Slowbro wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:
What's the difference if you run 19 mins or 15 mins 5km
15 minutes wins a lot more races than 19 minutes.
15 minute runners have more opportunity for wins than 19 minute runners. sure. but a 19 minute runner can probably find 20 races a year to win. And a 15 minute runner could lose every race if they chose to challenge themselves.
Either way, you are nowhere near being a pro. unless you are a female.
You must be thinking only of young, relatively fast people. Plenty of older runners and meet your standard and can't run anything close to those times.
For reference, running sub-20 in a 5k puts you in the top few percentiles among the general running population (obviously not all these people are running 40+ a week, but still).
huh what wrote:
You must be thinking only of young, relatively fast people. Plenty of older runners and meet your standard and can't run anything close to those times.
For reference, running sub-20 in a 5k puts you in the top few percentiles among the general running population (obviously not all these people are running 40+ a week, but still).
http://www.pace-calculator.com/5k-pace-comparison.php
Yeah, I should have specified young male runners (late teens - early 30s) in my post. A 60 year old guy training hard to run a sub 20 5K is very admirable and definitely has my respect.
fdasfasdf wrote:
People that think they are "slow" because they could never break 4:30 are annoying or showing false modesty. I ran 4:40 in hs and I was the third fastest kid in a school of like 1200. I ran 10:05 in the 3200, and I was around 40th best in the state when combining all classes. Are these great? No, but it's not "slow" when compared to the average. At my best, I was a 1:14 half marathon runner. I would finish in the top 1 percent of races with that time. Great? No, but definitely not "slow" like some posters try to claim. People even claiming these 22 minute 5k runners are slow seem to never have run road races. That is a time that is going to place pretty high at most races in today's day and age in America.
I ran my pr of 114 in a half I finished third, running alone for over 10 miles. I won a half in 11430. I wonder what would have happened if I got in a race where that time would have been 50th or 100th, would the pack running have pulled me to a 112.
That said, a 115 where I finished 25th (years before the 114) made me feel kind of slow even though there were like 5000 runners. The winner was around 105.
Slowbro wrote:
By "running seriously", I mean 4+ years of consistent training, averaging 40+MPW in base phase for at least two seasons.
The slowest person I know who matches that description is a friend whose 1500 PR is 4:47. That's his best event, as his 800 (2:22) and 5K (low 19s) times are even worse.
Yeah for a male, hitting 40+ miles/wk (65 km), the slowest person I know its pretty similar, high 19s for 5k, a mile in about 5:20 (so probably around 4:55 or so for 1500). If you drop to 30+ miles though it gets much worse (slowest person running 30mpw I know is over 21min for 5k). There is something about averaging 1 hr of running a day with one 30min/shakeout rest day, which seems to be a magic number for being decent.
fdasfasdf wrote:
People that think they are "slow" because they could never break 4:30 are annoying or showing false modesty. I ran 4:40 in hs and I was the third fastest kid in a school of like 1200. I ran 10:05 in the 3200, and I was around 40th best in the state when combining all classes. Are these great? No, but it's not "slow" when compared to the average. At my best, I was a 1:14 half marathon runner. I would finish in the top 1 percent of races with that time. Great? No, but definitely not "slow" like some posters try to claim. People even claiming these 22 minute 5k runners are slow seem to never have run road races. That is a time that is going to place pretty high at most races in today's day and age in America.
This times 10. I was the third fastest kid in a school of 3,000 with a 5:07 1600m and a 19:20 5k! And I'm not female haha.
Knew a guy in High School that was near religious a track yet completely awful at running. His parents were very wealthy and he was always bragging about all these fancy physiology tests he was getting done. VO2max, muscle fiber ratio, length of tendons ect. He also had a personal coach for weights and tracked every mile he ran. Always said he was a "high responder" type and was going to make the national team one day.
The kid never broke 11min for 3000m.
Slowbro wrote:
By "running seriously", I mean 4+ years of consistent training, averaging 40+MPW in base phase for at least two seasons.
The slowest person I know who matches that description is a friend whose 1500 PR is 4:47. That's his best event, as his 800 (2:22) and 5K (low 19s) times are even worse.
This thread is vile. What's it to you if someone tries at running? Does it impact your life in any way/shape/form?
Slowbro wrote:
I can understand a 17-18 minute guy running 40+MPW. But a 22:00 college-age guy running 40+MPW for years? That's just sad, dumb, and a total waste of time.
How can it be sad and dumb if the 40 mpw 22 minute 5k runner enjoys running? Is it sad and dumb that a dedicated hobby golfer shoots 100 for 18 holes? Is it sad and dumb that a dedicated hobby cyclist finishes back of the field in local races? Is it sad and dumb that a 16:30 girl never becomes a sub-15 runner despite dedicating herself to running as fast as possible?
Good point. I am going to branch out from your point with something even sadder. Take an overachiever of a high school girl. Make her unbelievably fast. Give her passion, desire and drive for running Watch her grow up Watch people insult her weight, running gait, potential, drive, desire and passion Watch people question why SHE is working so hard Watch people try to break her spirit Yes, that is what people did to Mary Cain. If the people here can't even respect Mary Cain, who did reach elite levels, they just aren't going to respect anyone for anything because they aren't where they wanted to be. Yes, that's sad. A disastrous tragedy, in fact.
Another giver of +1 wrote:
Slowbro wrote:
I can understand a 17-18 minute guy running 40+MPW. But a 22:00 college-age guy running 40+MPW for years? That's just sad, dumb, and a total waste of time.
How can it be sad and dumb if the 40 mpw 22 minute 5k runner enjoys running? Is it sad and dumb that a dedicated hobby golfer shoots 100 for 18 holes? Is it sad and dumb that a dedicated hobby cyclist finishes back of the field in local races? Is it sad and dumb that a 16:30 girl never becomes a sub-15 runner despite dedicating herself to running as fast as possible?
Another giver of +1 wrote:
Slowbro wrote:
I can understand a 17-18 minute guy running 40+MPW. But a 22:00 college-age guy running 40+MPW for years? That's just sad, dumb, and a total waste of time.
How can it be sad and dumb if the 40 mpw 22 minute 5k runner enjoys running? Is it sad and dumb that a dedicated hobby golfer shoots 100 for 18 holes? Is it sad and dumb that a dedicated hobby cyclist finishes back of the field in local races? Is it sad and dumb that a 16:30 girl never becomes a sub-15 runner despite dedicating herself to running as fast as possible?
It's sad and dumb because it's pointless and because that time can be achieved with no training by a significant fraction of the population in that age group. What's the point in training that much to run a 22:00 5K when it's not going to win any races and when there are literally tens of thousands of random guys in the country who can beat you without training at all? You don't need to run 40+MPW if you just want to stay in shape.
A 17-18 minute 5k is a whole different story. That time can actually win some races and lets you walk on to many non-D1 colleges.
For those reasons, a dedicated hobby cyclist who consistently finishes in the back of the field is dumb and is wasting his time. The same would not be true for a girl or guy who tries to become a 15 minute 5k runner but only manages a 16:30 or even a 17:30.
There are many D3 runners who are 35+ min in 8k XC. Those schools do not have track teams, so I don't know their track PBs. But there is definitely room for some untalented runners in NCAA XC. You just need to find the right school.
The Times They are a-changin` - and so is culture. Summer 1969, draftees infantry. After two months 5000 m, Limit 22.45. 40 guys, the last one, a rather fat guy ran 22.43. Incredible, we thought, that's walking. Most of us smokers. But used to outdoor actvities.
a 17 minute runner is wasting just as much time as a 22 minute runner.
running is just a hobby for both of them.
but then, we all need hobbies.
if the only point to running is being the best, Joshua Cheptegei is the only guy not wasting his time at this point.
I bet you gained a lot of fitness from walking fifteen miles to school in the snow, barefoot, uphill both ways.
okayboomer wrote:
I bet you gained a lot of fitness from walking fifteen miles to school in the snow, barefoot, uphill both ways.
Exactly. And now I see the change. Nowadays: Dowhill both ways, no snow, and shorter distance.
Bolt, Usain Bolt
I am the slowest runner I know that takes running seriously. By seriously, I mean it is an integral part of my life. I chased an elusive BQ time for a few years, hurt my hip and then realized something- running for me isn’t about speed. It’s about being outside, in rain or snow or sun, and feeling the run. I take it more seriously now than ever in that it is more a part of my day and life than ever before, but I just go at whatever pace I’m feeling and and immerse myself in the run.
Stoppit Smith wrote:
Watch people insult her weight, running gait, potential, drive, desire and passion
...
Watch people try to break her spirit
Yes, that is what people did to Mary Cain.
Are these "people" you are referring to her pro coach?
nukenbu wrote:
Bolt, Usain Bolt
Bolt can run a 5:00 - 5:10 mile without doing any distance training.