Slowest guy you know who takes running seriously?

A: the average of this forum.

David from California

i know a lot of "serious" runners who are much slower than that. older people and women. Most of them.

That would be me. PR's: 4:51 mile (road), 17:37 5K, 36;25 10K, 1:19:50 half, 2:54:51 marathon. That's all I could manage (37 years ago) running 60-70 miles a week and two speed work outs. All my friends did much better. Whatever it takes to excel I just didn't have.

Oooooo look at you with your 3:55 1500m. You sure are a big man! I bet you're the top scorer on your cross country team, and destroy those slow guys at duel meets.

Slowbro wrote:

By "running seriously", I mean 4+ years of consistent training, averaging 40+MPW in base phase for at least two seasons.

The slowest person I know who matches that description is a friend whose 1500 PR is 4:47. That's his best event, as his 800 (2:22) and 5K (low 19s) times are even worse.

My friend been running over 10 years and has not broken 18 minutes yet

talented runners train with other talented runners. but there is a whole world of training groups out there where people are running their a$$es off trying to break 25, 22, 20 minutes for 5k. 2 hours for half marathon. 4 hours for full, etc. These are people putting in serious miles. If you are a 14, 15, 16 minute runner, of course you are not training with these people.

high school xc coach wrote:

talented runners train with other talented runners. but there is a whole world of training groups out there where people are running their a$$es off trying to break 25, 22, 20 minutes for 5k. 2 hours for half marathon. 4 hours for full, etc. These are people putting in serious miles. If you are a 14, 15, 16 minute runner, of course you are not training with these people.

Aren't those groups composed almost entirely of women and old men? I have a hard time believing that any man in his 20s or 30s would spend years trying to run a 22 minute 5K with no success. Yes, there are some guys with zero talent out there, but wouldn't they have quit serious training once they saw that they had no hope of running fast?

Duel meets? You shoot each other during cross country these days? quote]Caller Outer wrote: Oooooo look at you with your 3:55 1500m. You sure are a big man! I bet you're the top scorer on your cross country team, and destroy those slow guys at duel meets.

Slowbro wrote:

By "running seriously", I mean 4+ years of consistent training, averaging 40+MPW in base phase for at least two seasons.

The slowest person I know who matches that description is a friend whose 1500 PR is 4:47. That's his best event, as his 800 (2:22) and 5K (low 19s) times are even worse.

[/quote]

I spotted that right after I posted. Thought about posting an edit, but then decided I liked the image of OP as a cross-country cowboy. Was gonna present a narrative of the OP perceiving himself as a skinny fat Clint Eastwood if the OP had corrected me....

Slowbro wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

talented runners train with other talented runners. but there is a whole world of training groups out there where people are running their a$$es off trying to break 25, 22, 20 minutes for 5k. 2 hours for half marathon. 4 hours for full, etc. These are people putting in serious miles. If you are a 14, 15, 16 minute runner, of course you are not training with these people.

Aren't those groups composed almost entirely of women and old men? I have a hard time believing that any man in his 20s or 30s would spend years trying to run a 22 minute 5K with no success. Yes, there are some guys with zero talent out there, but wouldn't they have quit serious training once they saw that they had no hope of running fast?

ya. if we're talking about 20s and 30s, not overweight, the slower guys will fill in between 18 minutes and 21 minutes. 22 is a bit slower for anybody who is not pretty heavy--I have seen guys who look and appear to train the part who get stuck at 21 or just under.

The example from your op is probably a slightly below average talent, but surely there would be many out there quite a bit slower, but still serious.

high school xc coach wrote:

The example from your op is probably a slightly below average talent, but surely there would be many out there quite a bit slower, but still serious.

Slightly BELOW average? More than half of men could run 4:47 1500m if they trained seriously?

No. I think OP's friend is ABOVE average talent. The true average (50th percentile) guy probably cannot break 5 for 1500m no matter how hard he tried.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

The example from your op is probably a slightly below average talent, but surely there would be many out there quite a bit slower, but still serious.

Slightly BELOW average? More than half of men could run 4:47 1500m if they trained seriously?

No. I think OP's friend is ABOVE average talent. The true average (50th percentile) guy probably cannot break 5 for 1500m no matter how hard he tried.

It's hard to say. The median 1600 time for upperclassmen at my HS was around 5:20-5:25 (which is roughly equivalent to a 5:00 1500), but there were quite a few slackers on the team.

I know people who are very serious, run 10+ hours per week, and barely beat 30 minutes in a 5k.

They enjoy running and enjoy challenging themselves even though they know they're not good at their chosen hobby. The fast guys are very encouraging to these people while some runners who take great pride in being just above average can be d!cks.

Or so I've heard.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

The example from your op is probably a slightly below average talent, but surely there would be many out there quite a bit slower, but still serious.

Slightly BELOW average? More than half of men could run 4:47 1500m if they trained seriously?

No. I think OP's friend is ABOVE average talent. The true average (50th percentile) guy probably cannot break 5 for 1500m no matter how hard he tried.

i don't know. this is kind of an unanswerable question. We are including only people in upper teens, 20s, and 30s who have 4 years of solid running, including 2 years of 40+ miles per week for base. And not overweight.

i'll just say the guy is average and leave it at that. though his results would show far above average, if comparing to everybody who runs.

high school xc coach wrote:

i don't know. this is kind of an unanswerable question. We are including only people in upper teens, 20s, and 30s who have 4 years of solid running, including 2 years of 40+ miles per week for base. And not overweight.

Why do you exclude overweight guys? Isn't having the right body type part of one's talent?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

i don't know. this is kind of an unanswerable question. We are including only people in upper teens, 20s, and 30s who have 4 years of solid running, including 2 years of 40+ miles per week for base. And not overweight.

Why do you exclude overweight guys? Isn't having the right body type part of one's talent?

i think that if we are talking about serious runners, weight should be under control. you are not serious about running if you are both slow and overweight, imo. and by overweight, im talking something like a 25 bmi.

idk, maybe that's not fair. i know people who are very active with running who are something like 27-30 BMI

definitely David fkin 45

I know a 70 year old man who matches that description and runs 27s for 5k, which is slow but ok for that age.