Average Joe running 100 mpw; how fast would he get?

younger man wrote:

Wrong as always for you guys who think training beats talent. My club has a group of about a dozen guys in their 30s who have been averaging 100MPW for at least 5 years. These aren't average people. They are guys who have been running for 20 years and love it. Most of them race about 40 minutes for 10k and 19 for 5k. Two of them are over 20 minutes for 5k. These guys show up for track workouts on Wednesday and they do a 20 miler every Sunday. I dont think any of them has a college PR any faster than 16:30 for 5k.

This is absolutely true! There is the law of diminishing returns, so 100 MPW isn't anything magical, and it doesn't make the average Joe run a 17:00 5k. Talent is by far the most important thing. The runners who think otherwise think that they are somehow just tougher or trained harder or smarter than others. Nope. Can't run fast without training, but talent is the greatest limiter, BY FAR.

I sometimes trained with a very similar group to what you are describing when I was in my mid 20s. I was just getting into high mileage then, but these guys had been doing 100 MPW+ for years, and they just weren't that good. 40-44 minute 10k guys on average. One halfway decent guy who could run 34 minutes, but he was better than that in college.

Most runners simply don't want to believe talent has anything to do with it. If that's not the case, then why don't we all just run sub 13 min for 5,000 if we just put in the mileage and do workouts? Talent is a spectrum. You can't take Ford Fiesta and make it a Ferrari.

Depends on talent. Between 13:45 and 20 minutes for 5k.

Rtype wrote:

I believe I’m an average Joe. I was 4th and sometimes 5th on my HS team.

That's an average high school varsity runner, someone many levels better than Average Joe non-runner.

I know you want to be humble, but Average Joes aren't varsity HS runners, unless the high school is super small or the team just sucks balls. 100 MPW doesn't make someone run 15:42. That is not a blazing fast time, but for an Average Joe, it is beyond unattainable.

Only averaging 70-80ish miles a week with what you admit was not optimal training and you achieved times that are much faster than most here believe would be possible. There are simply too many distractions in this day and age for someone to want to commit to running this many hours per week and know that they will never be close to a pro athlete, it's much easier for someone to short change themselves and say mid 16 is where they'd be at when in reality they could possibly run times that may be worth that commitment to them.

minime wrote:

Assume he is between 18-35 years. Assume he wont get injured. 2 workouts per week; 1 with short intervals, 1 with longer (threshold/vo2), 1 good long run. After a year on that schedule what would the average person ( not average runner) be able to do on a 5/10k?I say 18.30/38.15.

Body type is key here - being built for distance running is a major genetic component of competive runners. If this person is built like Kipchoge & Osako (5-6/115) or if they're taller say like Rupp at 5-11/135, and they're are closer to 18 yrs opd than 35, and with mega-mileage, very hard intervals & thresholds, he could go easily sub-15/sub-30.

☝️ I can't emphasize body type enough - which is a genetic component. Super thin...skin & bones type physiques allow very high mileage with minimum of injuries due to the lighter loading on the skeleton, muscles and tendons (short, squatty, bulky football player would never make it as a distance runner Lol).

So, take a young individual with the perfect body type for distance; give him mega-mileage, killer speed work sessions, hard tempos, etc., and the sky is the limit. Of course, if the individual is of weak mind and has no desire to train like a madman and would rather play video games & goof off, then none of this applies...and end of story.

Who is average Joe?

I am a late 30s guy who never ran in college. Diet decent but not great. Enjoy a few beers. I ran consistent 80-100 mile weeks for a year or so and ended up with 5K 17.20 and marathon 2.41.

No young, healthy male who is capable of averaging 100 MPW at their Daniels-prescribed easy pace, with workouts intermixed, for several years straight, with no injuries, is only running 34:00 for a 10k. That's an outrageous claim. If they're talented enough to run that much with little to no injury, they WILL run faster than 34:00.

What are you guys going to claim next, that some of those runners could only run 4:55 in a mile at age 25 with 5 years straight of 100 MPW of easy runs, reps, and tempos? I want to see you say that, please say that.

More likely that these guys doing "100 MPW" were actually doing around 60-70 MPW of decent running while the other 30 were junk miles run with their significant other @ 10:00 pace or out with their buddies jogging through the woods @ 10:00 pace and stopping every 5 minutes to enjoy the scenery.

It depends on their ability to handle injury.

I ran in HS, from '98 to '02, then quit running for 15 years. I was in ROTC in 2004 and my Major wore both his knees out running so that scared me into just daily walking 1-2 miles for years. I got overweight by 2017 and started running Memorial Day weekend. My first 5k time trial was like 29:30.

That fall I ran about an average of 30-35 mpw and only did 10 miles 3x (with a 1:17 as my PR), but somehow did a 1:45:46 at Cbus on very low mileage. And it was 73'F at race start.

So if an average slow (short!) guy can go from 29:30 5k TT to a 8:04-ish 13.1 in a few months on no more than 35 mpw and a peak of 10 miles as my LR only 3x that season, that means most people can improve too, but even more exponentially.

Kipchogefan wrote:

i do not believe that anyone seriously training and hitting 100 mpw won't break 17min and 35:30.

+1

There's no way on this planet any 18-35 male has ever consistently ran 100 mpw and failed to run a 17 minute 5k. I'd estimate after a year the average Joe would be running 15:00-15:30, someone below average might be closer to 16:00. Someone with absolutely zero talent probably low 16s.

These supposed runners who run 100MPW and 20 minute 5k's only exist on the internet, you'll never meet one in real life.

And just because someone claims to run 100MPW, or they did it once five years ago, doesn't mean they actually do.

LR users are liars wrote:

Kipchogefan wrote:

i do not believe that anyone seriously training and hitting 100 mpw won't break 17min and 35:30.

+1

There's no way on this planet any 18-35 male has ever consistently ran 100 mpw and failed to run a 17 minute 5k. I'd estimate after a year the average Joe would be running 15:00-15:30, someone below average might be closer to 16:00. Someone with absolutely zero talent probably low 16s.

These supposed runners who run 100MPW and 20 minute 5k's only exist on the internet, you'll never meet one in real life.

And just because someone claims to run 100MPW, or they did it once five years ago, doesn't mean they actually do.

+2

I believe an able bodied "average" man that could hold 100 mile weeks for any significant length time would be well under 17:00. All of the principles of endurance training would mean crap if this was not the case.

Didn't Ron Daws once say that an average person could be trained to run a 2:30-something marathon if they followed the Lydiard method for a couple of years?

Yes talent is VERY important, but talent is difference between someone running 13 min (very talented), 16 min (average) or 20 min (very bad) on 100 mpw.

I'm a below average hobby jogger with 25mins 5k. I will report back in 2 years aiming for sub 16k with 100mpw!. Male 35, 186lbs, body fat 18-22%. Aim to lose 50lbs to help reach sub 16k. Process is key

avg100 wrote:

I'm a below average hobby jogger with 25mins 5k. I will report back in 2 years aiming for sub 16k with 100mpw!. Male 35, 186lbs, body fat 18-22%. Aim to lose 50lbs to help reach sub 16k. Process is key

The problem is not just running 100 MPW - it's building up to that and then holding it without injury, which for most requires years of training.

People lie and exaggerate wrote:

avg100 wrote:

I'm a below average hobby jogger with 25mins 5k. I will report back in 2 years aiming for sub 16k with 100mpw!. Male 35, 186lbs, body fat 18-22%. Aim to lose 50lbs to help reach sub 16k. Process is key

The problem is not just running 100 MPW - it's building up to that and then holding it without injury, which for most requires years of training.

The problem is that workouts are much more important than running mileage. So many hobby joggers run easy every time and wonder why they don't improve that much. They never exceed the point that causes adaptions in the heart, heart muscle, leg muscles, metabolism, etc., just jogging at their comfortable pace day in and day out just isn't enough to get really fast over distances below ultras.

When people say, 100 mpw guys are slow, like 20 min 5k or 40 min 10k guys - then it's because they just run easy all time, with maybe a half-hearted or totally inappropriate workout here and there. But it also goes the other way - some people just run 100 mpw for the sake of running 100 mpw, and running the 100 mpw becomes an end in itself, they are not improving their fitness or race times anymore with smart training.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

The problem is that workouts are much more important than running mileage. So many hobby joggers run easy every time and wonder why they don't improve that much. They never exceed the point that causes adaptions in the heart, heart muscle, leg muscles, metabolism, etc., just jogging at their comfortable pace day in and day out just isn't enough to get really fast over distances below ultras.

When people say, 100 mpw guys are slow, like 20 min 5k or 40 min 10k guys - then it's because they just run easy all time, with maybe a half-hearted or totally inappropriate workout here and there. But it also goes the other way - some people just run 100 mpw for the sake of running 100 mpw, and running the 100 mpw becomes an end in itself, they are not improving their fitness or race times anymore with smart training.

That is not my experience. I see many youngsters who think that it is all about workouts. They under perform compared to those who prioritise mileage. Those adaptations mentioned won't take place without the mileage.

I am a hobbyjogger, running slow miles, in my 60s. I can do 5K in 20 mins just off mileage. I would be a bit faster with workouts, but not much.

My name is Joe... at 100 MPW I was:

3k - 9 flat

5k 15:40s

10k 33

animaxcg wrote:

My name is Joe... at 100 MPW I was:

3k - 9 flat

5k 15:40s

10k 33

If your times are genuine, you are not average Joe!!?

avg100 wrote:

animaxcg wrote:

My name is Joe... at 100 MPW I was:

3k - 9 flat

5k 15:40s

10k 33

If your times are genuine, you are not average Joe!!?

I disagree. I'd say that sounds pretty average to me. Maybe even slightly below.