If Bekele was a farmer and didn't train a single time in his life, what would his 5k time be?

ilonggo wrote:

incredible talent wrote:

15:30 worst case. The people saying 20:00+ are idiots. Fourteen year old American kids can break 20 running like 10 miles a week.

He'd be running under 14 within 6 months.

There's a big difference between "running like 10 miles a week" and "didn't train a single time in his life"

There's also a big difference between the greatest runner of all time and a random high school freshman, but I wouldn't expect someone predicting a 21:30 to understand that.

An active and healthy 25-year-old Bekele, who has lived at altitude his whole life, will run way, way under 20:00 without any training. Anyone saying otherwise is clueless.

I actually believe what Canova said - 15 minutes. You tend to underestimate talent. Runnig is an ability but everybody naturaly acquires it. Sure there are stories of people running 25 minute 5k at a first attempt and then getting down to sub 15 or sub 14. But those must have been people who somehow managed to "conceal" their talent either by being unnaturally sedentary or overweight or unwilling to push and hurt a bit. I grew up in 80's so there were no computers then and TV content was crap (I am from Eastern Europe). I would spend hours walking around, playing soccer, hide&seek, climbing up the trees. I never ran more than 300-400m at one go. Sometimes we would chase somebody or were chased but as kids we would dash off hard and shortly after we had to stop because of being out of breath and feeling the lactic acid. Even when I rode a bike, 2-3 km on dirt roads felt a long distance. So I formally ran 0 miles and yet at school when we first ran 1500m at the age of 12 I won in 6:20, probably because I was scared by the distance, 4 laps seemed so long and did not go out too hard like the others. Next year I improved to 5:50 and then at 14 I ran 5:20, still 0 formal miles, just by the virtue of growing up and being physically stronger. After each race my calves were sore for several days because I was not trained to run that distance yet I ran a time that some healthy and not overweight your men will never run. While at I high school I became more sedentary, even more so later on, only playing soccer once a week. That went on until I started to run at the age of 35. I was 15 kilos overweight but shed them quickly and after 6 months running 20-30 km a week in my first 5000m race I ran sub 19 and 1500m in 4:50. A year later on 30-40 km per week I was at 4:30/1500m and 17:30. I got pretty serious about it for a few years, running some 80-100 km weeks but only improved to 4:15 and 16:30. Maybe if I trained more, smarter, harder and started sooner than at 35, I would run 4:00 and sub 15 but no amount of miles or the smartest coach would make me run substantiality faster. Based on the above, I estimate that my "untrained but not overweight" ability at the age of 25 would be 21:00 if paced properly. So how can somebody claim Bekele would run a similar time.

It is not popular to put talent first because it is something we inherit from parents rather than earn by hard work and the mantra over here is to run 100 miles a week year after year to gradually improve and let your dream come true because that is applicable for everyone while the odds are you are not the one with talent. How would Haile, Bekele, Wanjiru or Komen be world class runners at the age of 18 - 19 then?

Amory wrote:

nonsense wrote:

As I wrote earlier, sub 15 is an insult to Zátopek, Hägg, and other great runners of the past. Is Bekelele so much more talented than those runners that he could run without running training within one minute of their world record times that they achieved through very hard training? No chance.

Yes, he easily could. He is way more talented, has better shoes, better competitors in the race.

Those guys also had no idea how to train properly.

It wasn't specified the number and ability of competitors, just what could farmer Bekele run for 5000m. Maybe the race is at altitude and he's racing a 16 minute runner, goes out with him, blows up and runs 16:20.

12:36

I am Sam wrote:

nonsense wrote:

(Please disregard my username, it is not an attempt to be disrespectful.)

Thank you for your thoughts, Renato, but some of what you write here seems dubious. Firstly, with regard to 80% talent, 20% training. This would imply that the limit of someone who runs 25:00 in the 5km without training would have a limit of 20:00, or that someone who runs 20:00 without training would have a limit of 16:00. Both of these are certainly wrong. Maybe you meant to restrict only to 'elite' athletes, but it still seems very doubtful.

Your username is quite fitting because you have no idea what is meant by 20% training.

So if , instead , he said it was 40% training...your 25 min no training guy would have a limit of 15min..., 60% 10min and so forth?

Quite cool logic...

Actually you're right, I have no idea what it really means, and suspect it doesn't really make much sense. I was trying to guess at an interpretation that might be relevant to the discussion. What do you think it means?

It would be good to see Mo Farah's twin brother run a 5k.

I think there's identical twins, bigger than Mo but not overweight and I don't think he runs at all. A bit older than 25 but it would still give a fair idea.

I coached several WR holder. In their results, 80% depended on their talent, maybe 20% on my programs and their appication with continuity and seriousness.

If I follow, with the same diligence and motivation, an athlete running 5 km in 25' without training, NEVER I can bring him to run under 16 minutes.

Here there is really not ideas about TALENT. A sprinter NEVER can become able to run under 10 seconds if not able to run well under 11" without any training, and an athlete of middle distance NEVER can run a Mile under 4' if doesn't start (without training) under 5' when still young.

Posters here have to quit to compare all the parameters of a top runner (and probably Bekele is the most talented ever) with their parameters. How is it possible to speak about 25 minutes, when the record WALKING is under 18 minutes ?

About the most part of athletics, there are situations already acclarated, and it's ridiculous to have "opinions" when already the FACTS are very clear.

This means that people has to learn, before speaking.

17-18 mins. It would be impossible for him to get to racing weight without real training, and he might not get the pacing right as well.

Renato Canova wrote:

and an athlete of middle distance NEVER can run a Mile under 4' if doesn't start (without training) under 5' when still young.

Didn't Jim Ryun run his first mile in 5:30ish even with some training?

i am not sure about this 25 to 16 in 5k or 5 to 4 in 1 mile theory you have. especially if considering a sedentary mid to late 20s person. Talking about their very first jogging, at age 27, after 10 years with zero running, biking, elliptical, etc.

I don't have many experience around 4 minute mile talent, so that is more difficult for me to speak on. But 25 to 16 minutes in 5k seems very possible under the right circumstances.

The 25 minutes was based on the following interpretation of the question: what could Bekele or anyone possibly run if they had done little to no serious aerobic exercise in their life (no football or other sports, no formal running at school, no running or long walks to and from school, etc), but had remained active enough to stay quite healthy (not overweight for example)? I still say that sub 25 is not reasonable in that situation. As I already wrote, genetics are limited without environment, you need to stress the aerobic system when young, even if you are Bekele, and you need to be comfortable psychologically and physically (impact, etc) with a sustained effort.

As I again already wrote, if the question is instead what could Bekele run if quite fit aerobically, but had done no serious, focused running training, then obviously I agree with way below sub 20, but sub 15 is still nonsense. What you claim to be facts are not facts, they are your assertions; we do not have any evidence of such a situation. My argument, already given, is a historical one: Hägg, Zátopek, and other great runners of the past were running only just sub 14 with very hard training. There is no way anyone untrained gets within a minute of what they could achieve. It is completely fallacious to look at modern running times and draw the conclusion that today's runners are more 'talented'.

Allow me also to remark that the 80% talent notion has still not been defined in any meaningful way. If you mean the percentage of what one could ultimately achieve the first time one tries, that is the interpretation I gave it earlier, and the other poster scorned it. Personally, I think the whole notion of talent here has no substance. There are genetics, there is environment, there is luck, and there is conscious effort.

Other stories about people supposedly running fast times off no training tend not to stand up to scrutiny. E.g. there is one about Said Aoiuta supposedly running 8:15 in the 3km off only football training in 1978. On closer inspection, this appears a tall tale; he has given other versions of it (8:01 in 1977 for example), and appears to have run plenty at school (just, by his own admission, not have been especially good), as well as having been doing running training in some form since 1977.

There was a period early in the Corona shutdown where Premier League footballers were running 5kms. The fastest was Scott McTominay, who ran low 16:xx. This is someone exceptionally fit, who has done masses of training (not running specific of course), has all the professional aid in the world, has run loads in his life, and who clearly has better mechanics for running than most other footballers, who are good athletes. I doubt any untrained amateur could run much quicker than this, no matter how good the genetics.

I still don't buy the premise of your argument. I would contend that the runners of today are VASTLY more talented than the runners of the past. The depth of competition back then was incredibly shallow. I'm not sure why you hold these guys like Zatopek at the pinnacle of talent; with nearly the entire world now participating in running, Bekele stands atop them all. Bekele is VASTLY more talented than Zatopek. It isn't close.

As well, stop with the notion that hard training = good training. I would also contend that a "trained" Zatopek is not much of an improvement over an untrained Zatopek, given that his training was not very scientific. Heck, the concept of high mileage training wasn't even explored.

You are correct. There were untrained farmers in Kenya 100 years ago who could run 16 flat and they could have run 14 flat after 6 months of training.

Amory wrote:

I still don't buy the premise of your argument. I would contend that the runners of today are VASTLY more talented than the runners of the past. The depth of competition back then was incredibly shallow. I'm not sure why you hold these guys like Zatopek at the pinnacle of talent; with nearly the entire world now participating in running, Bekele stands atop them all. Bekele is VASTLY more talented than Zatopek. It isn't close.

As well, stop with the notion that hard training = good training. I would also contend that a "trained" Zatopek is not much of an improvement over an untrained Zatopek, given that his training was not very scientific. Heck, the concept of high mileage training wasn't even explored.

You are free to disagree. But it would be good not to speak in absolutes. To say that Zátopek's training did not improve him at all is preposterous for example. We have already discussed that this was a pre-Lydiard era, but let's keep things in proportion. Zátopek was a training innovator that others, including Lydiard, built upon later.

I am not claiming that Zátopek is the most 'talented' runner of all time. But it is good to have some respect for and understanding of performances of the past.

Your point about running depth has validity, but I wouldn't hold it as so significant myself; professionalisation is the biggest difference in my opinion. In particular, there is a bridge between human possibility and what the runners of earlier generations could achieve: running within a minute of the world record times of the 40s and 50s untrained is a bridge too far in my opinion. Low 16:xx is about the quickest I could conceive.

Dennis Kimetto WAS a farmer and then he became the marathon world's record holder. Although he may have put in a bit of training first.

Farmer Bekele is going to run 25 minutes when he is at race weight?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Dennis Kimetto WAS a farmer and then he became the marathon world's record holder. Although he may have put in a bit of training first.

Yes, Kimetto is a good example of something that is reasonable. Massive 'talent', but he didn't just turn up to his first race untrained.

talent go wrote:

You are correct. There were untrained farmers in Kenya 100 years ago who could run 16 flat and they could have run 14 flat after 6 months of training.

The population of Kenya was about one million around 100 years ago, including British colonialists. It's now 50 million. Any young Kenyan with the slightest talent is funnelled into distance running, unique among any other country in the entire history of the world. They can't even break 13 minutes now without full throttle EPO, yet 100 years ago they could have run 14 flat with 6 months of (1900?) training??