RunnersWorld defines the "average runner". - Thoughts?

true brit wrote:

I'm not sure if either of the xfit guys on this thread are the 'real_one_1'

Please let me know if I'm wrong, but I thought his name was:

Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1

(copy and pasted from another thread)

correct

this thread is full of impostors

the real xfit_guy doesn't post much anymore

I have to agree with the person who said the data may be skewed for the 5k because a lot of people are able to walk a 5k and not take half the day to do it. It is more enticing to someone who wants to just get a race done.

It's sad that the average is above 28 minutes for a 5k for men. But when the average american male is 5'-9" and 190lbs, can you expect anything better?

I suddenly don't feel slow anymore.

(I know I'm not fast, but frik, those times are turtlely)

Also consider that this is the median. Yes it means that 50% of people are faster and 50% of people are slower, but it doesn't mean that it is what most people run. I ran an analysis on the Bolder Boulder from 2011 (I've had it for years) that gives the median finish time by age. It also shows that generally, there most frequently occuring times are below the median (I did this by calculating how many finishers finished within a 5 minute window).

Basically, it all depends on what your definition of typical is - mean, median, or mode.

One race obviously does not dictate a rule, but with 50,000 finishers I think the race is a pretty good indicator of trends (also, times a a bit slow due to altitude).

If anyone is interested:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1DyFbbFU-98NUo0aDRFTkE3WE0/edit?usp=sharing

Also, RW doesn't consider the age differences. The 70-year-old finishers and little kids are lumped in with everyone else.

Corssfit people are a joke. An absolute joke. I was challenged to a crossfit event. Surprise surprise, I came in 2nd overall. I beat 83 people. Three of them told me how bad they would make me look when they beat me. I mean, I didn't just beat them on the run (I destroyed them on the run), I did more pull ups, and these losers cheat!. They don't even need to do a REAL pull up lol. I mean no full extension of the arm, and don't get me started about crunches. They do neck-ups. What a bunch of weenie losers. I'd destroy these losers if I even trained for three days on this stuff.

I came to believe that these are just people who made stuff up for people who can't swim, run or ride a bike competitively.

Oh, and what's with all the tattoos? And I'm just talking about the girls. Again, a joke. Drinking Red Bull. Go, C'mon, one more, Go!

Shut Up, before I beat your a$$ (again)

I think what we really need to discuss is how fast could the average, ideally-trained, able-bodied, 18-34 year old American male run a 5k?

Also, any thoughts on Bernard Lagat's 400 meter capabilities circa 2004?

It seems quite obvious that no one, in the whole history of humanity, has had a smaller penis than you.

I lol-ed at that one.

He also add others noted, not the real x-fit guy. I miss him.

At first I thought that the 28:46 time was the average time for 10k and I said, damn that's fast, then I re-read and saw that 28:46 was the average 5k time.

I'm a little surprised at that time, I was never a star runner, yes I did get down to 4:12 for the mile and 14:44 for 5k in college and I started running as a slow, short, uncommitted freshmen in high school and my slowest 5k ever was 25 and change.

I ran the 25 and change 5k virtually untrained and post-collegiately I once ran a sub 20 off of three weeks of running prior to a race and zero miles logged before that three week training block. And also ran a 17:32 5k two years later off of 6 weeks of training prior to a race and zero miles logged prior to that training block.

I never thought that I was any good event hough I was seeded 7th in the indoor 3k at the Atlantic-10 Championships in college although I got injured prior to the race.

I never thought that my best 5k was over 14 minutes faster than the average 5k. Well I now think more of myself as a runner, which is great!

Ooops wrote:

No surprise. What's nice to see in the article is the rise in running participation and racing events. No matter what kind of runner you are you should feel good about growth in our sport, even if it is mostly amateur growth. The more runners, the more interest. The more interest, the more talent.

that they are not competitive runners.

Nice to see folks concerned about their fitness but they are not involved in roadracing. They are involved in a fitness event or a charity participation & social event.

Lol at runner doing crossfit and burying them in competition.

and am I the only one that hates crossfit simply because its making all women ok to look "dykey"

And now we know your life story.

Yay!

ReallySlow wrote:

28:46. I know quite a few people on here could run a 10k in that time.

This statement could not be further from what is true, accurate and real. Sarcasm hopefully?

Xfit_guy_the_real_l wrote:

Yup I'm back folks. I ran out of boxes to pound.

I need some clarification here. Are you talking about local gyms or vaginas?

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

So Man wrote:

Go to any of thousands of 5ks out there. Finish in under 20 minutes and you are what, top 5%? There are a handful ahead of you and hundreds or thousands behind you.

I have always criticized these Mickey Mouse running events (e.g. World Major Marathons) for being bottom heavy. Few fast runners and then all the "Skinny-fatties". The problem with running is there is no incentive to be fast. When you're fast, you still don't look like a real man (i.e. BUFF). So, what's the point?

I thought you'd died horribly, actually and in real life. But you're back. This is unfortunate.

I run for the feeling it gives me. I run faster because I can. I couldn't give two craps how people see me or think of me, much less some douchebag flipping a tyre around a park and what they think of my pace is of no relevance.

How about you, tiger? Keeping it real or doing it for the chicks? I think you're not keeping it real and do it for 'aesthetics' or something comletely heterosexual like that.

In fact you seem really heterosexual all round. I've always gotten that vibe. I love how you spend loads of time trolling forums - like men with responsibilities do - and I really like how you focus on body image as your sole focus for the outcome to any athletic endeavour.

It makes me feel like you could fix my truck while shaving with a Bowie knife.

Defining "runner" as anyone who ever finished a road race is kind of like calling everyone who has ever so much as skimmed the investment properties section of the classifieds a "real estate developer," and then concluding that the average real estate developer has a total portfolio value of $30. Whatever job or hobby you have, there are likely quite a few people who have tried said hobby once or twice. It shouldn't really mean anything to you that you're better than they are. It should pretty much be assumed that you are going to be better than the vast majority of participants at any hobby that you take even semi-seriously.

Michael F773 wrote:

I ran the 25 and change 5k virtually untrained and post-collegiately I once ran a sub 20 off of three weeks of running prior to a race and zero miles logged before that three week training block. And also ran a 17:32 5k two years later off of 6 weeks of training prior to a race and zero miles logged prior to that training block.

you were a 4:12 miler but ran 25 minute 5k after a months untrained?

I was a 4:28 miler in highschool and i took the entire summer off after graduating and more (about 4 months total) and still was able to do a 4 mile easy run at 7:00 pace without feeling like i was truly pushing myself... man you must round into shape extremely well if thats your base point

Xfit_guy_the_real_l wrote:

Yup I'm back folks. I ran out of boxes to pound.

Hi Galen!

That was a long-winded humblebrag