mspo wrote:
And there was definitely a time before that first 5k when you were slower than 23 minutes
What does that sentence even mean? Before I started running, by very nature, I had no running times.
mspo wrote:
And there was definitely a time before that first 5k when you were slower than 23 minutes
What does that sentence even mean? Before I started running, by very nature, I had no running times.
xenonscreams wrote:
Did you even read what I wrote? My friend trained for his first half, which he ran in 1:58. I didn't train for the 23 minutes. It'd be more valid to compare the times for our first races we both actually trained for, which were 1:58 on his end and 98 on my end. He has improved 25% from his first race he trained for; I have not, and I think doing so would be hugely impressive for anyone.
Who freaking cares what time you can run when you're running
I read what you wrote. You said you were doing minimal mileage. But that still counts as training. That is way more than doing nothing. So, yes, you have indeed improved at least 25% since you began running. You can't just ignore the 5k training you did and pretend it didn't contribute to your half performance.
xenonscreams wrote:
mspo wrote:And there was definitely a time before that first 5k when you were slower than 23 minutes
What does that sentence even mean? Before I started running, by very nature, I had no running times.
The sentence wasn't difficult to comprehend. I said since that was your first 5k (and you trained for it), then at some point your 5k ability was even slower than 23 minutes because you hadn't done any training at all yet. This statement was adding to my point that you have made an improvement significantly greater than 20% in your running ability.
mspo wrote:
I read what you wrote. You said you were doing minimal mileage. But that still counts as training. That is way more than doing nothing. So, yes, you have indeed improved at least 25% since you began running. You can't just ignore the 5k training you did and pretend it didn't contribute to your half performance.
OK, since you don't seem able to comprehend a basic argument, let's break this down:
1. My friend was training significantly for his first half-marathon, much more than 10mpw (which, I'm sorry, is not "training"), and he ran a 1:58
2. He has since run an 88
3. In the first race that I trained for, which was also a half-marathon, in which I was doing training analogous to his training for his first half-marathon, I ran a 98
4. I have since run an 85
His improvement is 25% from that first one to his PR which is amazing. My improvement is much less. Do you get it now, or do you need me to sit down with you and explain it again? Should we meet after school? Would you like a tutor?
xenonscreams wrote:
OK, since you don't seem able to comprehend a basic argument, let's break this down:
1. My friend was training significantly for his first half-marathon, much more than 10mpw (which, I'm sorry, is not "training"), and he ran a 1:58
2. He has since run an 88
3. In the first race that I trained for, which was also a half-marathon, in which I was doing training analogous to his training for his first half-marathon, I ran a 98
4. I have since run an 85
His improvement is 25% from that first one to his PR which is amazing. My improvement is much less. Do you get it now, or do you need me to sit down with you and explain it again? Should we meet after school? Would you like a tutor?
I don't know why you're trying to be mean and insulting.
No, you cannot dismiss the 10 mpw like it was nothing. It is training. How many mpw do you think 100m sprinters do? Furthermore, I know plenty of people that at some point in their running careers have only done 5-20 mpw and have gotten better. I personally have done this during busy times in my life and still made improvements. There are also lots of high school coaches who train their teams with very low mileage.
You can't just isolate a time in your training life to support your point. Training is cumulative. Even if it's 10mpw. Don't be a mileage slave.
you're missing the entire thing where my point is to compare his improvement with mine and point out how impressive it is, which only makes sense if we start from comparable points, which is precisely what I'm doing
but yeah, as an aside, going for a light jog for funzies a couple times per week is not training, sorry
xenonscreams wrote:
you're missing the entire thing where my point is to compare his improvement with mine and point out how impressive it is, which only makes sense if we start from comparable points, which is precisely what I'm doing
but yeah, as an aside, going for a light jog for funzies a couple times per week is not training, sorry
Why is 10mpw not training? Can you explain this to me? Saying "I'm sorry" doesn't support your opinion. I and others including Olympic athletes have made improvements on 10mpw.
I'm not missing your point. Your point was that making a 25% improvement is hard or rare. But all of this other stuff that your saying doesn't make sense.
You think that you're starting from comparable points, but you're not. You had already put in a significant amount of training before your half training. You can't just ignore that. And you were clearly in slower half shape when you ran that 23:xx for 5k. Do you not agree? Is 106++ to 85 not a ~25% improvement? This is math. There is no way that I'm wrong in this discussion. And, additionally, your initial half time was not comparable to his initial half time, was it? 106++ vs 120? That's already like a 10 min difference.
There is nothing really comparable about you too.
xenonscreams wrote:
you're missing the entire thing where my point is to compare his improvement with mine and point out how impressive it is, which only makes sense if we start from comparable points, which is precisely what I'm doing
Well, in a way you did improve by 25%. But by the same standard, your friend improved by way more than 25%. (I don't know what his "starting point" was. But certainly not when he ran his first half.)
Running Formula reader wrote:
Well, in a way you did improve by 25%. But by the same standard, your friend improved by way more than 25%. (I don't know what his "starting point" was. But certainly not when he ran his first half.)
This is an acceptable interpretation. I'm getting too exhausted to try to explain this to mspo.
Training is running in preparation for some race. When I ran the 23 or whatever I didn't even plan to race, someone else wanted me to do it and I said fine because I could run 3 miles no problem. There was never any build up to that point. I would go out once in a while and jog somewhere between 2 and 4 miles for fun. That's not training.
Maybe it will help mspo to realize that my actual point was "I have a friend who improved much more than most people do, yet he is nowhere close to 17:30"
xenonscreams wrote:
Five years. But 88 is NOT 17:30. 88 is more like mid-19.
Nope, not for a big guy. Maybe for a small girl. Yes, there is a big difference. Males have more natural speed (which neither female nor male distance runners train for) so if a guy and girl are equal in the half you can expect the guy to be faster at 5k and the girl to be faster at 10k. Additionally if he's "big" his endurance will tail off even faster.
I did a 90' half a long time ago and broke 18:00 a month later.
Hardloper wrote:
Nope, not for a big guy. Maybe for a small girl. Yes, there is a big difference. Males have more natural speed (which neither female nor male distance runners train for) so if a guy and girl are equal in the half you can expect the guy to be faster at 5k and the girl to be faster at 10k. Additionally if he's "big" his endurance will tail off even faster.
I did a 90' half a long time ago and broke 18:00 a month later.
That makes me jealous. I ran an 85 and 18:40 on the same fitness. Might have even been in slightly better shape for the 18:40.
Hardloper wrote:
Males have more natural speed (which neither female nor male distance runners train for) so if a guy and girl are equal in the half you can expect the guy to be faster at 5k and the girl to be faster at 10k. Additionally if he's "big" his endurance will tail off even faster.
This does not make sense. If two people have the same half time, and one has more natural speed than the other, then he should be faster at both 5K and 10K. She should be faster at marathon.
Running Formula reader wrote:
This does not make sense. If two people have the same half time, and one has more natural speed than the other, then he should be faster at both 5K and 10K. She should be faster at marathon.
Whoops, sorry, I meant to say "marathon" not "10k," you're correct.