is the difference between 15 and 20 for 5K REALLY effort?

Mike in San Diego wrote:

The fact is, at 5'8" 170, I am never going to be tall like Kiprop or slender like Kemboi. I will never look like Ryan Hall or anyone like him. But for people to attribute that to poor effort? That is flooring.

[/quote]

What does looking like any of those guys have anything to do with running faster?

Not to be a dick, but you'd run much faster, without doing anything else, if you dropped 20-40 pounds. Maybe you won't be "slender like Kemboi", but you can be slender like you're average 15-18 minute 5k guy.

If you're 5'8" and 170, that's the reason why you aren't running 15-16 minutes. Its not just about effort in a race, its about effort and dedication to your training. Lose 40-50 lbs and you should have no trouble dropping some fast times if you put in an equal effort. Heck even 10-20 pounds should get you in the 17-18 minute range. Its pretty contradictory to say you're trying as hard as you can when you stuff your face at every meal.

I think a bigger component is training and form. Effort is the difference between running a 15:30 or a 15 minute 5k, but not that significant. When I was running in the low 15's my training runs where at about 6 minute pace and didn't require much effort, however when I was running in the 18s running at 6 minute pace was full effort. The difference between then and now is form and proper training. Then I was running 30 minutes a day casually, then I moved to where I was running very hard everyday, eventually I learned how to train properly and my body responded when I started making the most of my hard days and the most of my easy days. Only then did my body and lungs reach the next level and then I dropped another minute or so when I learned to incorporate that with not over-striding and getting a good forward lean, and how to recover with nutrition properly.

My effort at every level was consistent, what changed was what my body was able to do at that effort.

yeah okay....so it depends on how one feels right?I've done the 5'7"-5'8" 150 thing...it was hard to maintain because it was not around my normal body size...this is where I was when I ran my 19:50 in high schooland how would I have energy at 5'8" 130??really? Plus, exactly what does this have to do with running effort?Thanks,Mike

lfk wrote:

Not to be a dick, but you'd run much faster, without doing anything else, if you dropped 20-40 pounds. Maybe you won't be "slender like Kemboi", but you can be slender like you're average 15-18 minute 5k guy.

Thats true too. I you think of what it would be like to run a 5k with a 30-40 pound weighted vest, you'd probably drop a couple minutes there alone.

Age grading tables are the best invention ever.

How old are you now? If you're under, say, age 50, there's no reason why you couldn't lower your lifetime best if that would be a meaningful accomplishment to you.

I see. So, if I have the endurance for a 1:46 half marathon on a dirt course with two elevation gains of 200-300 feet along with small rolling hills thrown in throughout, then it is because I am just a trolling biggy fat piggy? Really?Let's think about this in terms of effort. Is mine really less?Thanks,Mike

You're probably trolling wrote:

If you're 5'8" and 170, that's the reason why you aren't running 15-16 minutes. Its not just about effort in a race, its about effort and dedication to your training. Lose 40-50 lbs and you should have no trouble dropping some fast times if you put in an equal effort. Heck even 10-20 pounds should get you in the 17-18 minute range. Its pretty contradictory to say you're trying as hard as you can when you stuff your face at every meal.

No woamn really wants a skinny 15 minute 5k runner guy, Mike

Don't worry they aren't "running with greater effort" they were just born with skinny calves, tiny feet and spindly arms, so they run that fast. Their stamina is shit though, they wish they could run like Anton Krupicka but they fall down with exhaustion after 28 miles

My goal is not necessarily to change, switch or accomplish any particular time. I enjoy running and have for years. My goal, at least here, is to allow people to be enlightened that even those of us who aren't getting 15:00 5Ks are not necessarily trying any less hard than they are.

It's breaking the barrier, so to speak--we're all runners.

Mike[/quote]

How old are you now? If you're under, say, age 50, there's no reason why you couldn't lower your lifetime best if that would be a meaningful accomplishment to you.[/quote]

Yes, your effort is way less. You give up on things very easily. "I tried the 150 lb thing..." okay what is that supposed to mean? If you got back down to 150 lbs or below and stayed there, long enough for your body to get used to it, you could certainly destroy your HS PR, by a couple minutes.

But you won't do that, because you won't put in the effort.

Mike in San Diego wrote:

yeah okay....so it depends on how one feels right?

I've done the 5'7"-5'8" 150 thing...it was hard to maintain because it was not around my normal body size...

this is where I was when I ran my 19:50 in high school

and how would I have energy at 5'8" 130??

really?

Plus, exactly what does this have to do with running effort?

Thanks,

Mike

lfk wrote:

Not to be a dick, but you'd run much faster, without doing anything else, if you dropped 20-40 pounds. Maybe you won't be "slender like Kemboi", but you can be slender like you're average 15-18 minute 5k guy.

Mike,

Your passive-aggressive complaints/insults to faster runners about your perception of what their attitudes are is embarrassing me as a San Diegan.

First, my experience has been that the local talent is highly supportive of everyone in the running community who gets out there and gives it an honest effort.

Second, while a couple of the replies are a bit rude in tone, they are accurate in analysis. I also am 5'8" but have stayed in the 130-140 lbs range since high school, and, currently, am close to 130. The rather generous CDC BMI calculator gives you a BMI of 25.8, which is Overweight even by US standards. My BMI is listed in the normal range, and as someone in the senior citizen category, I still can consistently run in the 19:00-19:30 5K range.

You need to give some consideration as to whether your main issue should be self-delusion about your own condition as well as your assumptions about faster runners' attitudes.

If you enjoy running just to run without setting goals - "to be a healthy animal" as Avocado's Number puts it - that's fine, but then I'm not sure I understand the part about "breaking barriers". If you are setting goals, I'm curious to understand what they are.

Mike in San Diego wrote:

My goal is not necessarily to change, switch or accomplish any particular time. I enjoy running and have for years. My goal, at least here, is to allow people to be enlightened that even those of us who aren't getting 15:00 5Ks are not necessarily trying any less hard than they are.

It's breaking the barrier, so to speak--we're all runners

How old are you now? If you're under, say, age 50, there's no reason why you couldn't lower your lifetime best if that would be a meaningful accomplishment to you.[/quote][/quote]

Really? So I should go back to my high school weight just to achieve one PR? really? so if I run, say an 8.1 mile training run by the beach in say, 62 minutes(technically, 62:42, for those who like exact), this is because I am a big pig who puts no effort in? A lot of people would beg to differ..so when I did the 2014 Carlsbad 20K (split among 4 5K races)1: 21:04 7:00am start2:22:40 8:05am start3:25:18 8:42am start4: 28:03 9:22am startat a cumulative 1:37:05??is this 'no effort'?hmmm

Expert of Range wrote:

Yes, your effort is way less. You give up on things very easily. "I tried the 150 lb thing..." okay what is that supposed to mean? If you got back down to 150 lbs or below and stayed there, long enough for your body to get used to it, you could certainly destroy your HS PR, by a couple minutes.

But you won't do that, because you won't put in the effort.

The difference between a 20 min 5k and an 18 min 5k is mostly effort. I have seen dozens of guys bridge that gap just by getting serious about their training. The difference between 18 min 5k and 15 min 5k is an even mix of effort and talent. The idea that there is equivalence in effort between the 15 min guy and the 20 min guy is laughable.

And I do not ever hear any 15 min guys I know bashing the 20 min guys. But the 15 min guys rightly do not hold the 20 min guys in high esteem because they see them working hard at the track.

I'm sorry...but have you not read the outpouring of negative support all over this room toward other people and their times and abilities?

Sorry, but I only started posting here because of negativity I saw previously. The negativity was not even about me. But it needs to stop, you all need to stop. Furthermore, I will post about this until it stops. This is not a supportive place, and it is a spirit breaker more than it supports people. And I singlehandedly will attempt to stop it.

Voila?

Thanks,

Mike

Mike,

First, my experience has been that the local talent is highly supportive of everyone in the running community who gets out there and gives it an honest effort.

No one is questioning your effort. Running is running, and running is difficult.

I, like you, always thought that I was at a good weight to go fast. However, I never went fast. I had muscle and stomach definition and all the things that should come with being in "good shape."

I lost 10 pounds of unnecessary muscle. I went a minute faster.

I lost another 5, and went another 40 seconds faster.

I didn't lose strength-I kept lifting (low rep, high weight) the whole time.

I think you're misleading yourself about your current physical condition. Unless you're a bodybuilder or otherwise, there's no reason for you to weigh as much as you do. Genetics are irrelevant in this case-those excuses are universal and uttered worldwide by people simply unwilling to change their lifestyle.

This isn't even a matter of you losing weight and picking up speed-it simply isn't healthy for you to carry that much weight on a frame your size.

You work hard, undoubtedly..that demands respect as far as I'm concerned. However, you may want to examine your diet, if not for faster racing then certainly for general health.

I don't even think it's a matter of weight. I have know Clydesdale who have run times like that.If by effort you mean trying harder on race day, I would say there is minimal difference between a 15min 5k and 20min 5k depending on what your body can do. I have ran both times and the difference is the effort put in your training, recovery, and diet.I think the effort increases significantly in how much you care about HR during runs, eating recovery food quickly after runs, and a ton of other small things.