How many miles a week does it take to run sub-2:20?
That more or less means the US had at least those numbers of guys who could break 30:00 for 10K, but likely more, right?
How many miles a week does it take to run sub-2:20?
That more or less means the US had at least those numbers of guys who could break 30:00 for 10K, but likely more, right?
Few thoughts:
1. Beyond soccer, there are also other sports like LAX which have also "distracted" athletes. However, the role of soccer is undeniable in draining talent.
2. Has anyone considered that there were more people in their athletic primes due to the baby boom? Is this a function of population in some effect?
3. Sports have cycles. Just ask boxing.
Mile Fan wrote:
a women.
"Woman" is the singular form.
Serious athletes don't read the sht. RW is for a different audence. Do you think that the top college and elite coaches get training advice by reading RW?Oregon sucks.
Portland Runner wrote:
I also blame "Runner's World" for the decline. They have convinced most American runners that injuries are inevetable and the equivalent of terminal disease. They have advocated walking and cross training rather than Lydiardan base work, they have glorified "fun" over work, and have created heroes out of people like John "The Penguin" Bingham rather than actively promoting (beyond a single feature article) folks like Bob Kennedy, Suzy Favor-Hamilton, etc. As a result, kids have no homegrown role models to look up to.
Since RW has also brainwashed adult runners into the lazy recreational approach, this is passed on to the kids. If a kid shows talent or drive, the worried RW parent armed with their magazine cautions their offspring that too much training and racing (over 20 miles a week!) will burn them out or worse. With no heroes and full of fear, large numbers of youngsters opt for other activities or set incredibly low goals for themselves and never progress beyond high school.
Honestly, look at a copy of a soccer, golf, tennis, or football magazine and you will see articles about inprovement and technique not cautionary tales about burnout and sore muscles.
Ha... 3 year old threads are always fun.
Good thread though, it is kinda sad that so few people are running marathons seriously. I think part of the problem is that up until a few weeks ago, we didn't really have any headliners for people to emulate. I know people who would be good marathoners even though they suck on the track. 10ks are just too short for them to show their ultimate potential. I'm not talking about 2:15 type guys here, but 2:30 is in their range. They're simply not speedy enough to go 31:00 on the track, but I've run with them cranking out 5:40s and they can just go forever. One kid on my team ran a 51 min 15k on a super hilly trail course during summer training, but has never run under 16 in a 5k or under 27 for an 8k(very close on both counts, but still...). Some people just belong in the longer races, and a lot of them aren't taking advantage of the opportunities to do something great.
I don't think I'm cut out to be a marathoner, but I'm gonna give it a shot at some point.
I am completely convinced that the difference is caused by the Baby Boom generation! There were more American 20 somethings between 75 and 85 than ever before (or since, I think) and the least number of 20 somethings in the 1990s (since the 1940s).
Not a player, I just run a lot wrote:
Few thoughts:
1. Beyond soccer, there are also other sports like LAX which have also "distracted" athletes. However, the role of soccer is undeniable in draining talent.
2. Has anyone considered that there were more people in their athletic primes due to the baby boom? Is this a function of population in some effect?
3. Sports have cycles. Just ask boxing.
I don't think there were 5-10X the number of 20 somethings in the 70s and 80s as there are now though...
smnfdkohj wrote:
I am completely convinced that the difference is caused by the Baby Boom generation! There were more American 20 somethings between 75 and 85 than ever before (or since, I think) and the least number of 20 somethings in the 1990s (since the 1940s).
[/quote]
The facts don't jibe with your thesis. Here is a decade to decade analysis of school-aged kids, track and field participation numbers and numbers of sub 4:10/9:00 runners during each decade. There were more school-aged kids and track and field participants during the 90s then the 80s, yet the number of sub 4:10/9:00 runners was still less than the 80s.
Data from NFHS study:
1970s:
12,299,000 average HS aged children each year.
3,887,352 participants in all sports (boys)
105 4:10 milers
102 9:00 2-milers
Lets compare the other decades.
1980s:
10,780,000 HS kids (-12.4%)
3,387,482 participants (-12.9%)
68 4:10 milers (-35.2%)
49 9:00 2-milers (-52.0%)
1990s:
11,111,000 HS kids (-9.7%)
3,605,942 participants (-7.2%)
38 4:10 milers (-63.8%)
17 9:00 2-milers (-83.3%)
14-17 Avg (in thousands)
2000 11,933 11,111 -9.7%
1999 12,048
1998 11,314
1997 11,953
1996 11,617
1995 11,401
1994 10,560
1993 10,247
1992 10,114
1991 9,923
1990 9,912 10,780 -12.4%
1989 10,020
1988 10,379
1987 10,944
1986 11,149
1985 11,024
1984 10,711
1983 10,768
1982 11,131
1981 11,757
1980 11,835 12,299
1979 12,190
1978 12,346
1977 12,472
1976 12,550
1975 12,531
1974 12,566
1973 12,309
1972 12,283
1971 11,906
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=709244&page=0Nice work, malmo. I knew that was BS, but I'm glad now I don't have to do the digging to disprove it.
Anyone have figures for the last few years? I'm guessing there is something of a turnaround happening. Seems like 2000-2001 was kind of a low point.
So more people are running, but they are running slower or not as fast?
I think some kids just particpate on T&F or XC HS teams because they think it makes them look good on college applications.
what bunch of sht.
NY runner wrote:
So more people are running, but they are running slower or not as fast?
More kids are running in the 'aughts' (probably equal to the 70s) AND they are running just as fast (or faster) than the 70s. There will probably be just as many (or more) sub 4:10/9:00s by the end of the decade. It bodes well for the future.
The shift has been the attitude. Sometime during the late 90s early 2000s (Ritz/Webb era) the 90s less-is-more attitude started to crack. You still see vestiges of this disease, but by and large it's been thoroughly discredited. I suspect during the next 5 years we'll see more and more sub 2:20 marathoners.
Anybody notice that the decline starts right around the time video games game into being. Perhaps the reason for the decline is that kids in the 60's and 70's were outside running around for their entire childhood and now kids sit on their butts all day. My guess is that Kenyan children do not have such distractions.
smog? fast food (as mentioned), artificial flavoring? various exposure to chemicals? do these contribute as well? I seem to hear more cases of asthma/ sports induced asthma? malmo- any amazing stats on this stuff!
NY runner wrote:
Serious athletes don't read the sht. RW is for a different audence. Do you think that the top college and elite coaches get training advice by reading RW?
Oregon sucks.
I agree with you again, but I don't think it really matters. The RW/Penguin crowd have turned road racing in a huge, ridiculous circus that's hardly about competition anymore. It's the impact that whole creeping mindset has had on the environment of a big part of the post-collegiate distance running scene. The influence has come from outside the community of serious athletes, though it's been enabled by former elites who have sold out.
dwyer wrote:
smog? fast food (as mentioned), artificial flavoring? various exposure to chemicals? do these contribute as well? I seem to hear more cases of asthma/ sports induced asthma? malmo- any amazing stats on this stuff!
Smog has been reduced greatly since the 1970s.
Can you break your data out by year? I'd like to see the comparison of the years 1972 or 73 vs. 91 or 92 vs. 99 or 2000. Do you know how many high schoolers broke 4:10 or 9:00 for each individual year?
It is hard to compare decades when your numbers show a drought from the late 80s to the early 90s. I'm curious if most of the fast times in the 80s happened early in the decade and if the fast times in the 90s happened late.
Your numbers are interesting. Thanks.
malmo wrote:
1970s:
12,299,000 average HS aged children each year.
3,887,352 participants in all sports (boys)
105 4:10 milers
102 9:00 2-milers
Looks to me like the fast high schoolers in the 70s ran the fast marathons in the 80s. That data makes it look more generational than I thought it actually was. It doesn't prove it was numbers of competitors, but it was the same group of people.
Nevermind, I just read through the thread you had posted. It is all there!
I would guess that by 2012, the US will probably have between 40 and 50 2:20 or faster. 2016 and 2020 should be even better than that. I'm not sure if there is more young talent coming up these days, but I certainly hear a lot more.
I entered each year, the avg. number of high schoolers plus the number of sub 4:10 milers and sub 9:00 two milers. Ran a correlation and found a correlation of .669 for population and sub 4:10. I also found a correlation of .763 between the two mile and population.
This doesn't necessary prove that population influenced the number of fast times, but it does show that as population increases times get faster and vice-versa.