Serious: why are most runners so slow?

Very minor factor.

dumb wrote:

Flagpole wrote: If you can't break 20 minutes (or really, some of them can't break 24 minutes) by age 18 after running up to 60 MPW in the summers, and you've been at it since the 7th grade, you're likely not going to be able to do it, and improper training isn't the culprit.

There's a reason why some guys run the 400...that's what they are equipped to run.

I would have to see videotapes of someone running 60 miles per week for five years to believe that there is a teenaged human being who isn't obese, suffering from a serious medical condition, or disabled by an orthopedic injury/defect who could train like that and not break 20 for 5k

Well, that's your own deal then. Training can only do so much...you have to have the right engine, and while 20 minutes doesn't seem all that fast to most of us here, I assure you that for the masses (even when trained), it is VERY fast.

I picked a late season 2012 high school CC meet with 75 boy finishers. See here:

http://www.baumspage.com/cc/mtgilead/2012/high%20school%20boys%20results.htm

These are already the cream of the crop when it comes to running (most of them anyway) as the ones who sucked really bad at running either joined band or football or nothing.

How many broke 20:00 there? 34...less than half.

Not good enough?

Try these:

This one is just boys varsity:

http://www.baumspage.com/cc/stow/2012/HS%20Boys%20Varsity.htm

In that one, 109 of 125 broke 20 minutes, so not bad. Problem is that the varsity is the top 7 of a team that might have 50+ runners on it. Here's the JV race at that same meet:

http://www.baumspage.com/cc/stow/2012/HS%20Boys%20JV.htm

93 of 148 broke 20 minutes...not awful.

But, there's an OPEN race there too!

Only 46 of 311 broke 20:00

http://www.baumspage.com/cc/stow/2012/HS%20Boys%20Open.htm

So, all told in that LATE SEASON (it was Oct. 6) meet is that 248 of 584 broke 20:00...that's 42%.

So, 42% of high school boys who actually are on a high school cross country team toward the end of the season (when they should be most fit) were able to break 20 minutes.

What percentage of the non-athletes left in the school would be able to break 20 minutes if they also trained? WAAAAYYYY less than 42%.

My guess is that if you take the entire population of MALES who are physically able (and this INCLUDES obese people, because we're going to train them) and you actually train them properly, that MAYBE one-third (33%) would be able to break 20 minutes. I think that's in ideal conditions...you are paying them all to train, they get the best training in the world, etc. I'm kind of stretching it up a bit, because if I had to bet on it, I'd say it would be less than 25%.

LM wrote:

Moreover, if you go to local roadraces and look at the guys running 21, 22, etc. they by and large do not look like runners. The majority have potbellies, which means at least 20+ extra pounds of weight, which alone is probably enough to go sub 20. I will also say I have rarely talked to anyone that runs over 20 minutes, and heard them say they do 50, or even 40+ mpw of workouts.

I don't know where the bar is that the majority of young, healthy males could not run even if they trained well for several years is; but I can't find a shred of evidence to indicate it's 20 minutes or higher.

Dude, if you go to a road race, you are already looking at the cream of the crop...seriously. Non-athletic people don't go run road races (mostly...fortunately some do).

Also, I've run road races when fat. I've run a 5k in 21 minutes when fat and over 40. But, I have talent...I've run 14:58 for 5,000 meters. When you see those fat guys running 22 minutes, they were likely running 16 minutes in high school.

Finally, you don't know enough runners if you've never talked to ones who run more than 50 MPW and can't break 20 minutes. I once belonged to a running club where over half of the runners there would fit that profile...they mostly trained for marathons and would run 5ks to test fitness every once in a while...some were geeked to break 25 minutes. One of the guys ran 21:11 at one of these 5ks, and they thought of him as one of the fast guys.

"Every single person that is able bodied and doesn't have medical conditions should be able to break 20 if they train hard in their prime"

Your coaching license should be pulled if for no other reason that overwhelming ignorance.

A Christian wrote:

My source is generally being interested in running and picking up information as a fan. I should think it would be obvious how it contributes to running fast. Having long legs in proportion to your height gives you a good "stride length to weight" ratio.

What the heck are you talking about?

youngcoach wrote:

anyone should be able to run a sub 20 min 5k performance. lose the weight and with proper guidance it can happen. I actually broke up with an ex..(well not really but it was one of the factors that lead to the eventual downfall) about a couple of the issues being addressed in the message. To many people dont give a flying Fck about improving personal bests etc, all they want to be able to to say is "I ran a marathon!". b1tch please, any dummy can "run" 26.2 miles as long as there isnt a time cut off.

We all know the amount of bad coaching and training out there is staggering. Give these kids to me and in 4 years ill have them break 20. had a kid first year go 19:xx first year, after 4 years is going 15:3x. I wont take most of the credit as he developed nicely and works his tail off. maybe my standards are just really high... as a coach I am happy with a student decreasing his times by at least 3% every year. That is about it.

Is your friend actually trying? I mean, does he say he is trying his absolute hardest? When I started running I ran as slow as I possibly could because I thought that was what you were supposed to do and 5k took me just over 30 min. And I mean, stopping at traffic lights, reminding myself to slowdown, etc.

He may just not care...speed is not everything, maybe he just likes being around other people, hence doing half marathons, etc.

I think a lot of people use genetics as an excuse for failure.

Also, the 60 pounds will absolutely destroy you.

look at it this way, what is easier to admit?

"I gave it my all and I reached my maximum potential."

or

"I gave it an effort but failed."

With the first answer, the failure becomes a "success." After all, you did your best.

But people who overachieve are able to find ways to improve when others think they are maxed out.

I think most men could run under 20 and easily at that with proper training, but everything you have said here is correct and why most don't.

People hate being tired. They hate being sore. They hate nausea. They hate feeling achy or fatigued the day after a hard workout or race. They don't like feeling hungry while dieting or eating appropriately in general. They don't like varying their pace or pushing themselves in different ways.

It is no different from most activities. Go to the average weightroom and most guys barely look different than they did when they first started and most could barely do a few pull-ups if their life depended on it. That isn't because of genetics, it is because of laziness and no work ethic when it comes to training.

you're right that it is very hard and I'd add, unrewarding to run even age group award times in local road races. but what the other guy said above is right as well. most people just plod along at the same pace every day and don't do any speedwork or tempos or fartleks. and if they do it is not nearly the intensity they need. plus, most run very limited mileage. vary your paces and the times will improve.

It is all about a persons body. I believe that what most refer to as "talent" is whether or not somebody has a body that can be moved efficiently over long distances. In other words, your "talent" is being little. Just like male gymnasts.

By the same token, anyone properly trained should be able dunk a basketball. Right?

'He does three runs per week. '

Forget about what he does in those 3 times the body is not stupid and its not enough to get a proper training effect

Then he has some social occasion or twinge another few sessions lost and it adds up to not much training

The weight slows you more than those tables say as well

The taller you are, the more likely you are to be able to dunk a basketball. The shorter you are, the more likely you are to be able to train yourself to run distances. Being bigger is a practical limitation to distance running the same way being short is to dunking a basketball. There is no intangible "it" factor or talent that makes a person able to run.

I agree. 60lbs overweight is a lot.

White men can't jump wrote:

By the same token, anyone properly trained should be able dunk a basketball. Right?

A 20min 5k isn't even close to the difficulty of dunking a bball. It probably is even on par with an average height person touching the bottom of the net. A fairly pointless comparison, plus dunking is skewed towards extreme heights, while running is ideal at a more average height (lots of short and tall people that are successful).