Why do most runners like to believe that....

Also, what is with this persistent insertion that everyone thinks most runners could eventually break 1x:xx has ANYTHING to do with wanting to build themselves up in some way, or claim it was hard work that got them there?

Maybe someone does it, but I would imagine 90%+ are simply blinded by there own talent (doable for me, I didn't seem good -> everyone can), or have observational reasons to believe it.

The idea that it is all a conspiracy so people can feel better about themselves....not buying it. It doesn't change where you are at timewise, and it doesn't change the amount of people who have done it. Even if 95% of the population could break 15, you are still WAY in the top 1% if you are running 14:xx. It just doesn't make any difference.

Most people on letsrun think with their feelings, not their reason. They want to believe that emotion can accomplish anything and that running fast is just a matter if wanting to badly enough. Most of them have no willingness to acknowledge that everything about your physiology is either determined by genetics or the result of an interaction between genetics and environment (the process of adaptation to exercise is carried out according to genetic instructions). At no point is genetics escapable. Another thing is that most people want to be led by their professional idols - they want to believe that everything Galen Rupp does is correct. But if running success is genetically determined, the whole idea that you can validate training methods by assuming that everything that elites do is correct falls apart.

Suppose an experiment (that can obviously never be done)...

Assume you randomly choose 100,000 babies from all over the world - a more than sufficient sample size. You then ensure that the children are raised eating healthily, getting plenty of aerobic exercise, rest, etc., etc. As the children continue to grow into adults they are raised with the goal of developing the speed and aerobic capacity to break 20min (gradual buildup of mileage, whatever else you want to think of...).

- what percentage will break 20min?

The answer, IMO, is quite different than asking what percentage of the existing population could break 20min w/proper training.

OK, that's an extremely good point and yeah people can be disadvantaged by various things which then would make them less likely to be able to achieve this.

So if you took a random selection of 100 16 year old guys in high school and provided a good incentive how many do you think would? I think most of them would.

The women's world record is 14:11 - do people really not think most 16 year old guys could come within 6 minutes of that?

track chick wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

AND again, when looking at a high school CC team, you are looking at the cream of the crop...probably 95% or more of the other kids left in the high school couldn't train to break 20 minutes. It's harder than you think it is.

What! Are you serious?

Also, saying even if you were given millions you couldn't break 14 is a totally different thing, that's much more difficult. I accept that one (applying it to the general population) but if we're talking about 20 min for a 5K I think most men could do it.

I think if you gave the incentive of 5 million for breaking 20 mins it would help a lot.

For me in my prime, getting to sub 14 is the same distance as a bunch of HS runners who are running 23 minutes who have to get to sub 20. For them, getting to sub 20 is just as hard (and impossible) as it would have been for me to get to sub 14.

breaking flagpole wrote:

any human being with legs and decent bit of training can run a sub 20 minute 5k. just because you, flagpole, can't do it because you are fat/lazy/weak, doesn't mean you can come here and argue that you are limited by your genes. hate lazy tards like you.

Ha! Dude, I rolled out of bed and ran my first road race (a 5 miler) at age 14 with only the little bit of running I did for my Pony League Baseball team in 30:00 flat. That's a 6 minute pace per mile for 5 miles, so minimum, an 18:38 5k at that same pace.

All of us are limited by our genes, or otherwise we'd all be Olympic champions. The champions don't just want it more...well, they MIGHT, but only because they know they have the talent to actually try to attain it.

EZ10Miler wrote:

I think there are a lot of folks in here who's parents were waaaaayyy to nice to them.

"You can do ANYTHING honey! The world is yours!"

You guys must live in a big bubble of denial.

You might be right. Something's going on for sure, because as slow as 20 minutes seems to some of you (and me too...I mean, I could train for 3 months right now, assuming I could stay injury free, and break 20 minutes, and I'm old and fat), it really isn't that slow. 6:25 pace for more than 3 miles is too difficult for the majority...even if trained to their potential.

I actually agree with you (somewhat) but that isn't the same argument as people running to break 20 min. Most of your sample in these XC races aren't bothered about breaking 20 min. It's not the same thing!

Flagpole wrote:

All of us are limited by our genes, or otherwise we'd all be Olympic champions.

How in the world do you arrive at these conclusions? Why would we all otherwise be Olympic champions if we weren't limited by our genes?

I think too many of you people don't have access to non-athletes or something.Back when I still worked for a company (I was in my late 30s), we decided to do a corporate challenge 5k. It was at a time where I hadn't been running much, so I decided to give it a go; 3 months of training where I started at 15 miles a week and bumped it up to about 30 by the end. About 15 of us trained for it, including a couple of 20-somethings that were supposedly "very fast". Some of the 20-somethings would run after work together, and these two supposedly fast guys would "dust" everyone. I just trained on my own.Get to race day...they both run in the 23s. I run 17:48.They were both young and fit. Could they get a little faster with more training...yep...both were already runners though, and they had even trained for longer races...they just weren't very fast (even though the even slower ones thought they were).

Flagpole ran 15:48 in HS with little (20mpw?) training.

Conversely, I know a guy that is in his 20s, does 40MPW with very good quality and planning. His PR is barely sub 19. Why is this so?

Well, your pool is of RUNNERS. What level? I'm sure most college coaches could say what you've said...that's an unfair sampling.Also, at least here in the US, kids are asked to run a mile for the President's Fitness test (sometimes it's 800 meters) and have to run in gym class, etc. They know right from the beginning if they suck at running or not. They also race and play tag at recess, etc. Are there SOME kids who think they couldn't run very fast who actually would be able to if they trained a ton? Yes. Mostly though, they have a sense of how things might go right from the beginning.

Economic Freedom wrote:

Most people on letsrun think with their feelings, not their reason. They want to believe that emotion can accomplish anything and that running fast is just a matter if wanting to badly enough. Most of them have no willingness to acknowledge that everything about your physiology is either determined by genetics or the result of an interaction between genetics and environment (the process of adaptation to exercise is carried out according to genetic instructions). At no point is genetics escapable. Another thing is that most people want to be led by their professional idols - they want to believe that everything Galen Rupp does is correct. But if running success is genetically determined, the whole idea that you can validate training methods by assuming that everything that elites do is correct falls apart.

Very nice.

Don't worry about the "there is not talent" posters, Flagpole. Any rational person can see that there is a wide distribution of talent, a Gaussian distribution if you will.

Best not to entertain their incompetent responses to your reasonable, rational assertions.

But seriously, did those 23 minute guys THEMSELVES think that they were fast?!! Ugh, I would think that they would have raced people when younger and realized that they were slow as heck.

this is more true in the sprints

for some reason alot of people (especially distance types) seem to hold this same belief with the sprint events

Ability to run a sub 11 100m is essentially decided at birth like it or not

track chick wrote:

OK, that's an extremely good point and yeah people can be disadvantaged by various things which then would make them less likely to be able to achieve this.

So if you took a random selection of 100 16 year old guys in high school and provided a good incentive how many do you think would? I think most of them would.

The women's world record is 14:11 - do people really not think most 16 year old guys could come within 6 minutes of that?

Yes. I think most MEN under age 40 (well over age 40 too, but I'm going for the most able group of men) could NOT run 5,000 meters within about 6 minutes of that time (not under 20:00).

track chick wrote:

I actually agree with you (somewhat) but that isn't the same argument as people running to break 20 min. Most of your sample in these XC races aren't bothered about breaking 20 min. It's not the same thing!

They are still running to do the best they can. There's a girl on my daughter's HS track team who just ran her 1600 PR of 7:19! She tried her hardest, flopped on the ground afterwards, the whole deal.

I think more of those runners running slow times are trying harder than you think they are. When I was in high school, a lot of our cross country team was made up of guys who wrestled in the winter...very competitive tough guys who ran to get in shape, but they tried like hell during the races too...the fastest wrestler? About 21:30 or so.

I had a college teammate who on our first day of xc practice, every season, he couldn't keep up on the teams easy runs. By the end of every season, he qualified for nationals(D1) as an individual and be our #1 guy be a long shot. He wasn't working harder than the rest of us during the season, our coach actually struggled with wether he should cut the guy for being so lazy. But he could get to nationals off half @ssed training in the fall and no summer running. Talent is for real and some of us have more than others.

I for one, set my school record in the Presidential Fitness test mile run off of no training in third grade. So yes, I had more talent than my peers. By college though, I was surrounded by guys with more talent than me.

brahs are us. wrote:

Flagpole ran 15:48 in HS with little (20mpw?) training.

Conversely, I know a guy that is in his 20s, does 40MPW with very good quality and planning. His PR is barely sub 19. Why is this so?

The answer is simple...I have more natural talent. When I was in high school, all of us on the team did the same workouts (not a great CC coach). We ran 15-20 MPW, and honestly most of that was 15. We didn't do any off season training. No internet then to tell us what everyone else was doing. So, we all ran the same workouts, but on race day, I run 15:48, and the other varsity guys run in the 17s and 18s. I didn't want it more than they did...in fact, one guy wanted it WAY more than I did...he just didn't have the talent.