Ya, but I could get stronger if I kept training. Genes matter, but even I could have done things to make me stronger back then. That's what I'm saying, most people don't realize they can be a lot faster than they already are. I bet Haile and Kenenisa could be faster as well. You can always get faster,stronger,smarter,better.
RejectRunner wrote:
Ya, but I could get stronger if I kept training. Genes matter, but even I could have done things to make me stronger back then. That's what I'm saying, most people don't realize they can be a lot faster than they already are. I bet Haile and Kenenisa could be faster as well. You can always get faster,stronger,smarter,better.
The point is that the world record bench press is about 700 pounds and the 5k record is 12:37.
Genes matter WAY more than you think.
RejectRunner wrote:
If someone has general fitness, maybe lifts weights, does bball for fun etc...and runs sub 6, I'm sure with a full year to maximize their potential, they can run the times I've listed, based on which race he's made to run.
If you have already made up your mind and won't listen to other people's take on it, why did you post this survey?
Not everyone has the genetic ability to run those times ... at any age with any amount or duration of those advantages that you listed. I ran all of those times listed, by junior year of HS track, but I had run at a high level since 6th grade and I was up to 80-85 mpw by the summer before that.
If you did not have the same talent that I had, you would not reach that level, even by 26.
About twice a month some kid posits this same question, or says they want to do an experiment of one, etc. The Old Timers here call this "the perfectly healthful, organic diet" question ... because that is how it was asked about 10 years ago.
Is this a general question or asking specifically what I think I can run if I were given 1 year??
RejectRunner wrote:
You can run faster bro, you were 18 or 19 when you stopped, how old where you when you started running 30mpw? Look at Wejo as a good example, he ran 4:30 mile in HS and ran 30-31 10k in college. Yet after years of consistent training got down to 28:06. I bet he thought he reached his potential when he was running a 30min 10k, but truth is, he didn't.
I like your optimism! Perhaps you are right, although in this theoretical we are only given one year.
I am, I think, a pretty untalented runner. I thought I was decent when I would run around 6 minutes in the gym class mile in middle school and be one of the first people to finish, but then I ran cross country my freshman year of HS and was the second worst person on the team all year. It shows how little people took running seriously at my school (Drew Hunter's school actually--they are now two-time state champions in XC, whereas we never once went to states when I ran) that I was the fastest person on the team by my senior year (#2 as a junior).
Probably was a sophomore or junior when I started running 30mpw. I don't think I ever went above 50, and a lot of that mileage was me running on my own. For some reason, our coach had everyone on really low mileage (30mpw, or maybe a little bit more).
No matter how naturally talented you are the difference between full time athlete programme and good club athlete program over a year is very little, there is only so much beneficial training you can do in a short amount of time. Success is more about consistency over many years. The 2% benefit that you get from being a full time athlete is what take you from olympian to Gold medalist, not couch to 16min 5k.
Personally if I was a full time athlete I would just get crazy bored, end up over training and getting injured, have that issue enough as it is already.
I ran all my PRs while working 40 hours a week and worried about "adult" stuff like rent and bills.
Having something to do other than train gives you structure and exercises the mind.
Your average person will start getting tendonitis and "runners knee" running 3 days in a row. My very first week of running EVER I put in 40 miles.
Genetics
Alan
These threads always turn in to an argument over whether it takes genetics to set a world record. Obviously it does. No matter how bad a teenager wants to be a gold medalist, 99.99% of the time, they won't get it because they got shafted on genetics.
On the other side of the coin, there has to be some mark that the average runner could hit with enough dedication. I think just about anyone could break 30 minutes in a 5k. What about 20 minutes? Do you think any male that somewhat looks like a runner (not body builders, etc) could break 20 minutes? How about 18 minutes? Etc.
Heh. I've had 30 years to train and never set a WR.
That is nonsense. I grew up in a rural community. I didn't eat burgers. I didn't care about football. I walked or biked everywhere because my mom was busy and didn't want to cart me around. My closest friend was 3 miles away. I would walk or bike to his house and then we would go play in the woods or wander in some farmers field.
I ran cross country when I got to middle school. Guess what. The years of active lifestyle from a young age didn't make me Kimetto. Genetics matter. They are not everything but they matter. Listen to Usain Bolt. He specifically has stated he didn't train that hard and he wished he had worked harder. I ran with a former olympian. We both started running at the same time. Same grade, same coach. He worked insanely hard and put out weekly mileage numbers that would have left me crippled. He was driven. Here is the thing though. From our very first training run he completely blew me up. He didn't even do it on purpose, I just couldn't hang with him. By the end of middle school he was probably running double the mileage I was and I had developed a nasty case of shin splints and had to ease off.
Some of that is genetics. A lot of that is drive.
You need both.
[quote]RejectRunner wrote:
How fast would you run for these distances.
800 - 1:55 maybe?
mile - 4:05
2mile - ?
5k - 14:20
10k - 29:20
HM - 1:05
M - 2:19
As a follow up to the actual question.
My very first 5k race I ran it in about 23 minutes. I would have been 12 years old at the time.
The fastest I ever got (I didn't run my junior and senior years) was an 18:34. That was my sophomore year, came in around 21:30 ish and improved to 18:34.
I am 34 now and can do a 23 minute 5k no matter how crappy shape I show up in. I had kids and didn't run a bit for a few years. Did a 5k landed in the 23 minute area. Kids got older and I got back into training. With not too much effort my times dropped down into the 21 minute area. Then it slowed way down.
Honestly I think if I did nothing but train, had a massage thereapist, ate perfect, trained perfect, stayed healthy and was able to sleep as much as I like the best I could do is break into the 18's. A year isn't very much time. Now give me a solid 3 year block and warp me back into my early 20's, now that would be a different story.
I think, given a professional coach and facilities and proper recovery, I could run around...
400m: 48-49
800m: 1:48-1:49
1500m: 3:45-3:50
5000m: 14:45-15:00
Jimmy21 wrote:
These threads always turn in to an argument over whether it takes genetics to set a world record. Obviously it does. No matter how bad a teenager wants to be a gold medalist, 99.99% of the time, they won't get it because they got shafted on genetics.
On the other side of the coin, there has to be some mark that the average runner could hit with enough dedication. I think just about anyone could break 30 minutes in a 5k. What about 20 minutes? Do you think any male that somewhat looks like a runner (not body builders, etc) could break 20 minutes? How about 18 minutes? Etc.
I have done a lot of running with some seriously dedicated runners( who look like runners) who have trained hard for years and never sniffed sub 20.
RuralKid wrote:
As a follow up to the actual question.
My very first 5k race I ran it in about 23 minutes. I would have been 12 years old at the time.
The fastest I ever got (I didn't run my junior and senior years) was an 18:34. That was my sophomore year, came in around 21:30 ish and improved to 18:34.
I am 34 now and can do a 23 minute 5k no matter how crappy shape I show up in. I had kids and didn't run a bit for a few years. Did a 5k landed in the 23 minute area. Kids got older and I got back into training. With not too much effort my times dropped down into the 21 minute area. Then it slowed way down.
Honestly I think if I did nothing but train, had a massage thereapist, ate perfect, trained perfect, stayed healthy and was able to sleep as much as I like the best I could do is break into the 18's. A year isn't very much time. Now give me a solid 3 year block and warp me back into my early 20's, now that would be a different story.
You seem sensible so don't take offense when I say it really wouldn't have made much difference.
Agreed. If it took any effort at all to get from 23:xx to 21:33 in your early 30s then three years' training might help you break 19:00. It's just not in your genes.
late. bloomer wrote:
RuralKid wrote:I am 34 now ... With not too much effort my times dropped down into the 21 minute area.
Honestly I think if I did nothing but train, had a massage thereapist, ate perfect, trained perfect, stayed healthy and was able to sleep as much as I like the best I could do is break into the 18's. A year isn't very much time. Now give me a solid 3 year block and warp me back into my early 20's, now that would be a different story.
You seem sensible so don't take offense when I say it really wouldn't have made much difference.
RejectRunner wrote:
You get the best coach,diet,recovery,etc.. and you are 22-26 years old(so in your prime.) How fast do you think you could run? I think someone who has general good fitness(Sub 6min mile or so) and average innate ability would run either, 800 - 2:00 Mile - 4:35 5k - 15:30,10k - 31:00,HM - 1:10. This obviously depends on which distance you are made to run, so if you are a 5k guy, you would run 15:30.
How fast would you run for these distances.
800
mile
2mile
5k
10k
HM
M
I would be probably be sidelined with an overuse injury
LIFETIME MILEAGE!!!!!
Lydiard said it takes 3+ years to reach your potential given good training. The thing is, everyone is limited by their genetic ability. You just can't know that limit until you train and race for a few years. Then your ability will become obvious. Your cannot exceed your ability - look up the definition of ability.
You are young and you have not put in years of training. You have not seen scores of others train similarly to you and achieve very different results. You need that optimism and drive to succeed, but most won't. It is a statistics game. There is a genetic bell curve in all sports. There are only a very few who will reach the pinnacle of a sport, and they are the ones who had talent, opportunity, drive, and coaching (least important). This is a Jack Daniels pseudo quote.
Every year there is an experiment done among 100s of thousands of High School students. How fast can a HS boy run a mile (or 1600)? The answer is that very few can break 5:00. And yet there are some who run under 4:00. And some who can't break 6:00. This is the bell curve of human talent for running (along with other factors). But the kid who can't break 5:00 will not become a sub 4 runner by just training better. The sub 4 kid can do almost nothing right in training and still be a 4:20s kid.
Try hard. See how far it gets you. You won't regret it.
No offense taken at all. I run because I like to run, not to chase after fast times. My different story wasn't meant to insinuate I was going to somehow be a 15 minute guy. I would say high 17's at best.What is interesting is that among my group of running friends I am one of the fastest. On cross country team I never broke top five of JV. It shows a little bit of how much of an anomaly the typical cross country runner is as far as talent is concerned.
Teller of truths wrote:
Agreed. If it took any effort at all to get from 23:xx to 21:33 in your early 30s then three years' training might help you break 19:00. It's just not in your genes.
late. bloomer wrote:You seem sensible so don't take offense when I say it really wouldn't have made much difference.