is the difference between 15 and 20 for 5K REALLY effort?

Thank you for your support and 2:10 is NOT a bad time at all! way to go on that:)Also, thank you to those who have been in support.

slow fat jogger wrote:

Im a woman who takes 2.10 to run a half marathon. I simply come here to silently revel in the fact my slowness enrages so many. Go Mike!

-----------------------------------------------------------

For some of the others of you, it's really interesting that you have beautiful wisdom of how piggy I am, how out of shape I am or how I need improvement. So, when I talk about people being less supportive to runners here on the whole? Exactly how am I wrong?

Thanks,

Mike

Let's be serious for a second here, even though I really feel you are a pretty solid troll.

If we are talking about effort during a race itself, it probably isn't much different, if at all. I'd think any person serious enough to run around 20 for 5k is capable of at least a hard tempo effort, maybe more, even if they are mentally weak. That puts them within 15 seconds/mile or so of a true 5k effort. So no, from a race standpoint the reason the 20 minute guy isn't running 15 is not effort. It would not suprise me though if on average the 15 minute athlete is capable of pushing himself harder in a race than the average 20 minute athlete. However, I don't think that is what you were referring to, so let's move on.

This is part of why I feel you are trolling. Nobody says a 20 min 5ker isn't giving AN effort yet you are setting up that little straw-man to knock over. Perhaps unintentional though, so I will proceed assuming you are serious.

Having agreed the average 19/20 guy puts in an effort the question we have to ask is "Is this effort the same as the effort the 19 min guy is putting in".

I'll preface by saying I'm sure there are exceptions, but from general guessing and the numerous runners I have interacted with at road races, the average 19 min 5k guy is not training like the typical 15 min guy.

Pretty much you need to ask yourself this:

-Are you running 80-100 mpw (or roughly 10 hours per week of running), that typical of a college low 15 min guy

-Do you have smart training cycles involving periods of base/speed alternating with more intense aerobic, race pace focused work?

-Do you make a reasonable to good effort to eat a healthy diet

-Do you get in the gym for prehab/strengthening/conditioning exercises 3-4+ times a week

-Do you focus on getting good sleep each night?

- Have you gotten yourself down to a BMI of at least 21 or less?

If the answer to the top 2 is no, or the answer to more than 1 or 2+ of the remaining ones is no...then the honest answer with yourself is that no you are not putting in the same effort as the typical 15 min 5k guy.

If you truly do all of the above, then you have every right to say you work as hard at running as a typical 15:00 guy.

Let's also talk about weight seriously for a moment.

170 is not light. However, it does NOT mean you are some pigging slob. You might be a pretty lean shredded dude with a good amount of muscle. Who knows.

What we can say, confidently, is that if your goal is to be as serious as possible about running, and run the best times you can you ARE too heavy (heavy =/= fat). Chris Solinsky was thought of as an absolute giant in the runner context and at 6'0" he was still 10bs lighter than you. Even Nick Symmonds, a downright stocky 800m guy, is something like 5'10" and 165.

For optimum running performance, it's pretty reasonable to say you should be no heavier than 150; and if you are wanting to race longer distances i.e. 5k and up; realistically it should be lighter than that. You might not be a guy that can drop to 130, but somewhere in the 140-150 is absolutely reasonable provided running to your potential is the priority goal. 5'8" 140 puts you exactly in the middle of the standard weight category of BMI.

If you say you can't reasonably drop to 140-150 range you are not being honest with yourself.

Pretty much you need to ask yourself this:

-Are you running 80-100 mpw (or roughly 10 hours per week of running), that typical of a college low 15 min guy

10 hours per week? sure! I put in about 1- 1.5 hours per day slow or medium workouts...(I would say I am more at 45-55 mpw)

-Do you have smart training cycles involving periods of base/speed alternating with more intense aerobic, race pace focused work?

Yes, I do track speedwork, stairs, hills, etc as alternatives (usually as a second workout)

-Do you make a reasonable to good effort to eat a healthy diet

yes....definitely

-Do you get in the gym for prehab/strengthening/conditioning exercises 3-4+ times a week

yep..stationary or spinner bike, elliptical, cross-trainer, etc

-Do you focus on getting good sleep each night?

yes

- Have you gotten yourself down to a BMI of at least 21 or less?

no..I would not feel healthy

If the answer to the top 2 is no, or the answer to more than 1 or 2+ of the remaining ones is no...then the honest answer with yourself is that no you are not putting in the same effort as the typical 15 min 5k guy.

If you truly do all of the above, then you have every right to say you work as hard at running as a typical 15:00 guy.[/quote]

Better? Some...of...us...are...just..not...that..quick

Thanks,

Mike

I addressed the weight question. I firmly stick by my stance that you aren't being honest with yourself in thinking you can't drop to high 140s low 150s.

Better? Some...of...us...are...just..not...that..quick

I'm not sure where that "better?" came from. You are correct that not everyone is that quick. Nothing wrong with that.

Seems like we've settled the question and you can comfortably say you are working as hard as the typical 15 min 5k guy.

10 hours per week? sure! I put in about 1- 1.5 hours per day slow or medium workouts...(I would say I am more at 45-55 mpw)

Just as a curiosity question, if you run 10 hours a week how is your mileage just 50? Do you do easy runs at 12:00 pace?

The answer is this: Because I put in efforts on each day....as an educator, I can do this because there is time in the afternoon and weekends, it allows for a variable timeframe....

so a typical week may look like

mon....3.8 to 5.5 miles of running at 7:45-8 pace with 3 miles of walking at 12-13 pace

tue....5-7 miles at 7:45-8 pace with 2 miles of walking

wed....maybe a long walk (6-8 miles)

thurs...gym with variable work plus about 5 miles on treadmill running...8-8:30 pace

fri...some sort of run/walk variation between 5-7 miles

sat...longer run...8-14 miles depending on where

sun...gym and some track work

approx...

you get the idea

thanks,

mike

Just as a curiosity question, if you run 10 hours a week how is your mileage just 50? Do you do easy runs at 12:00 pace?[/quote]

Mike in San Diego wrote:

The answer is this: Because I put in efforts on each day....as an educator, I can do this because there is time in the afternoon and weekends, it allows for a variable timeframe....

so a typical week may look like

mon....3.8 to 5.5 miles of running at 7:45-8 pace with 3 miles of walking at 12-13 pace

tue....5-7 miles at 7:45-8 pace with 2 miles of walking

wed....maybe a long walk (6-8 miles)

thurs...gym with variable work plus about 5 miles on treadmill running...8-8:30 pace

fri...some sort of run/walk variation between 5-7 miles

sat...longer run...8-14 miles depending on where

sun...gym and some track work

approx...

you get the idea

All fine but you keep ducking the question about your goals. If you feel good at 5'8 170, great. If that basic running schedule works well for you, again, great. But unless this is flat out trolling - which I don't happen to think it is - I don't understand the point of posting on these boards if you don't have racing goals.

In my case, I am - by the standards of these boards - a slow old guy. My goal is to break 19 for 5k after I turn 50 in a couple of months. Is this a particularly impressive or interesting goal to most of the people who hang out here? No, which is why I don't generally bring it up. But hey, it's my life, there are reasons why that particular goal matters to me, and on I sail.

Well why put it that much effort to run that slow? I run at around your pace with much less mileage. I weigh a lot less than you and with just being a bit more mindful of what I eat and going down to 133 (5 6 get up to 140) I get faster. The 15 minutes guys are putting in a lot more effort than you or I. It takes a lot of mental energy to not eat those cookies or have those beers or that extra turkey leg. So maybe the amount of effort used in a race is the same but the amount of effort outside of the race day in day out is not.

Simple: if you are walking in the middle of a short training run, you are not putting in the same effort as a 15 minute guy.

Mike in San Diego wrote:

The answer is this: Because I put in efforts on each day....as an educator, I can do this because there is time in the afternoon and weekends, it allows for a variable timeframe....

so a typical week may look like

mon....3.8 to 5.5 miles of running at 7:45-8 pace with 3 miles of walking at 12-13 pace

tue....5-7 miles at 7:45-8 pace with 2 miles of walking

wed....maybe a long walk (6-8 miles)

thurs...gym with variable work plus about 5 miles on treadmill running...8-8:30 pace

fri...some sort of run/walk variation between 5-7 miles

sat...longer run...8-14 miles depending on where

sun...gym and some track work

approx...

you get the idea

Counting the walking is questionable. You aren't getting any serious aerobic benefit out of that. What I'm reading is:

45 min of running Monday

60 min on Tuesday

45 min on Thursday

60 min on Friday

120 min on Saturday,

60 min on Sunday

At best you are getting in 6-7 hours a week of running.

That's definitely less running than the typical 15 min collegiate guy is putting in at 100mpw, even if you consider he likely does most of his mileage averaging 6:30 pace.

I don't know about 15's, but I definitely could see you running in the 17s or high 16s by years end if you made a few changes, a little more volume, and made the commitment to dropping weight.

I can't tell exactly what you think about yourself, but I suspect you have more ability than you give yourself credit for.

slow fat jogger wrote:

Im a woman who takes 2.10 to run a half marathon. I simply come here to silently revel in the fact my slowness enrages so many. Go Mike!

Mike is slow and so are you. Now anyone is free to post here, no getting around the fact that 10 minute miles is slow.

Mike in San Diego wrote:

mon....3.8 to 5.5 miles of running at 7:45-8 pace with 3 miles of walking at 12-13 pace

tue....5-7 miles at 7:45-8 pace with 2 miles of walking

wed....maybe a long walk (6-8 miles)

thurs...gym with variable work plus about 5 miles on treadmill running...8-8:30 pace

fri...some sort of run/walk variation between 5-7 miles

sat...longer run...8-14 miles depending on where

sun...gym and some track work

Did you remember to also count walking back and forth to the bath room?

slow fat jogger wrote:

Im a woman who takes 2.10 to run a half marathon. I simply come here to silently revel in the fact my slowness enrages so many. Go Mike!

It's not Mike's "slowness" that enrages us. It is his inability to accept that he does NOT take his running as seriously as a 15-16 min 5k runner.

If you run a 2.10 half, that's awesome. I am glad you are out running and hopefully enjoying it. But you obviously have other priorities in your life that do not lend to faster running. Not a big deal.

Just don't preach to a group of people who take this sport's training, dedication, and time commitment that your 25 min 5k training is the same effort as a 15min 5k training.

John Clendon wrote:

slow fat jogger wrote:

Im a woman who takes 2.10 to run a half marathon. I simply come here to silently revel in the fact my slowness enrages so many. Go Mike!

It's not Mike's "slowness" that enrages us. It is his inability to accept that he does NOT take his running as seriously as a 15-16 min 5k runner.

If you run a 2.10 half, that's awesome. I am glad you are out running and hopefully enjoying it. But you obviously have other priorities in your life that do not lend to faster running. Not a big deal.

Just don't preach to a group of people who take this sport's training, dedication, and time commitment that your 25 min 5k training is the same effort as a 15min 5k training.

This. Every playground and rec gym has some guy who thinks the only reason he isn't in the NBA is because some coach didn't give him a chance. We serious runners have no problem with hobby joggers in general. What bothers us is when guys like Mike here try to say that they're just as serious and dedicated as we are. Mike, I get what you're arguing here. But seriously dude, your training program involves walking. When you race a 20min 5k, I'm sure you're racing as hard as you can. What separates you from the 15min crowd is the day-to-day grind of the training. You're simply not working as hard as you could be, and that's why you can't break 20

The difference is training and genetics.

Doesn't matter distance.

Doesn't matter time.

Training + Genetics = Results.

Keys: Progressive Overload + SAID (Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands) = Desired Results.

At my best I was averaging 100 miles a week over the course of a year, highs of 120s-140s, 2-3 workouts a week. Ran 15:43 5k, 1:09:10 half-marathon, 2:33 marathon.

I was always bigger that most runners...5'5.5", 145lbs.

Now? I'm 170lbs, only run 30 miles a week, do weight training, intervals and sprints, etc. Still able to run sub 18:00 at 5'5.5", 170lbs.

Also remember, training in cumulative....the training you did 10 years ago still affects you today.

Alan

Expert of Range wrote:

Yes, your effort is way less. You give up on things very easily. "I tried the 150 lb thing..." okay what is that supposed to mean? If you got back down to 150 lbs or below and stayed there, long enough for your body to get used to it, you could certainly destroy your HS PR, by a couple minutes.

But you won't do that, because you won't put in the effort.

Losing weight requires effort. So the heavier runner must put in more effort than the naturally light runner.

I was a low 16 (5k) runner in my low 30s, but now at 56, I' low 20 and it is just as difficult to do the the 20 as it was to do the 16. I can not train as hard and it is more difficult to get back to my optimum racing weight (158 vs 169).

You are sad--really, really pathetic--if you honestly aren't trolling.

"Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Mom, they said I wasn't giving a full effort! Regardless of whether my training is awful, they have no right to say I'm not trying!"

You poor, poor thing. Would you like a cookie? Some milk, while we're up?

In all seriousness: Stop caring so much. Cowboy the f--- up and get a life.

I agree that Mike is making us 20 minute 5K runners look bad. I admire anyone that is working their butt off--regardless of the number on the clock.

I worked hard enough in high school and college to determine that I don't have that much talent. I doubled and ran higher mileage than anyone else on my team. Regardless, I was the slowest runner on a D3 team (~4:50 miler). I simply ran to push my teammates and because I loved it. My teammates were always supportive, and I never felt like less of a runner.

Now that I am out of college, I usually run around 17:50-18:30 in 5Ks. I don't think I could ever run 15:00, but I'd like to run under 17 minutes.

However, I know better than to delude myself. At this point, to bring down my PR, I would need to run more than my current sporadic 15-50 mile weeks interspersed with trail races and bike centuries. I don't train now--I just mess around. If I trained, I would be closer to 15 than 20 minutes, and I have very little genetic talent.

However, I will add that I have coached long enough to know that there are some people that are just not meant to run fast. They can work their butt off every day, and they just are not fast. I have some girls that started to show signs of over-training syndrome off of 9 minute tempo runs and 11 minute easy runs.

Running is not a meritocracy and claiming that letsrun posters think it is is setting up a straw man.

Claiming that you are working hard when you are counting walking mileage and are unwilling to lose weight (even though you are overweight) is incredibly insulting to runners with less talent that are working hard.

My goal, at least here, is to allow people to be enlightened that even those of us who aren't getting 15:00 5Ks are not necessarily trying any less hard than they are.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody said you're not running harder at a race. I've seen some mid packers literally dying but pushing all the way. Actually, many mid packers confuse race with picnic outing. The race is about whoever can get from one place to next fastest.

The fact is you're not fast. Accept it. Just like Mo and Galen accepted they can't hit like Mike Trout.

This is not about fairness. Nothing in life is. If not, I've be playing for the NY Yankees.