Obviously lifetime potential is kinda subjective. But like theoretically speaking, if I start training seriously, not overweight, I've been mildly active my whole life.
Can I achieve at least 80% of the results I would have had if I started training at 10yo, and trained seriously (not necessarily optimally, but let's say near optimally) since then ?
On long distance running, 5k and over.
I don't know.
But I've seen quite a bit of people who run sub 36min 10k while having picked up running late and who would maybe have never broken 32 minutes even if trained in a club since age 10 or so.
Yes. You will hit 80% after 6 months of training. You will achieve 95% after 3 years.
run more and more wrote:
Yes. You will hit 80% after 6 months of training. You will achieve 95% after 3 years.
I would say 75-80% after 1 year and 90% after 3 years.
You might be able to reach 95% in your low 30s for long distance : 10k+
Heck no. That says that a 16 minute 5k runner would only run 20 minutes after a year of training. Somebody at 25 who is only racing 20 minutes after a solid year of training is only going to get to 18:30.
Impala31 wrote:
run more and more wrote:
Yes. You will hit 80% after 6 months of training. You will achieve 95% after 3 years.
I would say 75-80% after 1 year and 90% after 3 years.
You might be able to reach 95% in your low 30s for long distance : 10k+
Impala - what would that 95% be in your view for someone who had 10 years of prior training (thru high school) and then resumed at 25 after 7 year break? 97% of potential for 10k+ distance in early 30s? 98%? Realize that it’s splitting hairs and is really just guesswork (plus there are long term physiological benefits to running over a lot for long time periods that improve running efficiency, so not running from 18-25 will make reaching 100% of potential impossible), but just curious on your view in this case
run more and more wrote:
Heck no. That says that a 16 minute 5k runner would only run 20 minutes after a year of training. Somebody at 25 who is only racing 20 minutes after a solid year of training is only going to get to 18:30.
If you place a bet on someone that starts in their mid 20s going from 20 to 16 likely you will win that bet because most people are not dedicated enough to even do the work. I know people that do not have backgrounds in team sports that were even slower than 20 for 5k for several years before breaking 17.
Also you have one qualifier here in the question of what is considered solid training. There are clearly different qualifications for what good training is when you're comparing the end results. 40 miles per week to get to 20 is solid but for most late starters not enough to get that much further. You can also easily also look at a guy running 60MPW and wondering why he can't break 16 and say the training is not solid. I'm not going to expect a newbie to come in and train 60+MPW in their first year, most are not capable to do so mentally and/or physically.
The last thing no one talks about is that your typical new runner is HS likely has some advantages to push them to the sport and the majority of them start off thin whereas people starting in their mid 20s are usually running to lose weight or maintain fitness. Those people are just going to be much slower in their first year if they have 20-30 extra pounds on them.
You can get very near your potential if you continue training into your late 30s. No one gets their theoretical best time anyhow unless they move to altitude, don't work a full time job, etc. Just go for it and see what you can do.
take your time and do things right. i think you can hit 90 to 95% of potential. don't listen to run more and more. What he is saying could be true if you are able to throw yourself into quality training with volume and not get hurt in that first year, but more than likely you will get injured and set yourself back a few years if you try to get all those gains right away.
listen to your body. train smart.
I have had high school freshmen run sub 16 for 5k after 3 months of training at 30 MPW. At 15, they are less mature than a 25 year old. So using the logic that they are only at 75% of max after 3 months, they would all run 12 minutes after 10 years of training but none of them even broke 14 minutes 10 years later.
[quote]run more and more wrote:
I have had high school freshmen run sub 16 for 5k after 3 months of training at 30 MPW.
Not likely imo.
Our freshmen school record is 15:32. Our freshmen 3200 school record is 9:24. What don't you believe? I watched Eli Krahn run 8:58 as a freshmen. Do you think he could have run 11 minutes after a year of training which is 80% of what he ran? Betting he would have run 10 flat at 14 years old with no training.
One thing to consider is that the less talent you have, the more you have room to improve with training.
Somebody starting with 45' for 10km after a year can go sub 36' after years of optimal training training. So more than 20% improvement.
If you start with 30' after a year (exceptionnaly talented), you will have hard time improving by 10% whatever you do.
That said somebody running under 16' after few months of running should be able to run sub 14' after years of very serious training. Especially if the guy is not an adult when he breaks 16.
The training wasn't optimal for sure.
Hi, yes you obviously can achieve >95% of your potential at the long distances from 25 or older. Read Jack Foster's short book Tale of the Ancient Marathoner if you can find a copy and all the threads about him on here, or read articles on Roberta Groner and Sinead Diver. However those three probably never asked an anonymous online message board if they could race at world-class levels after 40, they just climbed the ladder gradually and then did it.
Potentialaccomplished wrote:
Obviously lifetime potential is kinda subjective. But like theoretically speaking, if I start training seriously, not overweight, I've been mildly active my whole life.
Can I achieve at least 80% of the results I would have had if I started training at 10yo, and trained seriously (not necessarily optimally, but let's say near optimally) since then ?
On long distance running, 5k and over.
You would have to KNOW what your potential was/is in order to answer this question.
The only way to have even a clue would be if you had a twin who had started training young.
Anecdotally, lots of people start running later and achieve some pretty impressive times. It might help some if you have been physically active over the years.
For now, just train the best you can. Be consistent. Be patient.
run more and more wrote:
Heck no. That says that a 16 minute 5k runner would only run 20 minutes after a year of training. Somebody at 25 who is only racing 20 minutes after a solid year of training is only going to get to 18:30.
Who said 1st year is going to be very solid? If you have never run before nor practice any sport at a high level, you will need months just be to able to train well.
It takes more time for a 25yo to get fit than for youngsters.
And somebody starting with 20' after a year is going to do way better than 18'30 if he takes it really serious. 16' high doesn't seem unlikely at all.
2019_runner wrote:
Impala31 wrote:
I would say 75-80% after 1 year and 90% after 3 years.
You might be able to reach 95% in your low 30s for long distance : 10k+
Impala - what would that 95% be in your view for someone who had 10 years of prior training (thru high school) and then resumed at 25 after 7 year break? 97% of potential for 10k+ distance in early 30s? 98%? Realize that it’s splitting hairs and is really just guesswork (plus there are long term physiological benefits to running over a lot for long time periods that improve running efficiency, so not running from 18-25 will make reaching 100% of potential impossible), but just curious on your view in this case
I would say very close to max. Hard to be that precise but something around 98-99%.
Impala31 wrote:
2019_runner wrote:
Impala - what would that 95% be in your view for someone who had 10 years of prior training (thru high school) and then resumed at 25 after 7 year break? 97% of potential for 10k+ distance in early 30s? 98%? Realize that it’s splitting hairs and is really just guesswork (plus there are long term physiological benefits to running over a lot for long time periods that improve running efficiency, so not running from 18-25 will make reaching 100% of potential impossible), but just curious on your view in this case
I would say very close to max. Hard to be that precise but something around 98-99%.
Thanks for the input
I think not getting close to your genetic potential when starting in your mid twenties has more to do with life getting in the way than the person being too old.
It's generally easier to train hard when you're a teen with few responsibilities than when you have bills to pay and a job to take care of.
Starno wrote:
I think not getting close to your genetic potential when starting in your mid twenties has more to do with life getting in the way than the person being too old.
It's generally easier to train hard when you're a teen with few responsibilities than when you have bills to pay and a job to take care of.
Then why do people here talk about how they get injured more easily in their 20s compared to their teens?