Stember runs 19:30

I believe the real reason most people care, other than the shock of a relatively young former Olympian barely cracking 20 minutes, is that we can see our own mortality and falability in Stembers run. I mean, if a young and talented OLYMPIAN can take a few years off and run so slow relative to his best, what about the rest of us? I think we'd all like to escape slowing down and at the very least avoid running pedestrian times relative to our age because of what it all means. For many Stembers ruis probably a reality check within.

I definitely see how this can happen. I was a 1500 guy like Stember. I

Didn't race 5k but was prob only an upper 14s / 15 flat type of a guy in college. With that said, I've recently picked up running again.

It is actually harder to run now than it was to run freshman year in HS with basically no training. My first xc race in 9th grade I think I ran 18:10 for 3 miles. Not even sure if I had ever run 3 miles without stopping prior to that race.

I damn sure couldn't run 6 min now...especially not on grass.

snacky cakes wrote:

I don't particularly want to come off as a conceited tool to most of the serious running community (even if the hobby joggers dig it).

Despite the talk, most on here would probably have had a hard time winning the bet. It's been a long time since people on these boards were considered "the serious running community". Most of the "serious running community" don't waste their time on here (this forum) anymore. (News on the front page is still pretty complete).

Sometimes you can take running for granted but it takes some effort.

My PR is 14:55 at age 24.

Last year, at age 40, running 4-5 days a week, I ran 17:33.

Yesterday I ran 18:25 off of the same regimen.

There was surely a loss of fitness. Older and a little heavier.

But the main reason for the slower times was effort. I just didn't feel like pushing it just to hit 17 minutes.

I went out in an easy 5:48 and thought, "I'll just let them go" and I eased up more. (the first mile of my PR was 4:38)

When you are not improving, and running slower that your last race, it's really hard to keep your head in it to push at all.

Did he look relaxed?

I can't say about now, but about 1 -1.5 yrs ago I saw Stember at a wo session of a local TC in LA. He certainly did not look to be at his comp level of fitness nor weight, but didn't look obese either. Was working for a developer or something like that - sort of a big time gig. I can imagine a lot of hours, bad food,too much food parties, etc and not much training. A lot of it is just priorities and time allocation.

I call BS on all of you who think just jogging around for a couple of weeks you can break whatever ## time. I took 9 years off and trained for 1 month (6 days/week) and barely broke 21 (20:49). Its alot harder than you think and all I rember is this hot chick passing me wearing a sweatshirt around her waist.

I think the problem with several of these posters is that they enjoy throwing around a very meaningless word: "talent".

Just what the fsck does that mean quantitatively?

It tells you nothing useful.

from dana point turkey trot, compare stember to these fellow stanford alumni:

10k:

36 Jeff Atkinson M 45-49 33:44

5k:

74 Anne St Geme F 20-24 19:16 (took off whole college career with injuries)

75 Ceci St Geme F 45-49 19:20 (sidelined with injuries/surgeries the last two years, but still trains regularly; however, she IS 48!)

in his defense: if he really hasn't been running at all, or even just a couple of days a week, i'm sure 19:30 was very painful and required a tremendous effort.

however, in the initial sacbee article on his charity bet, he mentions training with the usc team and even doing intervals. running distance with 'sc? that was his downfall.

stember, don't let the ba$tard$ (including me) grind you down. if the bet meant something to you, you'll try again...

That means he is not even in sub 5 condition for the mile. That is a JV time.

19:30 is very slow for anyone that has run 3:35 for the 1500 and is still in his early 30s. Steve Scott ran 3:35 1500 at 35!!!!

IDK wrote:

I call BS on all of you who think just jogging around for a couple of weeks you can break whatever ## time. I took 9 years off and trained for 1 month (6 days/week) and barely broke 21 (20:49). Its alot harder than you think and all I rember is this hot chick passing me wearing a sweatshirt around her waist.

Not all time off running is equal. Some people quit running for years but maybe join a masters swim club for workouts 3 times a week and cycle to and from work. By the sound of it, when you quit running, you quit exercising period and are now running slow because of that decision. Stember seems to be in the same boat and some people are criticizing him because they feel that leading a healthy, active lifestyle is important and Stember was obviously not doing this if he ran 19:30. I guess he has his own priorities and I respect that, but I don't particularly respect him making himself into a sideshow or human interest story at a legitimate road race.

I'd like to see M. Stember use this as an opportunity to see how fast he can get back into respectable shape. I used a Turkey Trot yesterday for the same reason.

If he spends 3 months just running 20-40 minutes everyday, I think he'd be under 17 minutes. The ability to get back into supreme shape quickly is a talent most of us non-Olympians lack.

We all have had a bad day before...

I was never nationally ranked, but I can

tell my grandchildren that I beat

Gerry Lindgren

Frank Shorter

Bill Rodgers

Greg Meyer

Rob de Castella and

Alberto Salazar

on days when they ran

in a fun run, but had a bad day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH476CxJxfg

den bosch wrote:

Think about it, this race must have been brutal for him. He probably tried to go out in 5:30, which ended up being 5:40 and him being WAY more winded then he thought. Then, he still had to suffer two more miles, the second probably at 6:30 and the last 1.1 in 7:20, the whole time thinking about how much further and further from 18 he's slipping back. It just goes to show even the 'immortal' Olympians are human and know what it's like to have this kind of day.

THAN he thought

Recently, many defended one w/ an 8 hr marathon. Yet, now the bashing of an olympian & nat'l champ for a retirement, charitable 19:30. If Stember beat 18 mins, GUARANTEED you guys would bash, saying he planned it for his own dramatics.

Some lunatic wrote:

Did he look relaxed?

I'd like to see his splits. I recently came back after a 2 year hiatus, about 25 lbs overweight. I put in a month of 5 days a week, 3 miles a day for week 1 and then about 5 miles a day after.

After 5 weeks I entered a 5k, ran 5:55 for the first mile (uphill) and then mentally and physically gave up for mile 2 (downhill and only came through in 12:38) and then decided I could pick up the pace for the last mile and finished in 19:20.

That was 3 weeks ago. I have increased my mileage to 7-8 a day, 7 days a weekI am about ten pounds lighter. I could probably run a high 17 now. Looking to run 15s in a month or so.

Everyone needs a rust buster. Stember could probably run in the 18s right now.

Unless he gained a ton of weight, it's pretty amazing that he ran that slowly. It's also interesting how some people can be incredibly fast at a young age, but even those who keep running are not necessarily the top masters. Some of the top masters were not particularly fast in their prime, they just aged much better than the rest of us. However, Stember is 33, and the aging process has not even set in. My brother is his age and took 3 years off of exercising when he was living abroad and after about 8 weeks of running 3-4 days/week, ran a 17:30 5k. And he was a 4:40 miler type in high school.

Stember was an 800/1500 guy. He didn't have to have the bank of miles that stick around even until you are 40 and not running and can still go out and grind out a 5k at 6:00 pace.

I imagine he went out in 5:45 and starting hurting bad and might have gutted out a 18:00 5k if he understood how to handle that pain but like I say. He was a miler. You only have to hurt for 2 minutes versus 15 so, that charity wasn't worth it for him.

I have gone two years with out running and raced a 5k at age 43 and ran 18:40. But I had 25 years of 70-100 miles a week in me.

I think it was more important to him to jog through the race easily just to see the idiot machine crank into gear on Letsrun than it was to break 18:00. He'll probably run another one in low 17's within a month and then make a pointed comment about the people with no lives here on this sitre gushing on about how they haven't lost much from their blazing 16-minute high-school days even though they are now 40 and only jogging 5 days a week. He will imply, though not say, that those people suck and don't deserve to be called runners any more than they have any business speculating about him or anyone else. And he will be right. You people are cocks.