Where do sub-elites get hung up?

sub-elite wrote:

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

That's what I was going to say. I recently ran 69 for HM. I put in 1 solid year of training averaging 55-60mpw, peaking at 75mpw, and that's all I was willing to do because of my job and family. My wife is due with another kid in a couple months, so I will choose to put running aside for a while. Probably until I'm too old to chase PRs. Going after a 66-68 HM would require more mileage and time than I am willing to commit. Although I don't know that there is any gap, but maybe 1:10 is about where the performance curve takes sharper turn.

Abdoujaparov wrote:

regretting = targetting.

Chiacago, which is where I ran my PR in. 2015. I was supposed to race Boston and had PR fitness (1:11:04 in January and a 49:18 15k in March), but I pushed to hard and ended up injured. Probably fortunate given the limited number of marathons I have left, I suppose.

Sub-elites and worse, like myself, get hung up of course on age, health, job, family, and motivation, but in terms of the quality of training, a lot of it has to do with the lack of quality training groups. You'd think it would be easy to find a bunch of similar or better guys to run with in any given metro area, given how many NCAA guys, D1-D3, run sub 16 5k equivalent (that would be something like 33/1:12-1:14/2:35-40, but stop running seriously after college or don't have time to meet with a group to train regularly. I have had a very tough time running the quality outdoor workouts, speed work and tempos, that I could do when I had quality people to run with. When I was running with 4 flat and former 14:20ish runners three to four times per week, my workouts were getting to a far higher level than my supposed potential based on hs and college performances indicated. Look at those Kenyan training groups in Kipchoge, et al. videos. Run with faster guys and you will improve markedly and be able to stick with them in workouts pretty soon.

I think it might be because most punters don't want to put in the training that makes a difference to times and by extension hurts you. I'm hardly a great runner myself but I understand the theory that you have to exert yourself to get better and do longer reps a least once a week.

An anecdotal example - I am hard pressed to think of anyone in my running club who does intervals/tempo runs, or the type of intervals that would make a difference to 10 km & half times. I am likely to see posted on Strava sessions like 16 x 200 with a min recov which are not executed that hard and are run by guys who do 10kms/ halfs/marathons etc that ain't gonna set the heather on fire.. No evidence of 1km reps or 1 mile reps or 2 x 20 mins tempo run. I think running the 200's gives these guys the nice sensations of speed without hurting them or giving them the race speed that is really what is needed.

All the big kudos and notes of interest at for those who slog out a 35 km at 6.30 am so they can finish an upcoming marathon in 3 hours and change. The really tough sessions 8 x 1 km or 10 x 1 km slip by without comment.

I or we cant tell people what to do if that does not fit in with their motivation or objectives so a lot of advice is just wasted.. Like anything else in life if you really want the job/times/partner you'll do what is necessary to get it.

The big problems with this situation are pretty simple:

1. Putting in the necessary time and effort to move performances beyond 1:10/2:30 simply have too much opportunity cost when compared with other adult responsibilities (career, relationships, house, kids, traveling, making money to pay for all that stuff, being happy). Running that fast doesn't really impress anyone except your running buddies and nobody really cares. And it doesn't make you much money beyond a few prize winnings here and there at local races and maybe if you are an exceptional self marketer.

2. Lack of group training opportunities. There are plenty of post-collegiates capable of running these times, but they fall off the wagon due to #1 and you often are left training alone, which makes it more difficult to motivate and improve.

I'll use myself as an example. I was a 4:40/9:45/16:15 guy in high school. At age 30, without any serious training for 10 years, I got back into it and worked myself down to a 1:18 half on 3 months training. A few months later, I was sub 16:30, sub 34, and sub 1:16 (and all of those run in generally garbage winter weather conditions, I might add). Those times basically put me in the "Division 1-AA" of local post-collegiates. There are faster guys in the metro area, but training with them is difficult, for various reasons I won't discuss here. I would like to continue improving and test my limits before I get too old, but the opportunity cost of 2-3 hours for training per day is pretty high at my age and finding adequate training partners isn't easy.

I'm injured at the moment and not running, and during these periods, I really ask myself what is the best use of my time at this point in my life. It's really a question of "is this all really worth it?" when you think about everything else to so in life.

I have seen a lot of post-collegiate runners just get bored with road racing and give up after a few tries at the marathon. I ran with a guy who nailed his first marathon with a 2:24. He had gas in the tank and looked great. Everyone was banking on this guy getting the trials standard. But he got bored with it and felt like he had been there done that. I think it is hard to sustain a high level when you get out of a team environment. During the running boom of the 70s and early 80s, there were lots of training groups that were pretty close in intensity to a college team. But now, if you are fast, you will be lucky to find two or three runners to train with.

There are definitely physical barriers that show up in times. There is a pretty decent size group of pure amateur runners who train hard and make it to @36/1:20/2:50ish for 10k/half/full. The next group generally has some collegiate experience or were high school standouts. They seem to cluster around 32-34/1:10-1:12/2:30-35. That group also includes some who are just overflowing with natural talent. Most of those runners have taken their running as far as it can go given their time commitment and interest level. I often see runners at that level flame out pretty badly when they try to push the envelope and jack up their mileage to try to break 2:30.

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

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 :)

This could not be further from the truth.

The lack of training partners issue is a legitimate one. Lots of sub-elites are pretty motivated, willing to put in the work, and willing to hurt, but having a training partner who is as fit, or even better, slightly fitter than you, to train with can make a huge difference. It makes a difference in the consistency of your workouts and it makes it twice as likely for you to start believing that your fitness has improved enough for a breakthrough, because when a training partner who you can hang with pops in a race, you walk away knowing (well, at least believing) that you are fit enough to run that time too. That being said, all of my best times have come while training alone - even in my college days I did all of my workouts alone when I was running my best times because the one teammate that was at my level was a steepler and doing totally different workouts. But even in that case, when I would break through in the 5k or 10k, he would break through in the stepple and vice versa. Healthy competition spurs both competitors upward in a spiral.

We have a true sub-elite guy here locally (sub-14:00 5000m in college (which I would consider true elite) and 1:04 in the half this year (right on the border from my perspective, depending on what pool you are measuring against). The poor guy is stuck doing every single quality session alone because his marathon pace is a touch faster than my threshold pace, and his threshold pace would push me in a vo2max session, and there is no one else in between. Between that, his full time job, a lack of access to a training room and trainers, building a relationship with his girlfriend (serially), etc., how is he ever supposed to match what he did while at a Power 5 college with world class facilities and teammates to push him in workouts?

There aren't a lot of good training groups willing to take on guys that can't already run under 1:10/2:30. By virtue of the training difficulty to go from 70/2:30 to 65/2:20, it inevitably creates a gulf that's very difficult to overcome without the coaching and athletic resources. Couple that with needing a job, having a family, and other responsibilities, it should come as little surprise that there's a very tough barrier to cross between elite and sub-elite.

Spoken by a guy trying to make the jump from 2:27 to 2:19, I've had to turn my life upside down for the next 2 years to take a shot at an OTQ.

PatrickSebast wrote:

The curve between 3:00 all the way down to 2:00ish is actually remarkably smooth.

I think you are seeing scale. The numbers are smaller, but you would still see the same effect around round numbers if you could zoom in.

All the people talking about doing other things in life, running isn't 'that' worth it etc I can see now is the difference. For me running IS life there is nothing better. I would rather be single and not socialize so I can run even more. I would run all day everyday if I could I love it.

Most the folks are working jobs and have lives outside of running and work. Pretty simple they have less time to train, so less mileage; less time for sleep, the biggest component of recovery; and less access to other recovery tools. Also, harder to find running groups/partners and ideal times to get out to run (lots of early mornings and late nights and runs in the dark.

Distance running and competitive swimming became “legitimate” high school and college sports by the early 1980s in the USA.

This means that people who have the talent and the inclination to run (or swin) fast as adults, also had the opportunity to do do as high school and college students.

The result is that the “itch” to try to be an elite distance runner or swimmer, has usually been thoroughly scratched by the time one reaches the mid 20s.

Masters running and swimming thus usually consists of:

1) Talented people who once aspired to be elite but who are now just “having fun and staying in shape” and

2) Untalented people striving for better than mediocre results.

This also explains why:

1) Masters running was more competitive in the 1980s- back then fewer talented people had the opportunity to compete in college.

Masters running was their only opportunity.

2) Cycling and triathlon have a higher percentage of “sub-elite” adults. Neither of these sports provide many opportunities for young athletes.

ohyesit'sgood wrote:

All the people talking about doing other things in life, running isn't 'that' worth it etc I can see now is the difference. For me running IS life there is nothing better. I would rather be single and not socialize so I can run even more. I would run all day everyday if I could I love it.

Well that's definitely your priority and I wish you the best of luck in whatever goals you are chasing. IF you have the TALENT, there are no excuses to not hitting the OTQ times or beyond...

Velocibuddha wrote:

Masters running was more competitive in the 1980s

Any data to support that? This website, while far from perfect, seems to indicate that the vast majority of top masters performances, particularly at the half marathon and marathon distances (those cited by the OP originally), are from recent years. In fact, none of the top 20 performances at those distances by jose in the 40-44 age group occurred in the 1980s. To get to a performance from the '80s, you have to go to the 28th performance for the half and the 34th performance for the full.

Data Requester wrote:

Velocibuddha wrote:

Masters running was more competitive in the 1980s

Any data to support that? This website, while far from perfect, seems to indicate that the vast majority of top masters performances, particularly at the half marathon and marathon distances (those cited by the OP originally), are from recent years. In fact, none of the top 20 performances at those distances by jose in the 40-44 age group occurred in the 1980s. To get to a performance from the '80s, you have to go to the 28th performance for the half and the 34th performance for the full.

http://www.arrs.net/VetRec.htm

I once did a comparison of 100th and 300th fininishers at then Boston Marathon in then early 80s versus today.

The 100th and 300th finishers much faster in the 1980s.

It is not surprising that “records” are faster in the 40-45 age group now than back in the 1980s.

The records today are from a very small number of ex-professionals that are still running. There are perhaps a dozen people like this.

Back in the 1980s races were full of hundreds of people who might have been mid tier division I distance runners (had such a thing existed back in the 1960s).

My father ran a 1:58 880 and 4:35 mile in high school off of basically no running volume at all in 1959.

He was a wide receiver in high school and only did track because his football coach told him to.

He quit running his freshman year in college because he didn’t make the college football team.

When masters running became a “real sport” back in the late 1970s my father was all over it. He thought his 2:34 marathon (at age 38) was “almost world class.”

Yet there were thousands of other men his age who could have run in college (had such a thing existed), all fighting it out.

In contrast I was a division I college swimmer.

Do I want to train hard, swim slow and get beaten at masters US or world champions by the same people who beat me in college?

No.

Screw that!

I would rather be a mediocre runner. Ir slightly better triathlete.

wait, what? wrote:

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

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 :)

This could not be further from the truth.

It's correct, Mojo just didn't quite identify the reason. Talent. Anyone running 2:25 is putting in serious work. I highly doubt many 2:25 guys are thinking "well, I could run these intervals a little harder but why try" or "I just don't feel like doubling today"

The 100th and 300th masters runners, or overall?

If masters, then a more precise statement would be that masters running was deeper in the 1980s.

If overall, then a more precise statement would be that distance running was deeper in the 1980s.

That assumes that you looked across a sampling of races from each era, of course. But I doubt that there is really much argument about the depth of running in the early 1980s compared to now.

But neither of those more precise statements really goes to support your statement hat masters running was more competitive in the 1980s.

You misspoke, I think.

minty wrote:

not talking about talent just talking about propensity to train hard

Lance Armstrong, among many other dopers use this excuse. You don't get to sub-elite times by being indifferent about training.

There's no way to know who is clean given the rampant corruption of IOC sports and the IAAF in particular.