Possible to become elite if started running aged 22?

Mid-19 doesn't indicate elite potential. Your only chance is that you're a true slow-twitcher who can ramp up 100-150 mpw and become an elite marathoner in ten years.

I believe it is possible yes, some people here will not agree however.

I believe a lot of running ability comes down to talent which cannot be developed. It doesn't matter what a runner may have achieved as a junior, that doesn't always 'prove' his/her talent. I invite you to look into the current men's marathon world record holder.

Sometimes, starting late can be an advantage as you are more mature and can avoid injury through bad training practices. Also, some kids are just pushed too hard and are finished by time they reach adulthood.

LV was 22 in junior high, and grampa ches was 29 in high school. So, yes, it is possible to become elite if you start at 22.

Another poster mentioned the current men\'s marathon world record holder, Dennis Kimetto, who was pushing 30 when he started. There are a number of other lite runners who started later in life; Paul Tergat and Jaouad Gharib come immediately to mind.

It's not the age that's the problem, it's the 5k time that's nowhere good enough to become an elite.

Many examples of elites starting later in life.

Your 5km time is quite a bit faster than the masses but not really that remarkable relative to elite ability.

Still, you can probably go pretty far. Why not see how quickly your times drop?

And do speed work.

doubter wrote:

It's not the age that's the problem, it's the 5k time that's nowhere good enough to become an elite.

What sort of 5K time would you expect from a late-starting female with elite potential then?

A mid 19 minute 5km in itself doesn't necessarily indicate anything at all. You cannot tell if a person does or doesn't have the potential to be an elite by the times they have run when just starting out.

If you improve quickly down to great times (low 16 minutes and under) and take increasing training load in your stride, then you will know.

Aim high and train for it.

Don't get dishearten by comments on LR. As many are saying, it's impossible to state you do or don't have elite talent. But you do have good talent. It is possible that you could improve significantly given improved training, but don't rush it. Build up a strong base over time. Your effort and dedication will determine how successful you are.

Enjoy the journey.

runninggirl502 wrote:

doubter wrote:

It's not the age that's the problem, it's the 5k time that's nowhere good enough to become an elite.

What sort of 5K time would you expect from a late-starting female with elite potential then?

You have already been running for 2 years and you've been doing structured training for a few months (?), so it's not like you're a total beginner. At this point I'd expect a minute faster if you were a potential elite. However, you may improve a lot in the coming months and prove me wrong. By elite, I mean world class, not B-standard OTQ.

doubter wrote:

You have already been running for 2 years and you've been doing structured training for a few months (?), so it's not like you're a total beginner. At this point I'd expect a minute faster if you were a potential elite. However, you may improve a lot in the coming months and prove me wrong. By elite, I mean world class, not B-standard OTQ.

That's useful to know, thank you :-)

The first athlete that came to my mind was abdi. In his first race ever as a college freshman, after only a week of real training, he ran a 15:05 5k by sprinting 200m, jogging 200m. And he's gone on to have the greatest longevity of any U.S. distance runner.

I think it really comes down to talent as to whether or not an athlete with a late start can become elite. You also have to define elite. Some would say for a female, that would be qualifying for USA nationals. Others would say it's running under a certain time, or getting top 3 at nationals, or becoming a global championship finalist.

In your situation you're probably cleaning up road races because not that many women run sub 20 for 5k. However, running 6:15 for 3.1 miles is not even close to running the pace to be considered among the best females in America. Could you become elite? There's really only one way to find out, and that's by training consistently for years without major injury with either a good coach leading you or an appropriate running plan tailored to your level of fitness.

joalturn wrote:

The first athlete that came to my mind was abdi. In his first race ever as a college freshman, after only a week of real training, he ran a 15:05 5k by sprinting 200m, jogging 200m. And he's gone on to have the greatest longevity of any U.S. distance runner.

.

This abdi story isn't accurate. Stop repeating it.

doubter wrote:

runninggirl502 wrote:

What sort of 5K time would you expect from a late-starting female with elite potential then?

You have already been running for 2 years and you've been doing structured training for a few months (?), so it's not like you're a total beginner. At this point I'd expect a minute faster if you were a potential elite. However, you may improve a lot in the coming months and prove me wrong. By elite, I mean world class, not B-standard OTQ.

There is a difference between world class and elite, but a lot on this board do not

2:15-2:17s for the marathon is pretty much elite. How many USA marathon runners are there? 308,000 in 2014. How many broke 2:18? So far about 75 in the US have met the B standard of sub 2:18

Here are elite criteria:

Men

Mile - sub 4

5000 - sub 14

10000 sub - 29

Marathon - sub 2:18

Women

Mile - sub 4:30

5000 - sub 16

10000 sub - 33

Marathon - 2:35 or faster

For the most part Olympic qualifying standards are world class (e.g., 3:36, 13:25, 28:00 for 1500, 5000, and 10000 respectively), although the marathon standards of 2:17 and 2:42 are not. More like 2:13 or 2:14 and 2:32 or 2:33?

If you have elite genetics, you can start running pretty much anytime in your 20s and become elite within a year or two.

One thing you have to ask at 23 is do you have the potential to become elite in something else?

People who even ask if they can become elite in something are often already elite or near-elite in something else.

At 23, if you are already near-elite in something, mid-19s for 5k does not show the type of potential necessary to make a living at running. However, for many, mid-19s for 5k, after little serious training, could indicate that running is your greatest talent. There is a lot to be said for exploring your greatest talent, even if you are going to need a day job.

Calling it like it is wrote:

Another poster mentioned the current men's marathon world record holder, Dennis Kimetto, who was pushing 30 when he started. There are a number of other lite runners who started later in life; Paul Tergat and Jaouad Gharib come immediately to mind.

Are they clean though?

Can you get to national elite clean starting late? Yes. Like others have posted, you have to have been born with the engine.

It's one thing to get to national elite, it's entirely another to be paid more than a barista at national elite level.

pop_pop!_v2.1 wrote:

Calling it like it is wrote:

Another poster mentioned the current men's marathon world record holder, Dennis Kimetto, who was pushing 30 when he started. There are a number of other lite runners who started later in life; Paul Tergat and Jaouad Gharib come immediately to mind.

Are they clean though?

Can you get to national elite clean starting late? Yes. Like others have posted, you have to have been born with the engine.

It's one thing to get to national elite, it's entirely another to be paid more than a barista at national elite level.

Using drugs doesn't completely genetically re-engineer an athlete.

Gene Summons wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.1 wrote:

Are they clean though?

Can you get to national elite clean starting late? Yes. Like others have posted, you have to have been born with the engine.

It's one thing to get to national elite, it's entirely another to be paid more than a barista at national elite level.

Using drugs doesn't completely genetically re-engineer an athlete.

That's not my point. My point is, clean, a natural talent can get to national elite. Not much money at national elite.

When others drop international elite names and the implicit wealth that international elite suggests, it should be clear, those gains are very likely due to doping.