OK so hypothetical Q...lets take a runner who is absolutely talentless. Their fit....not overweight but no talent.
Lets have them run 40 miles a week...no more.
What mile time do you think you could achieve if you coached them?
What 5k time do you think you could achieve with them?
What would you have them do?
4:48 mile and 17:15 5k, after a few years of training.
short speed intervals and tempo runs
clownfacelosernowsingle wrote:
4:48 mile and 17:15 5k, after a few years of training.
short speed intervals and tempo runs
haha that describes me exactly. nice.
Talentless can mean many things? What exactly are their race times?
Also, man/woman, old/young, what?
Say 18 minute 5k, 37 min 10k and 5 min mile after a couple years of solid training.
Jononagle Jones wrote:
OK so hypothetical Q...lets take a runner who is absolutely talentless. Their fit....not overweight but no talent.
Lets have them run 40 miles a week...no more.
What mile time do you think you could achieve if you coached them?
What 5k time do you think you could achieve with them?
What would you have them do?
The issue is that there is no way to measure "talent", and in fact people argue what "talent" really means.
Lets say you take two sedentary people, of similar age and build, who on a lark run a mile race, and it's a photo line finish at 7:00.
You might be tempted to say they are of similar talent. But then you have them work up to 40mpw, and hold it for the remainder of the year. One guy may then run 16:30 for 5k and the other will barely break 19.
You have described me. I am 5'10" 150 lb, athletic (played collegiate lacrosse), but no running talent. I have averaged 25 miles a week for a few years. Last year I hit 30-35 for a couple of months. PRs: 19:39 5k, 5:40 mile. The one time I ran a 400 I got 61-low.
I definitely take it seriously and want to improve. My biggest problem is zero ability to recover and often suffer from overuse injuries - currently AT.