Assume he is between 18-35 years. Assume he wont get injured. 2 workouts per week; 1 with short intervals, 1 with longer (threshold/vo2), 1 good long run. After a year on that schedule what would the average person ( not average runner) be able to do on a 5/10k?
I say 18.30/38.15.
Back in the day plenty of ppl followed lydiard instead of runners world when they were getting into running.
Way faster than that.
if you go from nothing to doing 100 mpw for a year...then thats a tough call because nobody ever does that. but if its a 2 year buildup to 100 mpw and then a year at 100...I'd think that 17:xx would be likely for 5k.
I get what you are trying to say. You are saying that the average person could run 18:30 if they were able to run a lot despite not even being an average runner.
I still think that the person would end up faster.
There are some big flaws in the logic of this hypothetical scenario though. You are imposing conditions that are exclusive from each other.
1. A person cannot be a below average runner and run 100 mpw.
2. A below average runner or person cannot run 100 mpw and not get injured.
Remember that Average American Joe is overweight, spends 11h + in front of a screen and covers a mile in over 9 minutes. So that would be the starting point.
minime wrote:
Remember that Average American Joe is overweight, spends 11h + in front of a screen and covers a mile in over 9 minutes. So that would be the starting point.
There are already dozens of threads on this subject. Just search for "David45".
minime wrote:
Assume he is between 18-35 years. Assume he wont get injured. 2 workouts per week; 1 with short intervals, 1 with longer (threshold/vo2), 1 good long run. After a year on that schedule what would the average person ( not average runner) be able to do on a 5/10k?
I say 18.30/38.15.
I would not reduce it to one year, because running performance is long term developement, often several years.
However, a regular 100 miles per week, not neglecting workouts might lead to sub15/31 in some athletes, 16-17 and 33-35 in most, and to 18-19, 38-40 even in very low-talented runners.
The problem is, the not-so-talented or mediocre runners might feel it is not worth investing that much work for a semi-competitive performance, and just feel comfortable at their 38-42 min 10 k on 30-50 mpw.
Wrong as always for you guys who think training beats talent. My club has a group of about a dozen guys in their 30s who have been averaging 100MPW for at least 5 years. These aren't average people. They are guys who have been running for 20 years and love it. Most of them race about 40 minutes for 10k and 19 for 5k. Two of them are over 20 minutes for 5k. These guys show up for track workouts on Wednesday and they do a 20 miler every Sunday. I dont think any of them has a college PR any faster than 16:30 for 5k.
i do not believe that anyone seriously training and hitting 100 mpw won't break 17min and 35:30.
What do you mean 100 miles per week? Very few pros come close to averaging 100 miles per week. That's over 5200 miles a year. It has to be a tiny minority of pros that get that many miles in a year...and they're probably all marathoners.
For reference here is my experience with N=1.
I ran in High School and was moderately talented, but nothing special. 50 boys on our XC team. I was 10th fastest as a freshman(no experience prior), by senior year I was 4th. Our team was very good and won multiple state titles in a competitive state. Everyone faster than me on that senior team ran in college, I did not. I was nothing special, but far above average.
I took 15 years almost completely off after HS. Then started training in my early/mid 30s. After several years of consistent running with a coach I got up to 60 miles per week average for a year(3130 miles). I did 2 marathon cycles that year with 8 week averages of 90 miles per week at peak build up. I ran a 1:16 half that year, 2:44 full. I did not run a 10K, but did an XC 5k early in a training cycle in 16:55.
I took up running at 33 and ran until I was 39. Highest mileage was around 80, but average over that span was probably 50-60. I ran 17, 35, 1:17, and 2:48. I'm not a talented runner, though I did play a sport in college.
So I say 15:32 5k.
No such thing as an average joe that can run 100 mpw and not get injured. One of the things separating average from very good is the ability to run high mileage and stay healthy.
minime wrote:
Assume he wont get injured
Well, he would get injured.
99% of people can’t run 100mpw once without getting injured.
99.99999% of people would be injured if they ran 100mpw throughout the year.
Repeatedly, people on here believe distance running is the only sport in the world where talent doesn't matter. However, the ability to run 5/10K at a fast pace relative to top-end speed, is genetic and the average person can train until the cows come home and he's still going to suck at distance running.
younger man wrote:
Wrong as always for you guys who think training beats talent. My club has a group of about a dozen guys in their 30s who have been averaging 100MPW for at least 5 years. These aren't average people. They are guys who have been running for 20 years and love it. Most of them race about 40 minutes for 10k and 19 for 5k. Two of them are over 20 minutes for 5k. These guys show up for track workouts on Wednesday and they do a 20 miler every Sunday. I dont think any of them has a college PR any faster than 16:30 for 5k.
Strava profiles/club. People who claim 100 mpw+ guys doing proper training almost never are able to provide examples.
All the clubs in Strava I have are full with runners doing 50-60 mpw max, or doing 100 mpw at essentially 10+ minute pace with some walks or ultra slow jogs. I have yet to see runners in their 20s and 30s do 100+ mpw (and not just one week during training camp, average throughout a year) and run something like a 40 min 10k, that just doesn't happen.
100 mpw guys who run at 8:30/mi pace or faster average and do proper training are extremely rare on Strava, and those who do are usually quite fast.
injured
minime wrote:
Assume he is between 18-35 years. Assume he wont get injured. 2 workouts per week; 1 with short intervals, 1 with longer (threshold/vo2), 1 good long run. After a year on that schedule what would the average person ( not average runner) be able to do on a 5/10k?
I say 18.30/38.15.
I’d say 16:57/36:20
I’m an average joe and peaked at 100 miles for 2 weeks and those were my times. 10k was out dated so probably mid to low 35 because I’m better at long stuff. I still think I have a good amount of room left for improvement and am in great shape for a fast marathon. I learned it is not just about mileage but more about the quality sessions you are doing with that mileage.
Also it took my body years of miles and injuries to get to the point that I could handle 80-100 mpw. These questions are so stupid. I thought I could never break 40 in the 10k because I was average but it just takes time.
Realistically I think if I kept training I could get to 33:xx for 10k and 2:4x for the marathon.
I run 50 MPW and 14:30 for 5k but don't own a GPS watch. There are 60 million runners in the US. You can only locate data on about 5% of them. There are some guys in the club in their 50s and 60s who run 5 marathons per year in 4 hours and they run 70MPW year round.
Guessing 16:20 5k and 33:50 10k. Just a hunch