What percentage of human adults could BQ?

Rippling Hysteresis wrote:

I'd still say much lower. In a long-term bootcamp where nutrition is supervised, yes a lot more people would qualify. Probably most runners who are just hobbyjoggers would. But these people are already runners and it's safe to assume they're on the whole more talented than the average person. Eddie Lacy couldn't keep his weight under 260 with all the motivation of playing full-time in the NFL. Lots of people just can't run. I remember a thread a while back where people here were arguing about if the average person could get up now and run a 400 in 70s. It is absurd how distorted our view of average is.

It would be like 20-25% tops IF you assume no injuries, overtraining, loss of motivation, and micromanaging fitness and diet.

I think it's somewhere around 50%. There are plenty of fast twitchers out there who would have a lot of trouble running 26 straight 7 min miles. I'd be really curious to know if a world class sprinter could run sub 3 in the marathon. In this ideal training/nutrition lifestyle though, I think you'd pull in a huge percentage of the 30-40 mpw runners who currently run within an hour of the cutoff time. Staying injury free would be the only issue for those runners.

I'm a long-time hobby jogger and former fat kid. I ran my first marathon at 5:05, my most recent at 3:40. I can barely break 80 seconds in the 400. That said, I've run 12 miles at a 7:30 pace, and I have little doubt I will eventually BQ. (I'' about to turn 40.)

If I can do it, or at least clearly have it in me physically to do it, it's hard for me to believe that all but a very low percentage of people could not.

Has anyone paid attention to how poorly people simply walk? So many people have awful mechanics and terrible muscle imbalances and poor posture from years of sitting on their ass that there would be a very long fitness curve which i doubt many could over come let alone do so without becoming injured.

Sit and kick wrote:

Given total dedication and say a boot camp environment for years I don't see how any one couldn't do it?

So all we need is a "final solution" to the hobbyjogger problem. We can round everyone up who can't BQ on the spot and place them in camps. Over time, we'll eliminate those who can't BQ after every 6 week interval. In the end, we'll have a pristine group of correct-minded runners who can repopulate the earth.

Congratulations!

After reading this entire thread I still don't know what "BQ"

means?

Being queer?

Be quiet?

Being quixotic?

Be quizzed?

If I can do it, or at least clearly have it in me physically to do it, it's hard for me to believe that all but a very low percentage of people could not.

Everyone uses this same logic, from elites to age-groupers to back-of-the-packers. "I'm not very talented but with hard work I could do it, so almost anyone could do it." It's a faulty argument.

einsteins theory of... wrote:

If I can do it, or at least clearly have it in me physically to do it, it's hard for me to believe that all but a very low percentage of people could not.

Everyone uses this same logic, from elites to age-groupers to back-of-the-packers. "I'm not very talented but with hard work I could do it, so almost anyone could do it." It's a faulty argument.

What is faulty about it, do you think?

If all gave 100 dedication to training, the number of people who would BQ would remain exactly the same. BQ standard would automatically adjust to only accept (roughly) the same number of runners each year

currently 12% of marathon starters bq per this article:

http://running.competitor.com/2015/04/photos/what-percent-of-marathon-finishers-go-on-to-run-the-boston-marathon_126494

take that for what it is worth.

Everything that's faulty about generalizing from one example. When a 15:00 5ker says this nobody believes them. A 20:00 runner says the same thing and some believe her some don't. The 25:00 guy disbelieves her but says the same thing.

They all use the same argument, they're not all right, hence the argument is faulty.