Serious: why are most runners so slow?

youngcoach wrote:

Ho Hum wrote:

If we're talking about able bodied men, most would be capable of sub-20 with consistent, sustained training at some point in their lives. The fact that very few people actually do this has no bearing on their ability to do it.

yup. I havent had a kid not break 20 yet that is fit and trains hard for 4 years. That being said, I have had kids not break 20. They were obese and complained to moms about working to much aka 20-30mpw. Every single person that is able bodied and doesn't have medical conditions should be able to break 20 if they train hard in their prime

Sorry but your experience doesn't mean much. Your sample is too small and is restricted to those who already made the decision to go out for a sport. The really nonathletic kids won't do that. And of course you've said every single person but the number of females who can break 20 even with good training over many years is pretty small.

dumb wrote:

Flagpole wrote: If you can't break 20 minutes (or really, some of them can't break 24 minutes) by age 18 after running up to 60 MPW in the summers, and you've been at it since the 7th grade, you're likely not going to be able to do it, and improper training isn't the culprit.

There's a reason why some guys run the 400...that's what they are equipped to run.

I would have to see videotapes of someone running 60 miles per week for five years to believe that there is a teenaged human being who isn't obese, suffering from a serious medical condition, or disabled by an orthopedic injury/defect who could train like that and not break 20 for 5k

Yea, I also have to agree. I have yet to see anyone that does remotely near this fail to break 20. At least one of them that eventually broke 20 has a best 100m of 16.4s HT, and a best 400 of 76s...so you can garner about his level of athleticism.

Moreover, if you go to local roadraces and look at the guys running 21, 22, etc. they by and large do not look like runners. The majority have potbellies, which means at least 20+ extra pounds of weight, which alone is probably enough to go sub 20. I will also say I have rarely talked to anyone that runs over 20 minutes, and heard them say they do 50, or even 40+ mpw of workouts.

I don't know where the bar is that the majority of young, healthy males could not run even if they trained well for several years is; but I can't find a shred of evidence to indicate it's 20 minutes or higher.

I don't see any pot-bellied 21 minute 5K runners around my neck of the woods. They are around 35. The in-shape non runners that run once a week do about 28 minutes. And there are a lot of guys that run 20, 30 mpw and do 23, 25 minutes. There are a lot of slow folks out there.

chinocochio wrote:

I don't see any pot-bellied 21 minute 5K runners around my neck of the woods. They are around 35. The in-shape non runners that run once a week do about 28 minutes. And there are a lot of guys that run 20, 30 mpw and do 23, 25 minutes. There are a lot of slow folks out there.

My sense is that the pot-bellies get pretty rare as you dip into the low 20's. They are pretty common from mid 20's and up. However, the guys in the low 20's aren't built like runners in that they often have larger frames, relatively short legs, etc...

I gave up running when I couldn't run sub-13 any more. It just seems so pointless.

A Christian wrote:

My sense is that the pot-bellies get pretty rare as you dip into the low 20's. They are pretty common from mid 20's and up. However, the guys in the low 20's aren't built like runners in that they often have larger frames, relatively short legs, etc...

What in the world do short legs have to do with anything?

cff wrote:

A Christian wrote:

My sense is that the pot-bellies get pretty rare as you dip into the low 20's. They are pretty common from mid 20's and up. However, the guys in the low 20's aren't built like runners in that they often have larger frames, relatively short legs, etc...

What in the world do short legs have to do with anything?

Most fast runners have relatively long legs in proportion to their height.

A Christian wrote:

cff wrote:

What in the world do short legs have to do with anything?

Most fast runners have relatively long legs in proportion to their height.

First, is there a source for that information? Second, what does that have to do with running fast?

cff wrote:

A Christian wrote:

[quote]cff wrote:

Most fast runners have relatively long legs in proportion to their height.

First, is there a source for that information? Second, what does that have to do with running fast?

My source is generally being interested in running and picking up information as a fan. I should think it would be obvious how it contributes to running fast. Having long legs in proportion to your height gives you a good "stride length to weight" ratio.

A Christian wrote:

cff wrote:

First, is there a source for that information? Second, what does that have to do with running fast?

My source is generally being interested in running and picking up information as a fan. I should think it would be obvious how it contributes to running fast. Having long legs in proportion to your height gives you a good "stride length to weight" ratio.

Yeah, sorry cff - this isn't some obscure claim that needs citation. It's pretty widely known/accepted.

I also can't remember seeing anyone 20 pounds overweight come in around 21:00.

It's a problem of motivation, not just ability. Sure, my high school team had a couple of kids who couldn't break 20, but none of them gave a sh!t. Every single person who cared enough to run over the summer broke 20 minutes before graduating.

I'm around a lot of mediocre runners through my running club, so I'm not totally talking out my butt here. The fact is that most people don't know how to train, and few are motivated enough to train hard even if they did know how. I don't know how we can say that most people aren't capable of going sub-20 when so few make a real effort at it.

Of the very small group of men I know who, in my opinion, train correctly, all are able to run under 20 minutes.

A Christian wrote:

My source is generally being interested in running and picking up information as a fan. I should think it would be obvious how it contributes to running fast. Having long legs in proportion to your height gives you a good "stride length to weight" ratio.

Stride length is how far you propel yourself with each step. It is about how hard you push off the ground. It has nothing to do with how long your legs are.

totally legit wrote:

Yeah, sorry cff - this isn't some obscure claim that needs citation. It's pretty widely known/accepted.

Being widely known or accepted doesn't make it true. Where is the actual study that has measured all of these fast runners?

I once had an argument with a guy who insisted that being tall had nothing to do with talent in basketball. He didn't understand talent. I read once that the main talent required for being a supermodel is the ability to have an orange slice and some lettuce for lunch without keeling over. That guy understood talent.

I think body type matters. Strength to weight ratio. Percent fast twitch fibers. Response to training (believe it or not, some people just don't get better with training). Motivation. Those are some positive qualities. A runner could be slow because they are lacking one (or all!) of the positive qualities. Or they could be slow because they have a negative quality. Leg length discrepancy. Flat feet. Asthma. Diabetes. Here the list is endless. It's tricky though because some people overcome their difficulties and still manage to be "not slow".

But in my opinion the biggest reason why most are SO slow is because they strongly believe that fast running is impossible for them. Could they break 20 for 5k? I dunno. I doubt it, but admit I'm just guessing. But I do know the back of the packers I see are nowhere near their potential. Cut them some slack though. They are way closer than the couch potatos.

My bad! I only coach guys. it would be loads harder to train girl to go sub 20. Sorry about the mix up. haha

totally legit wrote:

A Christian wrote:

My source is generally being interested in running and picking up information as a fan. I should think it would be obvious how it contributes to running fast. Having long legs in proportion to your height gives you a good "stride length to weight" ratio.

Yeah, sorry cff - this isn't some obscure claim that needs citation. It's pretty widely known/accepted.

I also can't remember seeing anyone 20 pounds overweight come in around 21:00.

Potbellies was indeed bit of an exaggeration I will admit. However, larger frame/muscle/etc. is pretty common. Lots of guys in the low 20s are your typical "fit" guys with a more muscular build that pride themselves on being in shape. It's definitely not uncommon for them to be 20+ pounds over what we would consider an ideal racing weight...even if much of it is muscle.

To say you have never seen anyone 20 pounds overweight run 21 or better is really surprising. I've definitely seen people noticeably over running weight in the 19s, and even 18s. Clearly, these guys were likely runners before now getting back into it, but it definitely happens.

I think anyone CAN break 20 minutes for a 5k. Their mind is holding them back. I've coached for many years and every kid who came out for the sport broke 20 minutes before they graduated HS. If they were on their own it wouldn't have happened, but since they were sucked into a program and had group-think they broke 20. 20 min for 5k isn't fast, but it seems fast if you only listen to your body instead of being "brainwashed" by a training program. The only people that wouldn't break 20 min are the boys who miss practices.

Like others have mentioned, its not about speed to a lot of people or being fast isn't a priority compared to just going out and being able to run as a form of exercise/stress relief/etc. I ram competitively in college and sure I would like to be faster now (4 years out) but it's just not as important to me anymore. Working full time (standing all day) and raising a family takes a lot of time/energy and to be honest it doesn't matter to me how fast I am-I am just happy to fit whatever running in I can everyday.

Ho Hum wrote:

I don't know how we can say that most people aren't capable of going sub-20 when so few make a real effort at it.

To clarify, I, personally, agree that MOST males, with years of proper training, could break 20. The part I disagree with is when someone says EVERYONE should be able to do it - I think there's a huge difference. Maybe I'm taking people too literally though....