If the definition of "healthy" includes being not overweight, then probably the vast majority could if they're prepared to put in the training.
If the definition of "healthy" includes being not overweight, then probably the vast majority could if they're prepared to put in the training.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
In one of the similar threads, someone posted that the average middle school kid can run 8:00. After 6 years of competitive running in HS and college I managed to take a little more than a minute off of my middle school time. How are these average kids able to improve by 3 minutes? Good coaching?
Unless after your running throughout high school and college you were only able to get down to a 7:00 minute mile, then your post indicates a serious lack of understanding. When someone goes from untrained to trained in any activity that they practice (running, guitar, spelling, etc.) that is the time period when the greatest improvement will be realized. Going from trained but mediocre to mastery isn't nearly as much improvement.
The answer is no way.
Maybe if you took every male finisher of a 5k between the age of 20 and 30 and trained them for a year. Then I think you would have a population in which maybe 50% could break 5
Nutsack McGee wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
In one of the similar threads, someone posted that the average middle school kid can run 8:00. After 6 years of competitive running in HS and college I managed to take a little more than a minute off of my middle school time. How are these average kids able to improve by 3 minutes? Good coaching?
Unless after your running throughout high school and college you were only able to get down to a 7:00 minute mile, then your post indicates a serious lack of understanding. When someone goes from untrained to trained in any activity that they practice (running, guitar, spelling, etc.) that is the time period when the greatest improvement will be realized. Going from trained but mediocre to mastery isn't nearly as much improvement.
I don't quite understand you're point. I wasn't trained when I ran the mile in middle school so the comparison of me to the slow guy, assuming the he wasn't overweight, was apples to apples. How could he improve by so much more?
no. some people are born to be slow.
Most, not all.
The main problems are being thin and training enough. If you can get people to do this, 90+%.
Men develop so much in their early 20s. Even the most extreme losers put on huge upper body muscle if they lift at this age.
Brofessor wrote:
Most, not all.
The main problems are being thin and training enough. If you can get people to do this, 90+%.
Men develop so much in their early 20s. Even the most extreme losers put on huge upper body muscle if they lift at this age.
There were guys on my HS XC team that could beat me at 440/880, that I beat by over a minute over 3 miles. The difference was that I had more talent at distance running.
Why do some posters believe that distance running is the one sport in the world where talent doesn't matter?
It requires more talent than anything. A loser, smoker kid in my high school broke 5 minutes in gym class. The XC coach tried to get him to come out but this kid h a d no interest in anything. And there were always guys who showed up on the first day of practice and ran 16:59 after doing nothing except playing video games all summer.