yeah yeah yeah, and you walked to school barefoot uphill both ways in the snow....
yeah yeah yeah, and you walked to school barefoot uphill both ways in the snow....
I actually did walk to and from school all winter long, about 1.5 miles each way.?
Except sometimes after practice I was bagged so took the bus. Then later took some rides from a girl who lived near me.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
When I was in HS I once ran 2 miles in 9:58. We had to do that 2 miles for every gym class, which was 2x per week, and once we were timed as part of our grade (ah, the good old days—gym teacher was also the distance coach and would often run with us).
I was probably in 15:00 or sub-15 5k shape at the time—but that no doubt ended as soon as I left HS and stopped those regular 2-milers.
Then at 40-something I did around 18:30 once, after dropping weight from the flu.
Now, I am at 23, with the goal of sub-20.
I say this to illustrate the power of youth, training, and trained youth. How many trained youth are around now, compared to say 1980? Effectively none, as far as I can tell. Trained old guys? Also none, they are very rare. And the overall population has aged, so average times are probably naturally worse.
IDK what 15:00 equates to in the 100m, but it’s probably decently fast. Yes some of the local races are super slow, so slow that I will soon be competitive—but I know that the fast guys pick their spots, even for a 5k.
And a few of them have told me that they stay away from the 5k because it is too fast for them and they get injured, so they do 10k, 10 miles, and the marathon. Maybe times in those longer distances are better, relatively speaking.
Other than that, people are just lazy. Running is hard, especially if you do it only infrequently. There are only very few people nowadays who get off on going hard and fast.
A female soccer player I know at Carleton College (ugh) who runs all the time told me there was this guy there who was super-fast, and who is a sort of college hero. She asked me to guess his mile time, and I guessed 3:58. Her jaw dropped, and she told me he was something like 4:13. OMG back in the day my HS had 3 guys who were right on the cusp of breaking 4 mins.
Standards have changed. Yes I know it’s D3 or something, but whatever.
This is effectively what I'm driving at too. The argument could be made that all of the fast runners are chasing fast races; there's some validity in that. I believe more it is just that less people are willing to work physically hard as a general rule. I would go even further and say that the average person mostly has the inability to do so. They just don't have the mental, physical, and emotional scaffolding it takes to run hard or fast....just from an anecdotal level...look at the average high school who was bucking hay, shagging 2 x 4s, and mowing lawns 30 years ago, and the average kid today. My son's friends are all massive lightweights. Most of the kids I coach are too. The drive just isn't there, and they largely have no frame of reference for what it really takes. The run-of-the-mill societal experience just doesn't translate to 100% effort at anything. To be fair when WWII vets talk about how legit things were back then, I am a p*ssy by comparison also. "Progressivism" is paradoxical.
Another reason humans MIGHT be slightly slower on average today is the poor air quality and amount pf pesticides we ingest. In main cities in the UK at least, ther have been studies to show that chi,dren’s lungs are not developing properly due to the amount of cars and pollution. I personally notice the air feels like crap. There was much, much less of this 30 years ago and I definitely believe it plays at least some role of the declining energy/motivation levels lf the general population, it also impacts the central nervous system. Better CNS function + higher quality oxygen = more energy to WANT to run. I know that when I was a kid, it’d get irritable if I didn’t get a good run around at least once or twice a day, kids these days seem to be absolutely satiated.
Also, there’s the more races argument. Back in the day, the slower types left road racing to the faster types but now the roles have reversed and it’s the slower types doing the road racing while the faster types sit at home on a saturday morning, perhaps preparing for a workout or something. A lot of people go on about how people were faster “back in the day” - this is probably not the case, there is still a similar proportion of fast and slow but the roles have reversed due to more races catering for average people.
I know a couple of locally fast people (and yes, these times are fast compared to everybody but college athletes and up) who run 18:xx M and 21:xx F, mostly from running groups, and these people actually do train fairly hard to place well in these “hobbyjogger races” so to speak, they are JUST not talented like most people here are. They still do 50 mile weeks and put track workouts in at their relative paces and come out of the sessions pretty gassed.
I am a 17 low guy, not as fas as some people here where the norm seems to be 15 or 16 (I’m sure there are a lot if liars though) so I would say I am “average” on LetsRun but I am not ignorant to the fact I have more running talent than 90% of males, maybe more. A 17:xx 5k equates to a VO2 max of 60, yeah ... not happening without some decent (but non-elite) talent.
People are too busy shuffling along at ultras or on the trails ultras. Running fast is hard.
I know, I was one of those shufflers for a long time; the LetsRun message board has shown me the light with its nuanced and respectful critique of ultrarunning.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
When I was in HS I once ran 2 miles in 9:58. We had to do that 2 miles for every gym class, which was 2x per week, and once we were timed as part of our grade (ah, the good old days—gym teacher was also the distance coach and would often run with us).
I was probably in 15:00 or sub-15 5k shape at the time—but that no doubt ended as soon as I left HS and stopped those regular 2-milers.
Then at 40-something I did around 18:30 once, after dropping weight from the flu.
Now, I am at 23, with the goal of sub-20.
I say this to illustrate the power of youth, training, and trained youth. How many trained youth are around now, compared to say 1980? Effectively none, as far as I can tell. Trained old guys? Also none, they are very rare. And the overall population has aged, so average times are probably naturally worse.
IDK what 15:00 equates to in the 100m, but it’s probably decently fast. Yes some of the local races are super slow, so slow that I will soon be competitive—but I know that the fast guys pick their spots, even for a 5k.
And a few of them have told me that they stay away from the 5k because it is too fast for them and they get injured, so they do 10k, 10 miles, and the marathon. Maybe times in those longer distances are better, relatively speaking.
Other than that, people are just lazy. Running is hard, especially if you do it only infrequently. There are only very few people nowadays who get off on going hard and fast.
A female soccer player I know at Carleton College (ugh) who runs all the time told me there was this guy there who was super-fast, and who is a sort of college hero. She asked me to guess his mile time, and I guessed 3:58. Her jaw dropped, and she told me he was something like 4:13. OMG back in the day my HS had 3 guys who were right on the cusp of breaking 4 mins.
Standards have changed. Yes I know it’s D3 or something, but whatever.
What's wrong with Carleton? 4:13 IS pretty fast. 3:58 would be faster than the D3 record and make D1 Nationals. Isn't it reasonable that a strong D3 runner would be a medium D1 runner?
nvjkseivfnkl wrote:
Sprintgeezer wrote:
When I was in HS I once ran 2 miles in 9:58. We had to do that 2 miles for every gym class, which was 2x per week, and once we were timed as part of our grade (ah, the good old days—gym teacher was also the distance coach and would often run with us).
I was probably in 15:00 or sub-15 5k shape at the time—but that no doubt ended as soon as I left HS and stopped those regular 2-milers.
Then at 40-something I did around 18:30 once, after dropping weight from the flu.
Now, I am at 23, with the goal of sub-20.
I say this to illustrate the power of youth, training, and trained youth. How many trained youth are around now, compared to say 1980? Effectively none, as far as I can tell. Trained old guys? Also none, they are very rare. And the overall population has aged, so average times are probably naturally worse.
IDK what 15:00 equates to in the 100m, but it’s probably decently fast. Yes some of the local races are super slow, so slow that I will soon be competitive—but I know that the fast guys pick their spots, even for a 5k.
And a few of them have told me that they stay away from the 5k because it is too fast for them and they get injured, so they do 10k, 10 miles, and the marathon. Maybe times in those longer distances are better, relatively speaking.
Other than that, people are just lazy. Running is hard, especially if you do it only infrequently. There are only very few people nowadays who get off on going hard and fast.
A female soccer player I know at Carleton College (ugh) who runs all the time told me there was this guy there who was super-fast, and who is a sort of college hero. She asked me to guess his mile time, and I guessed 3:58. Her jaw dropped, and she told me he was something like 4:13. OMG back in the day my HS had 3 guys who were right on the cusp of breaking 4 mins.
Standards have changed. Yes I know it’s D3 or something, but whatever.
What's wrong with Carleton? 4:13 IS pretty fast. 3:58 would be faster than the D3 record and make D1 Nationals. Isn't it reasonable that a strong D3 runner would be a medium D1 runner?
Yeah, D3. School records there are pretty good, 4:05/13:53 from back in the day. And it's not a bad school.
jobby_hogger wrote:
People are too busy shuffling along at ultras or on the trails ultras. Running fast is hard.
I know, I was one of those shufflers for a long time; the LetsRun message board has shown me the light with its nuanced and respectful critique of ultrarunning.
Hammocks are now the order of the day.
What's funny is that when you get decent at running, it's actually enjoyable, even if you go pretty fast--but precious few people are willing to put in the work to ever arrive at that point.
To them, it's just a grind.
I see lots of hobbyjoggers at the local running shop, they head out in groups, and convene for pancakes afterward. Seems like a very social scene, and I applaud the fact that they are getting out there--but watching them for a bit, I realize that they are just one foot off the sofa. It is more of a support group than anything else, real shufflers.
I hear from someone who goes that many of them are there to "meet someone".
I don't think this has much to do with people being slow but with oversaturation. There is a 5k a day and multiple on the weekend close enough to wherever most of us live. Some of these events are more along the charity lines raising money for a good cause, some have steep prices, some have tough courses, etc. Everybody knows the half dozen races a year that are super competitive near them and you show up to run those. You also know the races where you can win easy. For the longer stuff, everyone seems to be going to Boston/NYC/Chicago or trying to travel internationally. The regional marathons still do well in terms of getting people but sometimes they can be won easily. I don't know about others but if I'm going to go after 6:00/mile for the marathon, I'm going to a Chicago/Boston to try and to finish in the 100s/200s/300s versus trying to front run a local marathon and win or finish top-3 or top-5 where I'm gonna have to do a lot of solo running.
So my breakdown is:
1. Too many races, often with steep prices.
2. There are still competitive regional races where you show up and know it'll be competitive.
3. Competition/want to run in more prestigious races- easier to run with others than alone. Want to take that selfie in Boston vs. Buffalo.
LoneStarXC wrote:
Could part of the reason be that there are more races than before? And a there’s ton of charity fundraiser races and “fun runs”, that are designed to make money, instead of catering to fast runners. I mean, a city could have the Run For Rabies Awareness 5k, the Save The Dodo Bird 5k, the Let’s Eat Chocolate 10k, and the Cute Fluffy Alpaca Half Marathon all on the same weekend.
A lot of people say the same in UK but when I was running in Manchester area in 80's 90's there was a local race nearly every week in Summer. Travelling no more than 20 miles to race I finished in about 40th running 32:40 for 6 miles. The best I ever managed with 33 10km was about 10 place. Normally winner did under 31.
Now I see races won in 36 minutes.
Still sounds like standards are even worse in USA. There are 3 parkruns local to me run every weekend near London and you'd normally need about 16xx to win.
Carleton is a tiny fluff private school where kids go to wear fuzzy slippers and flannel pyjamas.
Doesn't 4:13 convert to something like 3:54 for 1500m? Maybe I'm completely out of time, but while 4:13 is pretty fast among normal runners, it's not actually fast for real competitors. 4:13 is IMO near the range where lots of guys would run, if they chose to, but don't. I don't think it takes any particularly huge level of talent.
Look at the school record somebody posted, something like 4:05. That's better. In my seriously limited experience, that's in the fast zone. That is 4 minutes, whereas 4:13 is 4:15.
And even if I know nothing about the mile/1500, I do know about the 800. I ran a 1:58 in my 40's, and I was never an 800 specialist. 1:58 is not fast, anywhere, ever, for a man. Yes I get it maybe he is a mile specialist.
I don't mean to knock the guy, because of course 4:13 is a decent time, after all. What I was trying to illustrate was that the other kids consider him to be some sort of god, you should have heard the way they were heaping praises on him. It made me think that he was seriously fast--when he turned out to be only relatively fast, relative to the insularity that is Carleton, and a certain age demographic. I figured he was maybe just "Carleton-hot", and the chicks idolized him :)
I looked up Canadian all-time men's mile rankings, because for some irrational reason I think that the list could represent clean athletes (maybe not current bests as they are in the seemingly unrestricted NCAA system):
https://athletics.ca/calendar-rankings/rankings/
Look at the years in which the sub-4's were done. OMG by today's standards they are ancient. Looks like at the top, people have gotten slower, in the Canadian men's mile, at least.
Of course I could be wrong about all of this. It still seems to me that standards have been slipping, at least in north america.
a guy that posts sometimes wrote:
holiday hobby jogger wrote:
The top ten places should not consist of teenagers and masters, but that's often what happens, because the young adults are a no-show.
That's exactly what happens at races in my area. The top finishers are teenagers and masters. Seriously, they'll make up 8 or 9 of the top 10 in area 5ks. The 20s and 30s just aren't there. Sometimes there aren't even enough of them to claim the three age group awards. A young adult that races regularly is a purple dinosaur.
I guess they're all too busy putting in 100 mile weeks. Of course if you never race, I have to wonder what's all that training for?
Just to add to the discussion on young adults not racing - yep, same thing in my town. The 20 and 30 age groups are significantly under represented, to the point of being almost totally absent.
They should be the local fast guys, but they don't race. I'm sure part of it is the post-collegiate burn out, that guys who ran in college are mentally if not physically tired of it. They see the local 5k as a huge step down from college competition. They can run 2 minutes slower than their PR and sometimes still win by 3 minutes.
Plus, the workplace is putting more pressure on young professionals. Gone are the days of putting in your 9-5 for one company for 40 years, and them giving you a pension and a gold watch. Employers are demanding more hours, nights, weekends, travel, ect. Then at the first hint of a slowdown, they kick you to the curb. There are higher demands and no security. Plus, housing has become prohibitably expensive. All this can make putting major time and effort into serious hobby racing seem even more unappealing.
Then in their mid to late 30s, they're a bit more settled professionally and financially, the kids are old enough to be somewhat independent, and they've packed on some pounds. They decide to do something about it, start exercising, and soon the old competitive urge sparks.
Another "born again" masters runner hits the scene.
That's my guess as to why the top finishers at local races are all high schoolers and masters.
OP is most likely trolling or an alpha male who runs sub 14 5ks.