Where do sub-elites get hung up?

JamesTheAmateur wrote:

I got the idea from some other thread about there being a gulf between 30/31 10k guys and 36-38 guys.

Lol, that was a dumb thread considering no such gap exists

it's just the nature of the bell curve my dude

not talking about talent just talking about propensity to train hard

I'm not sure there is a gap, as others have said, but if we stipulate there is one you could make an argument that round numbers like 1:10 or 2:30 / 2:40 are the last round numbers you hit before your ambitions might shift to Olympic trials so they represent the "mountaintop" for a lot of serious amateurs.

In other words I could imagine a dip in the bell curve where a bunch of runners would fall if they trained their azz off but don't because there's no clear goal between 1:05 and 1:09 beyond pride. It sounds silly but you see the same effect on marathon finishing times. You graph the bell curve and you can see a bunch of people busting themselves to break every round number and then a real lull for all the X:X1, X:X2 times etc.

https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/round-number-times-for-marathons

There's something to this. I'm only running another marathon because I want to break 2:30. If I do that (and at 46, I've probably got only 6 to 12 months to do it), I doubt that I'll run another one.

Right there with you.

My marathon times? 2:37, 2:34, 2:33, 2:31...2:45, 2:38, 2:34

I can't die before I see 2:2X

I ran 2:30:52. I was on pace for 2:28:0x through 20 feeling extraordinarily strong aerobically. My calves, however, could not handle the heat and the stress and I locked up shortly after the 20 mile mark. Gutted it out over the next 10K or so, but had to stop half a dozen times to stretch out my calves during that last 10k. I am taking one more run at it. It was right there. Plus, my training partner has run 2:29:45, and while I love the guy, there is also a natural sense of competition that requires me to try to take his time down.

But after that, 2:27 doesn't mean all that much more to mean than 2:29.

Not sure if there really is a gap, but I can see a reason why there would be. The training and commitment to run a 2:20 - 2:30 marathon isn't really any different than to run a 2:10-2:20 marathon. The difference is, there is no chance at a big payoff (money, respect, etc.) when running 2:30. So, a lot of guys with this sort of potential live more well-rounded lives and end up running 2:40.

Come to think of it, that pretty much describes me 25 years ago :)

I am intrigued. I ran 2:30:34 ten years ago. On the day, I thought I would for sure get another shot at getting my sub-2:30 goal, but here I am with the same tantalizingly close PR.

Not sure if I have it in me to try again at 45, especially as I am seriously out of shape, but damned if I'm not feeling the itch after reading your post...hmm.

Oh, and btw, 2:30 is a lot more in line with 1:10 than 2:40.

Only among runners have you not run 2:30. Try explaining to your office mates why training for another marathon at 46 in pursuit of 52 seconds! Good luck - where are you regretting?

regretting = targetting.

1:10/2:40 is an awful half marathon to marathon conversion so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Some people are faster than others, everyone has a point where for whatever reason they can't race any faster be it 59:00 1:10 or 1:30 for the half.

Well, yeah. Obviously those guys exist, it was just an interesting topic because I've seen similar results in my area. So I was just curious where the numbers really start to taper off

I broke 70 recently which was a long time goal, now all I want to do is break 69 and then 68 and so on. That's just a half though. I'd like to run a 2:2X marathon before I'm done running. If I did that I'm not sure if I'd do another marathon either, I would probably keep running. I think that says more about the marathon and marathon training than about a gap. It takes more time and takes more out of you IMO. For many the costs of decent marathon training may start to outweigh the benefits of simply running a new PR.

notafatty wrote:

1:10/2:40 is an awful half marathon to marathon conversion so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Some people are faster than others, everyone has a point where for whatever reason they can't race any faster be it 59:00 1:10 or 1:30 for the half.

I agree, if you read up the OP threw out 1:10 / 2:40 - I agree 1:10 / 2:30 is better and said 1:10, 2:30-2:40 to be polite. I know 1:10 / 2:30 is a good comparison because my PRs are 1:10 high and 2:31. FML.

JamesTheAmateur wrote:

I got the idea from some other thread about there being a gulf between 30/31 10k guys and 36-38 guys. Obviously people exist in the middle, but they don't often seem to be seen. Probably because 32 - 35 guys are at bigger races where they get swallowed up, but it's still odd

I will also add that it does seem like athletic guys without a running background can run 36-38 10k or its a equivalent in other races (17s in the 5k, 1:20s in the half). That could be the cause of the hypothetical gulf. You could simplify the world into three groups of runners college runners who kept training post college, college runners who quit post college, and average joes who stay in shape through sports, cross-fit, run clubs, etc.

If you assume that only decent or better college runners keep training, than you would find that the post college group would be running under 32. The average joes group are unlikely to be running much faster than 36. I don't think this quite holds though. It's definitely not true in New England where there is a healthy club scene. The distribution of times is more bell curve-like with some skewness and kurtosis. I also think any supposed gap would only be found when looking at any one race, but if you look across all races in an area in a year, you'll just see that bell curve distribution.

literally ALL of my performance goals are arbitrary time ones based on units, this makes perfect sense to me

literally EVERY SINGLE PR attempt is normally a :15/:10/:00/:30/:45 type thing depending on distance

EG I'm stuck around a 19:30 5K right now [19:29!!] and a 1:35 half [want 1:34:59!], etc

Abdoujaparov wrote:

https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/round-number-times-for-marathons

The data in these graphs combined with the odd combination of Half/Full times of 1:10/2:40 chosen by the OP seem to indicate that there really isn't a gap at all. The only major jumps in the data are right around the hour and half hour marks. Genetics isn't likely to settle people around nice even time divisions, but psychology is.

The curve between 3:00 all the way down to 2:00ish is actually remarkably smooth. The problem is that the amount of runners in that area gets so small that when you are making anecdotal observations you will see a 'wall' because most areas/races aren't going to have enough runners to give any sort of representative showing of the elite and sub-elite classes.

Sub-elites get hung up where B-level genes run into a full-time job + family responsibilities.