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

Wait a second here, let's clarify what walking really is...do you realize that I started out as a walker? that I was actually walking marathons at a 12:59 pace (not blazing) and half marathons at an 11:57 pace (not to your standards I am sure and that I have done a 31:41 5K walking on a track (you can figure out the pacing).

The fact is that many of you have little to no context. You hear walking and you assume a freaking stroll along mainstreet with an astaire umbrella. This is the pretense that I address every time.

if you run 8 miles in 6 minutes in training..and I run 5.2 in, say 38-40 and then walk 2.8 in about 38 minutes...sure..my workout may be slower than yours....certainly...but I get plenty of cardio support in my 8 miles like you do in your 8.

There is a LOT of pretentiousness that a lot of you have in your training...the difference is..I give my raw #s..weight, times...I want to see that from you!

Thanks,

Mike

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[/quote]

Mike in San Diego wrote:

Wait a second here, let's clarify what walking really is...do you realize that I started out as a walker?

Do you realize everyone started out slow? Why the hell does that matter?

You already admitted you aren't willing to lose weight and get back to your HS times so you cannot argue that you are working as hard as serious runners.

so if in 1992, I did a 19:50 as an 18 year old (147 pounds)and in 1996, I did a 20:04 as a 22 year old (145 pounds)and in 2013, I did a 20:31 as a 39 year old (170 pounds)if the relativity of my fastest times is a differential of 27 seconds to 17 years prior and 41 seconds to 21 years prior..and this year I did a 21:04, which was equal to my 21:04 I did in 2008 when I was 182 pounds (the 2014 one being done as part of a 4 5K (20K event))how can you say that the effort is not the same or that the times are not relative?really?

Passenger wrote:

Mike in San Diego wrote:

Wait a second here, let's clarify what walking really is...do you realize that I started out as a walker?

Do you realize everyone started out slow? Why the hell does that matter?

You already admitted you aren't willing to lose weight and get back to your HS times so you cannot argue that you are working as hard as serious runners.

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

mike, I have no problem with slower posters. If you have been here long enough and read enough posts, you would know that here are actually a lot of slower posters here who contribute without trolling and getting the kind of response you are getting.

However, as someone who did several times more than that per week to get to my best times, I must say that you have a distorted sense of what some runners do to get that fast. I admit that I was on the high mileage extreme, but your training effort does not compare to mine, even in the laziest times of my life since high school. In college, I wasn't on a team and I trained on my own. For long periods of time I ran 100 mile weeks. I ran 5,000 miles one year. I even did 20 miles a day in singles (with occasional off days) for 100-140 mile weeks for months on end. I did a lot of walking too that was not included in that total- my best estimate is that I walked about 6 miles per day, 7 days a week in college. I walked everywhere because I didn't have a car. I'm 45 now. Looking at my training log for the past month, I'm still running 13-15 hours a week, plus about another 3 hours a week of walking. I've averaged about 2 hours a day of exercise/training since college. Is your effort really the same?

As for effort during a race, I can always push myself harder when I'm in better shape. I have no doubt that Rupp, Webb, etc. can push themselves much harder than I have ever been capable of.

I agree that the difference between 15 and 20 minute 5kers isn't always about effort. Sure, maybe some guys could jump from 20:00 to 15:00 just by starting to train seriously, but a lot of that gap is talent related. Unlike the OP, I am built well for distance running (5'8 and 120 pounds) and have run some ok times (the 5k equivalent of my fastest prs is 16:35), but I could never run 15:00 for 5k or equivalent no matter hard I train because I just plain lack the talent for it.

Assuming you train at all, what makes the difference between the 15 and 20 minute levels of ability is genetics. The reason you remain stuck at 19-20 minutes it is the same reason 15 minute runners become stuck there instead of progressing to the elite level—because neither you nor they possess the physical attributes necessary to run any faster. 170 lbs. is not "fat" by normal standards and it's serious sickening that some runners are so mentally f*cked up that they think men should endeavor to get down to 130 lbs. just to run a good high school time in the 5K. I would rather see you give up running than do that.

Running talent is distributed along a spectrum; it is not the case that genetics come into play at X time level and everything slower than that is due to lack of effort. Just as some individuals are far more gifted than average, some others are far less gifted than average.

Wow, 10/10. I'm surprised you got so many responses with such an obvious trolling attempt. You captured some of the mannerisms Mike in San Diego exhibited in his original thread, but this one doesn't quite have the same jealous, bitter, and whiny quality of the real Mike. You did get a lot of bites though.

[quote]Mike in San Diego wrote:

so if in 1992, I did a 19:50 as an 18 year old (147 pounds)

and in 1996, I did a 20:04 as a 22 year old (145 pounds)

and in 2013, I did a 20:31 as a 39 year old (170 pounds)

[quote]

I see a progression towards you getting fatter and lazier as the years go by. Probably more childish and petulant as well. You are like one of the entitlement generation who was ahead of his time.

You are not even putting in the effort you used to never mind that of a 15 minute guy(or girl).

so if in 1992, I did a 19:50 as an 18 year old (147 pounds)

and in 1996, I did a 20:04 as a 22 year old (145 pounds)

and in 2013, I did a 20:31 as a 39 year old (170 pounds)

if the relativity of my fastest times is a differential of 27 seconds to 17 years prior and 41 seconds to 21 years prior..

You obviously don't care about putting any effort into your running, so I'm baffled as to why you're making a big stink like this. If you remained even the slightest bit consistent in your running over the years, two things would have happened:

1) You wouldn't have turned into a fat slob and

2) Your 5K PR would keep decreasing even if only by a few seconds here and there.

When someone has been "running" for as long as you have, and with an original alleged PR of 19:50, he naturally gets faster. The easy pace drops over the years. You're going in the opposite direction.

I doubt the effort you put into hard runs is even 75% of your potential. You are a certifiable "hobby jogger." There's nothing wrong with that. Just know your place and stop crying about it.

This, again is interesting...in 1992 or even 1996 when I was obviously not a fat pig, I could not have even run a half marathon not could I have even dreamed of it. In fact, I was trained for 5K but bonked seriously in an 8K in summer of 1992 on the last 1.3 miles of it....Now, while I am a lazy fat pig, I have completed marathons, half marathons, and I have a PR of 33:23 in a 5 miler--I was 174 at the time of that race.So if anything, I have learned in the time not to relegate myself to 5Ks or 5K times only.I now know how to race variable distances and run smarter to get more mileage out of myself.And this is a bad thing?I can run more miles efficiently than i could. And this is bad?This in addition to many years of basketball and tennis, both of which are an anaerobic addition to the aerobic. So yeah, I'm kind of diverse.Nice to know that becoming a "real human" makes me lazy.Thanks,Mike

Mike in San Diego wrote:

There is a LOT of pretentiousness that a lot of you have in your training...the difference is..I give my raw #s..weight, times...I want to see that from you!

3 weeks off from a marathon (handful of runs-read not peak shape) - Ran 17:30. Trying to break 17 this summer. I'm 189 lbs, not a fat 189 lbs - about 7% BF. I've been running a year TOTAL. Did I put the mileage in that a 15 min guy does, NO. But I don't cry to everyone on this forum about it. Instead, I sack the f*** up and I'm jacking up my mileage from averaging 60+ to averaging 80+ over the summer and see what happens.

I normally I just sit back and read these forums and try to learn HOW to become one of those 15 min guys instead of whining to them that It's impossible to run like them. Sure, some of them are dicks - but so are the majority of people I work with and they can't break 35 minutes in the 5K.

[quote]Mike in San Diego wrote:

This, again is interesting...in 1992 or even 1996 when I was obviously not a fat pig, I could not have even run a half marathon not could I have even dreamed of it. In fact, I was trained for 5K but bonked seriously in an 8K in summer of 1992 on the last 1.3 miles of it....

Now, while I am a lazy fat pig, I have completed marathons, half marathons, and I have a PR of 33:23 in a 5 miler--I was 174 at the time of that race.

So if anything, I have learned in the time not to relegate myself to 5Ks or 5K times only.

I now know how to race variable distances and run smarter to get more mileage out of myself.

And this is a bad thing?

I can run more miles efficiently than i could. And this is bad?

This in addition to many years of basketball and tennis, both of which are an anaerobic addition to the aerobic. So yeah, I'm kind of diverse.

Nice to know that becoming a "real human" makes me lazy.

Thanks,

Mike

[quote]

I thought you fat folks were supposed to be jolly?

Mike, you have a healthy attitude towards the sport, but as others have pointed out thus far, to become really fast, you need to improve your strength to weight ratio. For your height, you are heavy by running standards. Perhaps you are simply more mesomorphic? To run in the 15 minute 5K zone requires that you carry no extra weight. You need the right frame and muscle mix. Genetics start to play a big role for times below 17:30. Don´t worry about it though. Be happy with your achievements, and enjoy running. Remember, this is not how you make a living! Even for those who do make a living by running, it is a massive sacrifice, and they do not really earn much relative to other sports. My son was the fastest 800M runner in his state at aged 11 but decide to play soccer instead (which he also does exceptionally well) It was tough to accept as a guy who loves running, but what should I have done....told him to bust his ass off for peanuts? If you are not an elite runner, than you are only doing it for yourself. There is probably an army of kids in East Africa who can run as fast as my son simply due to having a better genetic starting point....should he try to compete with them? It is a tough sell! I almost feel sorry for those 14:30 5K guys.....they are simply in no man´s land.

20 minute guy wrote:

You have come to a running board and asked to have your special snowflake status validated. Ok, you're a special snowflake.

*snort*

This guy is still getting responses? Ugh... #feedingthetroll