Im an average collegiate runner. If Grant Fisher took a year off could he beat me in the 10,000m?

Didn't ritz take like 9 months off and come back in 14flat shape? I suppose he could probably beat you still.

Expert alert <<<------ It really would depends on whether he got enough stimulus to his aerobic system from the activities he does. If he sat on the couch for a year, you would beat him because distance running is first and foremost an aerobic activity regarding what you've done lately. If he's mixing in decent aerobic stimulation, then he'd still be able to hold you off based on his starting point not dropping too significantly.

Grant could not break 30 after a year off of running. End of thread.

How often is he exercising? 3 days a week? 6 days a week? 1 day a week?

if it’s almost every day, 100% he’s beating you

I think the more interesting question is whether a particular strategy would be most effective in defeating Grant in this hypothetical.

The obvious impulse would be to gun it from the get go and burn him off...but is there a more effective way? One risks blowing up this way as well.

I wonder if the lack of training stimulus could make one suseptible to a fast-slow approach, putting a different strain on the body of an athlete used to going much faster but in a more even way?

Seems like a slow drag then a kick probably wouldn't work but who knows, are you able to run say 155 at the end of a slow race?

Some of you have no clue. Grant cannot magically run 4:45 miles for 10K if he is not training. It doesn’t work that way. After a year off, he would be fortunate if he can run a 9:30 2 mile.

LOVE the question.

If you can run around 29:30 now, I'm going to give you some credit and say you'll be around 29:10 this time next year. Could Grant Fisher beat a 29:10 10k guy after a year off?

If he maintains an active lifestyle, I'd say yes. Remember, this is one of the most talented runners America has ever produced. He won Foot Lockers as a junior in 2013 and was only a part-time runner back then because he also played on the soccer team. He's also got a decade of high-level college/pro training under his belt right now. I think it would take more than a year for all of that to melt away if he is still exercising.

If he did not exercise at all over the next year, I'm inclined to say you'd beat him.

Clearly the only way to know for sure is to force Grant to take a year off so we can run an accurate experiment ;-)

I strongly disagree Jon Gault. Even if Grant jogged one 7 minute mile every day for a year, my money is on the 29:30 guy to defeat Grant. If it were only 3-4 months, my money would be on Grant.

Certainly, Fisher would ignore a fartlek strategy and just run whatever pace is comfortable for him.

Yes. I was a 15:00/32:00 guy in college. I didn't run for a year and a half. My workplace put a team together for a charity 10k. I found myself with the leader after 1 mile in 5:15. I got ambitious and stuck with him and ended up finishing 2nd in 34:30. I was really expecting to srint out but run 7 minute pace before the gun went off.

I would definitely bet on Fisher in this situation, so long as his weight doesn't go up by a lot.

Assuming he took a year off and didn’t run a step and his first run back is a 10k race against you I doubt he runs sub 32

Is the couch at altitude? Does he wear magical super shoes? EPO?

Is it just Grant and the 29:XX guy 1 on 1 for 25 laps? Outdoor XC or track? Indoor track?

If Grant is hopping off the couch in sub 29 shape are there people sitting on their couches with undiscovered sub 29 ability?

I don't have great speed. I have run 3:52 1500 but I only run it once a year or so. I would probably not opt to try and out-kick him haha

I think you guys are far underestimating how much not running for a year can take off of you. Nick Symmonds was 2nd in the world in the 800 and routinely would lose to JV high schoolers in races not even a year or two after his pro career was over. Nick was also fairly active he just wasn't doing intense cardio. My money is on you. If Grant had 4-6 weeks to run before after not running for a year, then he is winning. Unfortunately running is one of those things where even if you have world class talent you have to at least do it a little bit to be competitive, and even if you have the talent, it still takes a couple weeks of running to be able to use it.

Like I said, I lost only about 2.5 minutes and I probably could have had it be 2 minutes had I paced better.

I also remember being in high school showing up in March for practice, not having run since the end of October, and running a 1 mile time trial in 4:40. I ran 4:29 at state June 1.

Your experience seems odd. I ran much faster than you, but I couldn’t have run a 4:40 off no running for 4.5 months, at least not in HS.

I second this. I have run well under 4:20 and even in my best shape if I took 4.5 months off from running and didn't workout I think it would be a struggle to break 5.

Fisher's Mexican heart of a lion would carry him to victory.