke 20 for 5K in my 5th 5K race. I would say that for a man in his 40s of a healthy weight who runs regularly it is a sign of a reasonable runner.

its not hard wrote:

It doesn’t take talent or even a ton of work to be able to break 20.

Please Stop wrote:

No. Any healthy, active man in his 20s or 30s who is not fat should be able to run 22 minutes any daybof the week. That's 7 min mile pace. 22 min is like a base line that most can do without any training at all.

It all depends on whether you're fast twitch or slow twitch. If a sub 13 100 is easy for you, a sub 20 5K will be very hard. If a sub 20 5K is easy for you, a sub 13 100 will be very hard.

If you are 60 or older, yes.

amkelley wrote:

It's a fairly significant accomplishment for a woman or an older guy. For a young guy, no.

+1

It will be a significant accomplishment for you, and that's what matters.

That's nonsense.

Classic letsrun ego stroking going on here, although none of you ever made it pro.

He knows he's talking nonsense. He probably doesn't even run.

Untrue. I ran 11.5 in the 100 in high school and ran 14 flat for 5k in college. Any sub 15 5k guy would easily break 13 in a 100.

Bolt vs. Kipchoge wrote:

It all depends on whether you're fast twitch or slow twitch. If a sub 13 100 is easy for you, a sub 20 5K will be very hard. If a sub 20 5K is easy for you, a sub 13 100 will be very hard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJMIwlQB-28

predictor wrote:

Untrue. I ran 11.5 in the 100 in high school and ran 14 flat for 5k in college. Any sub 15 5k guy would easily break 13 in a 100.

Then why did Farah have a hard time breaking 13 in the 100, and why couldn't the Brownlee brothers run that 100 in sub 14? Either your 11.5 was misleading (self-timed? very generous hand time? 100 yards instead of 100 meters?), or your 5K was on a really short XC course with a net downhill and a massive tailwind. Or maybe both times were legit, but you trained as a sprinter early in HS and as a distance guy later on. It's simply impossible for anyone to be good in both events at the same time.

FWIW, I ran an electronically-timed sub 12 100m in my 20s but still haven't gotten a sub 20 5K despite a few months of 25-30 MPW. Could I have done it if I bumped my mileage to 50 MPW and kept it there for a year? Yes, but the point is that it wouldn't have been easy for me.

OTOH, I do know a few sub 15 5K guys who couldn't break 15 in the 100 from a standing start when they were in sub 15 5K shape. One of them did try sprinting for a change after graduation and ended up in the mid 12s, but it took him a year of sprint training and lifting to do it.

You are crazy. Both of my times were FAT track times. There were 8 out of 12 guys on my XC team who could run 13 in the 100. Three of them ran 4 flat in the mile. Do you think you can run 4 minutes on 14 second 100 speed? Guys like Hoare and Kusche can run 48 in the 400 and 13:40 for 5k. You can't run 48 without running 13.

sub-20 is good for 1st place at nearly any nyc open run. sub-23 is good for top 5.

Lots of my athletes view 20:00 as significant accomplishment.

For the boys, the ones that view it as significant, are among those that are "less talented". Granted, high school cross country teams aren't a great indicator of how easy it is for the general population, since they are a self selected group who largely think they are decent (or have the ability to be decent) runners before they even start.

For the girls, it's quite a big deal. Sub 20:00 will win our league title most years. (although our league course is 3.19)

A lot of it depends on what kind of runner you are. There was a thread on here last week by a kid who was a 4:50 miler and couldn't break 20:00. I was the opposite. My freshman year of HS, I ran 5:42, but bumped my training up to 50 mpw for 4 weeks after my season ended and ran 39:45 for 10k.

20 minutes for 5k is a big deal if you are 65 years old. A bigger deal when younger if you are big like a football player. Work those things out up age grades.

predictor wrote:

There were 8 out of 12 guys on my XC team who could run 13 in the 100. Three of them ran 4 flat in the mile.

Your XC team had three 4 flat milers? Cool story, bro.