4:20 is an world-class women's time, something like top 0.0001 percent. Since men are about 10-15 percent faster than women, it stands to reason that 85-90 percent of men could never run that fast, no matter how effectively they trained. Maybe the population distribution isn't exactly the same as the raw performance gap, but either way there's no chance that a 50th percentile male could ever come close.
I don't get the math here.
It's correct that men are about 10-15% faster than women and that 4:20 is a world-class women's time. But how do you use that to claim that 85-90% of men could never run that fast?
To extend your logic, a 4:40.0 1500 (5:00 for the 1600) is good enough for women to get a World Athletics ranking. 1099 American women ran that or better last year. So that's top 0.01% among all young women but not top 0.00001%. How many percent of men could run that according to your math?
There is plenty of data. Hundreds of thousands of high school and college runners are on teams in which they do the same training as their teammates but their race times are significantly different.
This is true but doesn't prove anything.
Suppose A, B, C, D, and E go to school X. They all run 30 mpw with two workouts and a race each week. After three years, their mile times are:
A - 4:10
B - 4:30
C - 4:50
D - 5:10
E - 5:30
"A" has more talent than average.
"B" is an average Joe who could be 10 seconds faster after a few more years of running. He may also be a late bloomer.
"C" is another average Joe. But unlike "B", he is a slow-twitch guy who needs higher mileage to thrive. The heavy speedwork burns him out.
"D" is below-average. He is also a late-bloomer who needs more mileage and fewer workouts.
"E" has little motivation, sometimes skips practice, and pretty much never goes all-out in races. He only joins the team to be with his friends, to make his parents happy, and to make his college applications look more well-rounded.
I don't think the quote is saying talent doesn't matter. A lot of talented people get beat by less talented people. Look at someone like Wejo-was he more talented after college than while he was in college? Yet very different results. Lot of college Wejo types getting beat by post collegiate Wejo types.
I guess thousands of coaches are incorrect. Every coach will tell you that there is a huge range inability. Every teacher will tell you that there is a huge range in ability..every biologist will tell you that two tall parents are 100 times more likely to have a tall child than two short parents do. Every other traits works that way. But somehow a few posters think we all can run the same time for a 5k if we Trained properly. Midgets and giants run as fast as the best Ethiopian.
There is plenty of data. Hundreds of thousands of high school and college runners are on teams in which they do the same training as their teammates but their race times are significantly different.
This means absolutely nothing. Get a whole bunch of people with near-identical genetics on the same team, and you'll find that some are really slow and others are really fast. Why? It's because different people have different motivation levels and different backgrounds. Some will fake injuries to get out of practice, others will do early morning and weekend runs in addition to the main school workout. Some will have years of soccer experience before they even step foot on campus, while others will have a BMI of 35 and are just joining the track team to lose weight. Some will be single-minded, and others will be distracted by video games, girlfriends, or other hobbies. Some will eat healthy and get lots of sleep, others won't pay attention to those things. And so on.
If you want to run a 4:2x mile, talent is highly overrated. Maybe not everyone can do it, but most able-bodied males can if they start early enough and are motivated enough. Now if you want to run a 3:xx mile, then talent is absolutely essential, and no amount of training or even EPO will get an average guy to that level.
But somehow a few posters think we all can run the same time for a 5k if we Trained properly. Midgets and giants run as fast as the best Ethiopian.
For the 35780385th time on this thread, you do need talent if you want to run a 12:40 5K. You do not need talent if you want to run a 16:40 5K, provided you start early enough, aren't disabled, are male, and have the motivation.
There is plenty of data. Hundreds of thousands of high school and college runners are on teams in which they do the same training as their teammates but their race times are significantly different..
If you want to run a 4:2x mile, talent is highly overrated. Maybe not everyone can do it, but most able-bodied males can if they start early enough and are motivated enough.
You aren't even close to being correct.
I can tell that you've never been a track coach, because if you were, you wouldn't say something that rediculous.
Wrong. An average person cannot run a 4:19. You need talent to run 4:19 a mile. I know people who have run more than 100K a week and are not able to break 5. A talented person does not know how not having talent feels, thats why Eliud Kipchoge tells anyone that they can run like him if they train hard and are disciplined. It is because they are judging how easy was for them to run 15 min @ 5K (maybe in their first race). In distance running talent beats hard work of an average runner, EVERYTIME. If your easy pace is 5:30 per km (training regularly), you have nothing to do against someone who does not train regularly, but everytime he or she runs train at 4:30 per km easy. TALENT is everything in distance running.
I assume you are trolling. You have to be. There are 7 billion people in the world. If they all had the identical environment, their 5k times would form a bell curve. Most women would be below the mid point while most men woukd be above the mid point. I put the middle at 24 minutes. P
Talent is a metric. People don't have it or not. The best runners have the highest level of running talent while the slowest have the least amount of running talent.
I know people who have run more than 100K a week and are not able to break 5.
Are those people female and/or over 45? If not, this is the biggest load of crap I've heard all week.
Or maybe there's some loophole involved like only running 100K a week for 2-3 weeks a year. Or maybe the 100K was just mindless jogging with zero fast stuff. But even 100K a week of easy runs and no tempos, strides, or workouts should be enough to get most men under 5.
95% of men couldn't break 5 regardless of running 50k or 100k or 150k.
Are you only counting men over 50 or something?
I've literally never come across a single able-bodied man who couldn't break 5 if he consistently trained for it and if he started that training before age 30. And I've been around quite a few runners.
Oh, and high school kids who couldn't break 5 shouldn't be used as examples because almost nobody peaks at 17 if they continue to train hard after graduation. I know a few slow D3 and post-collegiate guys who run in the 4:25-4:40 range. Many of them didn't break 5:10 in HS.
Suppose A, B, C, D, and E go to school X. They all run 30 mpw with two workouts and a race each week. After three years, their mile times are:
A - 4:10
B - 4:30
C - 4:50
D - 5:10
E - 5:30
"A" has more talent than average.
"B" is an average Joe who could be 10 seconds faster after a few more years of running. He may also be a late bloomer.
"C" is another average Joe. But unlike "B", he is a slow-twitch guy who needs higher mileage to thrive. The heavy speedwork burns him out.
"D" is below-average. He is also a late-bloomer who needs more mileage and fewer workouts.
"E" has little motivation, sometimes skips practice, and pretty much never goes all-out in races. He only joins the team to be with his friends, to make his parents happy, and to make his college applications look more well-rounded.
The presidential fitness test data show the median mile time for 17 yr old boys is about 7 min. A few years of training will probably improve that by 60 to 120 seconds, depending on each person's trainability.
Therefore, E is average. D is slightly above average, or he is average, but a high responder. C is above average, but nothing special. B is talented. A is super talented.
95% of men couldn't break 5 regardless of running 50k or 100k or 150k.
Ran 5:08 in a TT mile in HS. Ran 54.x 400m and sub 18min 5k XC in HS. As an adult, I've tried to break 5 for the mile with quantity (up to 150 mile weeks) and quality and have run 2:14 800m and 2:53 1000m while I was close to 40yrs, and 5:06 for the mile is the best that I've done. I'm close to 50yrs now and am ever so close to giving up, but haven't yet because I'm delusional AF. One of these days, I hope to figure it out, but we're in Lloyd Christmas territory. Sigh.
99% of the population fully trained would not beat the most talented who have not trained. My son ran 4:48 in 8th grade gym class never having run before. He is not elitebut very good. Somebody like Jakob likely would have run 4:30 in a mile at age 18 if u trained but less than 1% of people can do it fully trained.
Wacky gym class miles are always weird to me. Nico Young ran 5:07 in 8th grade, many sub 4:20 HS guys at my school were sub 5:20 and closer to 5:10 in 8th grade. 4:48 in gym class just seems sketchy.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.