Why do most runners like to believe that....

Flagpole wrote:

My question was fair. You are suggesting that poor form, strength training, and endurance training is all that is required to make a person get faster so that they can run 20 minutes. Well, why not then 13 minutes? I realize it is faster, but it's all just working on the same things is it not?

.

To drive a modern car over 100 mph, you just need gas, proper maintenance, and components that aren't worn out. No amount of tweaking will get that car over 140 mph. To drive a modern car at 180 miles per your, you just need...everything.

Humans are biologically limited by all the little things that make up "talent". A 13:00 5k'er is basically at the very limits of human capability, so you need everything to be nearly perfect. Every component of talent needs to be in the top .001% (or whatever. On the other hand, you don't need everything to be perfect to run a 20 minute 5k. You need everything to work.

You're comparing driving a Hayabusa on the track to speeding on the way to Grandma's house.

I was just asking the guy if his criteria could be applied to 13 minute 5,000 too.

Going with your car theme, most males have the capability of a Model A...simply not capable of getting even to the 100 MPH that you mention.

Anyone who is slower than me doesn't work as hard as I do and anyone faster than me is just loaded with talent.

I SO want someone to offer me 5 million dollars to break 20 minutes in a 5k. No lottery wins lately, though. ;)Seriously, re talent--any success, in any field, be it running or any other pursuit, requires a mix of talent, effort, and desire. A prodigy who can play the piano at three may feel more motivated than the average person to develop that ability and become a soloist, a process that will still take hours of practice. The average person might not have the same motivation and just want to entertain friends at parties. But that person may have some other passion/talent that s/he spends more time perfecting.Different people, different gifts/abilities/motivations.

Ole Timer wrote:

This is so true. I ran for many years, trained pretty hard at times (up to 70mpw in singles, etc), and never broke 5:00 for the mile, for example. Hell I think my fastest open 400 was 68 seconds! Some people have it, some don't. Hopefully you can get the most of whatever talent you have.

Flagpole wrote:

CORRECT! And that's the right attitude too...even high school state champions might never amount to much after that...it's all about being the best you can be.

To show you how unfair it all is, when I was a freshman, I ran my very first 1600 ever...in 4:54. We hardly trained much back then too - about 15 miles a week.

It all comes down to validation, and you do not get a lot in running, no matter how good you are. So while you know you are an outlier by being a 14:xx or better runner, there are still a lot of people ahead of you, and THEY are ignored as well. So it is easy to believe that anybody slower than you really sucks.

Why do we have this thread (or a variation on it) every two weeks or so?

But 20 minutes? I don't know. Part of me wants to say that almost anyone under 40 could, with a year or so of proper training, sneak under 20. I'm in the Army though, and the max score for running for 18-21 is 13 minutes for two miles and you rarely see that. Another mile at that pace for everyone? And you have to imagine the Army is a fairly fit cross-section of society; of course they don't train to run the 5000. Who knows?

Why are people trying to argue whether or not genetics plays a role?? Obviously it does. Some people off the same training run 14 minutes and 18 minutes. When I was running 30 miles a week in college I was much faster than some guys running 60 or more miles. Obvious genetics is huge. But to say that most people couldn't break 20 minutes with appropriate training is silly. People who only run 23 minutes who think they're fast doesn't mean they are training appropriately, it most likely means they've never trained appropriately in their life because anyone who knows anything about running knows 23 is ridiculously slow.

Genetics plays a big role but its not gonna limit very many men to something as slow as 20 minutes. You know what else plays a huge role... TRAINING. There's lots of bad coaches out there, and lots of people who run for fun and go out and run a 25 minute 5k because they don't know how to train and they don't actually RACE the race. I have a friend who is a very good coach, he's shown up at a high school a couple times now to teams that have a couple 18:xx 5k guys a few 19 minuters, and a bunch over 20 and within a year he's gotten a varsity team under 18 and most everyone else under 19:30. And that's teenagers off one good year of training! While genetics has an adaptability factor that limits our improvement from training, good training can make your average 20-something 5K-er drop MINUTES very quickly.

If we're talking truly ideal training, I think the notion that fewer than 10% of the male population could fail to break 20 minutes is preposterous.

By ideal training, I'm not talking about doing cross country in high school and then not running the rest of the year. I mean a sustained, long-term increase in training load that leads to real aerobic development. It also goes without saying that you need to have good body composition.

(By the way, whoever said that the average VO2Max is in the low 40s, and that training only increases it 10-15%, is missing the role of weight. You may only be able to increase the numerator by 10-15%, but most people can REALLY decrease the denominator if they put their minds to it. This is even true for good runners.)

I was a soccer player in high school, and I had a reputation as the guy who never stopped running on the field. I was also a 2-minute 800 guy. I played sports year 'round. Yet I had to really train over the summer so that I could break 12 minutes in a 3200 fitness test at the beginning of the soccer season. I really doubt I'd have been able to break 20 in a 5k at the time. I'm sure Flagpole could've pointed at me as an example of just how much talent is required to get under 20.

But eventually I got into distance running on my own. I built up the mileage over years. At first, I was running well over 8-minute pace. But I kept doing it, and year after year (not month after month) I got faster. I can now run a marathon at the same pace I did that 3200 fitness test in high school. That took a decade and tens of thousands of miles. Do you really think that there are many men who aren't disabled, in the prime of their lives, who could fail to break 20 despite having 40,000 lifetime miles under their belts?

Also, if you start training someone as an adult who doesn't have a background, you're starting with some major disadvantages. Kids who have grown up running and playing sports are going to much more easily adapt to high mileage. They'll have stronger bones and connective tissues. So I don't consider runners who get active for the first time in their lives as adults to be convincing counterexamples.

I have my feelings on this, but I would love to be able to just take a random sample of like 50 men from the population of 20-29 year olds and have like 2-3 years to train them, giving an incentive of like 5-10k for every person that did it, so they would have motivation to do workouts, etc.

Would be quite interesting to see what they could all be running in 2-3 years.

Genes have a big play in how fast a person can push themselves to run. If a person is dedicated and runs for multiple years with programming specific to the individual runner a guy can go sub 20min. If a person doesn't have the proper training the only way a person can hit those times is off of pure genetics. This is my opinion based off a relatively short running career and being inexperienced as a "young coach".

That being said, my views maybe skewed because I have been running sub 20min 5k and sub 5:30 mile since I was in middle school. I also have gotten every single kid on my xc and track team to hit those times. My team is small (18 kids) so maybe I have yet to see a kid with genetics that limits him to not break those times after 4 years of consistent training.

I totally agree with you.

American seems to have this myth that if you work hard enough you can do anything.

Well, no, you can't.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want us to not have that myth. That myth is better tempered with an amendment...which would be...if you work hard you can go as far as you can go.

So maybe you don't get to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal, maybe you only get to go the Olympics, or maybe you don't get to go to the Olympics, you only get to go to the Trials, or maybe you don't get to go to the trials, but you get to go to a last chance qualifier meet, etc.

At some point we all get to (or have to) accept our limitations. America is not great at teaching people to be cool with that, to still be happy people doing what they can do.

It's the journey, not the destination.

There are some people that win the genetic lottery, and choose to not take the journey.

I knew a 1:45 guy who chose to step away after college, he literally told me he wished he could give his talent to someone who wanted to do something with it, because he didn't. (He never trained that hard, rarely ran in the summer etc.) He enjoyed following the sport, he just didn't want to be a part of it any longer.

Damdest thing.

Imagine how many people there are out there that have won the genetic lottery...and never run a step.

EZ10Miler wrote:

I think there are a lot of folks in here who's parents were waaaaayyy to nice to them.

"You can do ANYTHING honey! The world is yours!"

You guys must live in a big bubble of denial.

It may not be denial...which is often the wrong word to use, it may be more akin to blindness, or a blind spot.

And it isn't just parents that do this, it is teachers, movies, tv, it is saturated in American culture.

It is probably better to have it that way, than the way some other countries have it...

As to "talent."

Flagpole, maybe a more accurate term is "innate ability."

Everyone is born with an innate ability to run around a certain time for let's say the 1 Mile. Someone born big boned and large bodied...maybe they struggle to break 15 minutes in the mile...even with the perfect training for their body.

Someone else, with the perfect training for their body, runs a world record.

Yes, you have to have the innate ability to begin with...and then a lot of other things have to fall in place...starting early enough, getting good training advice, staying healthy...so many Variables... The one thing that is not Variable...is being born with the Innate Ability.

Ergo genetics.

One of the things that bothers me the most is elites who think they are elite just because they "work harder" than others. That old idea, that while you are taking it easy, your rival across the world is busting his butt. Well, nonsense. The world is populated with so many runners "busting their butts" at this point that a far more important factor is innate ability, or genetics...which can include the ability to not break down under hard training.

So many variables. Yes, for sure, the top runners in the world all work hard. Any of us that have competed internationally...we can tell you...that climbing the ladder to get that opportunity...was a lot of hard work, a lot of hours running, cross training, taking care of our bods etc. And when we finally got there...we were surrounded by other people that worked really hard. Big woo. Working really hard is not that rare at the top. Getting the right kind of training and injury prevention may be a bigger variable than innate ability, genetics, talent.

I just hate when I hear or see an elite athlete who seems arrogant. Yeah, they worked their asz off, but a lot of variables came into play...the most important of which would be...winning the genetic lottery.

Fortunately, most athletes these days are humble.

And if ever there was a sport that will humble you, it is running and track and field.

Every year about 50 guys get a Super Bowl Ring. Once ever 4 years, 1 guy gets a Gold Medal.

It's a cruel standard.

I know you're being facetious, but sadly, this is the way many of the runners here think.

I find it much more refreshing to hear Flagpole admit that talent played a role in his results than the rest of these dopes say that they ran sub 15 5k's all because of hard work.

browski wrote:

I know you're being facetious, but sadly, this is the way many of the runners here think.

I find it much more refreshing to hear Flagpole admit that talent played a role in his results than the rest of these dopes say that they ran sub 15 5k's all because of hard work.

But how do you know it's not because of hard work? How can you prove that genetics have anything to do with it?

Flagpole wrote:

Even compared to ALL distance runners (leaving the general population out of it), that puts me well within the top 1%. You have to have some running talent to break 15 minutes (and I'll say even 20 minutes...just a little less talent) for 5,000 meters.

I will never, ever believe that if you were to take any able-bodied male from the ages of 8-10 and train them halfway optimally for 4-5 years (maintaining a bmi close to 20 or so, which any person is able to do, ANY), that they couldn't break 20.

Hell, I'd say 95% of them would break 18 with an average closer to 16.

You're just ignoring the blatant fact that virtually no one cares or tries properly.

It's not that they're physically incapable, it's that they're mentally incapable.

Massive, massive difference.

weighing in wrote:

I will never, ever believe that if you were to take any able-bodied male from the ages of 8-10 and train them halfway optimally for 4-5 years (maintaining a bmi close to 20 or so, which any person is able to do, ANY), that they couldn't break 20.

* at some point in their teens or 20s.

I should have added that.

So I'd say close to 100%. Someone could trip on a shoelace and break their face or run off a cliff in the middle of the race and not break 20, but other than that. Yeah.

Some of you guys clearly have no faith in the human body. 20 mins is a joke.

Harvard professor:

Humans evolved to be long distance runners; perspiration making it possible, makes us superior to four-legged animals.

Make a dog gallop for 10-15 mins and it'll overheat and die. Humans? Ha.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426403/may-16-2013/daniel-lieberman

Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution pushing us towards high efficiency in long distance running (and other things).

Plus Colbert in Vibrams. Nice.

ssssss wrote:

Any, ANY able bodied man or woman can run sub-20 on decent training. Don't tell me you just aren't "genetically gifted" if you're way overweight, or only run 70k a week, or you drink every weekend, or you don't do workouts/speed work, or you don't do long runs, or you don't sleep more than 6 hours a night, etc.

If you do things as perfectly as possible, you will reap big benefits, and DEFINITELY be able to go sub 20 for a 5k.

I haven't waded through the whole thread, but this post got my attention. I'd like to think it's a troll, but somehow doubt it.

I'm sure it feels clever to produce a no-true-Scotsman post like this. Then, if anyone fails to break 20:00, your response can be, "See, s/he wasn't *really* doing decent training" (70k/wk isn't "decent"?)--or else, if a person's training is "perfect" (defined how?): "Well, obviously s/he is disabled."

I feel the same way when a person or book makes a prediction, but without any time limit: "No, my prediction wasn't false--it just hasn't happened *yet*." That whole line of reasoning is a crock, like the post I quoted. (Hey, here's a prediction: I'm going to rule the world, either before or after my death. Prove me wrong.)

I don't think *anyone* would suggest that "ANY able bodied man or woman can run 100m under 12secs [or 11 or 13, whatever] on decent training." We know that there's some talent required. Why do people refuse to recognize the importance of talent in distance running? Is it because they think distance running isn't as athletic as sprinting?

Of course talent comes into it. The vast majority of people are agreeing with this. Anyone who goes to the Olympics or is an elite athlete has talent. Anyone who runs well has some level of natural talent.

A 20 min 5K though? What's the equivalent for women? About 23 mins? I'm sorry but I think easily more than half of my friends could run that kind of time if they took a few years to train.

If we're talking about breaking 20 min then it'd be when someone's at the peak of their fitness, not when they're 80, 60, or 40 or so on. I'd say when someone's about 16, they haven't got fat yet or affected their body too much by lifestyle but they've also developed a bit.

Re the sprinting thing, natural talent seems to be more important as you often get people showing up who don't train and they run great times. You don't get this with a marathon.

I'd say most people could run 16 secs if they dedicated their lives to it though.