THIS MAKES NO SENSE

Yezzy wrote:

I eat 100% clean (I have to technically to manage my autoimmune condition), don’t drink nor smoke and I run mid 6s for the mile and 22s for the 5k. I have friends who party and drug their lives away who can beat me. I run intervals and milage and I swear to god I am not trolling. It’s talent, all talent. Just focus on being the best YOU can be. Some people are working harder than you to run even slower times believe it or not.

Well, to start you do have an autoimmune condition which could potentially be holding you back. Next, if one type of training isn’t working, try incorporating more speed workouts and less endurance based workouts then, just try new things and see what works, don’t stick to the same.

Everyone is capable of 15-16 minute 5K’s with the right guidance, coaching, nutrition and enough drive. I’ve never met one kid that was extremely dedicated to being good at track and cross country who was not able to break 17, it just takes smart work and lots of it.

Also P.S. to the OP: Some people are just going to be better no matter what you do, concentrate on being the best runner you can be

I am a female nor am I a high school kid so I do not believe that everyone could get 15-16s with the right training, that would be almost elite for my gender and age group. I do however think that with good health management, more miles, a couple more years and strength training that I can shave some minutes off. Also, I much prefer speedwork to miles because I am better at it (because essentially, I am more cut out for sprinting as my times would show - my untrained age graded sprint times rate higher than my SOMEWHAT TRAINED distance times). Lately, I have cut the speed-work down (I still do it, but not as often and lots of easy miles aid for better recovery so I am able to get more quality speedwork in when I do it 1-2 times a week) and started running more miles and am seeing gains in fitness.

how many run those times. wrote:

otter wrote:

Try to think logically. We are not training elite athletes to run 209-211 anymore. .

You guys should be.

What number of US sub 2:11 times have came from the last few decades:

70s: 4

80s: 17

90s: 4

00s: 5

10s: 8

Usually the people who are dedicated are dedicated because they see gains, it has been scientifically proven that there are “aerobic non-responders” out there meaning that even with training, aerobic capacity does not improve. However, I don’t think this is the norm but there are all dofferent levels of talent, I am average talent (18:30s on 50mpw) and I don’t feel bummed to be “average”, I feel privileged that I actually get some benefit out of training.

Yeah doing silly little exercises really makes a difference.

LMAO at core work wrote:

how many run those times. wrote:

You guys should be.

What number of US sub 2:11 times have came from the last few decades:

70s: 4

80s: 17

90s: 4

00s: 5

10s: 8

those sub 2:11s in the 80s and 80s were world class, competing with the world's best. Besides Rupp and maybe someone else getting lucky on a good day, our sub 2:11s are a mile back.

Kvothe wrote:

LMAO at core work wrote:

What number of US sub 2:11 times have came from the last few decades:

70s: 4

80s: 17

90s: 4

00s: 5

10s: 8

those sub 2:11s in the 80s and 80s were world class, competing with the world's best. Besides Rupp and maybe someone else getting lucky on a good day, our sub 2:11s are a mile back.

Time is time. Seriously though, core work elites say is no different from the "push ups" Salazar had mo do.

Can't remember who said it, but a scientist once said the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.

LMAO at core work wrote:

Can't remember who said it, but a scientist once said the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.

I agree

smoking is it really bad? wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

They’re on borrowed time. Their lungs and livers will be ruined when they’re in their 20s.

My great grandmother smoked since she was a like 12 or something, she lived just short of her 90 th birthday. She walked everyday, up till her death. Never suffered any real ailments from smoking. Me personally, I believe the harms of smoking is overblown. I mean as the smoking rates in America has been declining, as the obesity, diabetes and other diseases rates is going up. I don't smoke, I do not think it is good for someone to do, but I do think the harms of smoking has been overblown.

You could be the dumbest human walking the earth.

The non-smoker has .2% chance of lung cancer. A current smoker has a 15.9% chance, and a former smoker has a 5.5% chance.

So, even if you quit, you go from 1 in 500 chance, to 1 in 18.8 chance.

Smoking kills. You base your moronic ideas on a sample size of one.

Look into it, those "facts" you threw out are a bunch of nonsense. If you actually look at the data for the studies that say that and do the correct math as opposed to fudging the numbers like scientist do, the risk is much less greater than what they would have us believe. Not saying we should smoke, but the harm/risk of smoking has been greatly exaggerated.

focus on getting stronger in the weight room and improve flexibility. Stay patient, your time will come

codaayyee wrote:

improve flexibility.

I got faster when I stop stretching. Eliud Kipchoge can barely touch his toes. If I recall correctly, Canova doesn't think distance runners shouldn't stretch.

Harms of smoking has been exaggerated wrote:

Ultra or Die wrote:

You could be the dumbest human walking the earth.

The non-smoker has .2% chance of lung cancer. A current smoker has a 15.9% chance, and a former smoker has a 5.5% chance.

So, even if you quit, you go from 1 in 500 chance, to 1 in 18.8 chance.

Smoking kills. You base your moronic ideas on a sample size of one.

Look into it, those "facts" you threw out are a bunch of nonsense. If you actually look at the data for the studies that say that and do the correct math as opposed to fudging the numbers like scientist do, the risk is much less greater than what they would have us believe. Not saying we should smoke, but the harm/risk of smoking has been greatly exaggerated.

Which tobacco company do you work for?

LoneStarXC wrote:

Harms of smoking has been exaggerated wrote:

Look into it, those "facts" you threw out are a bunch of nonsense. If you actually look at the data for the studies that say that and do the correct math as opposed to fudging the numbers like scientist do, the risk is much less greater than what they would have us believe. Not saying we should smoke, but the harm/risk of smoking has been greatly exaggerated.

Which tobacco company do you work for?

None, I just get sick and tired of scientist fudging the numbers to make X look much worse than it actually is. Than you'll see a headline in the news the next day that says "X will give you cancer". I'm not promoting smoking, just saying the harms have been greatly exaggerated.

I do not work for big tobacco wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

Which tobacco company do you work for?

None, I just get sick and tired of scientist fudging the numbers to make X look much worse than it actually is. Than you'll see a headline in the news the next day that says "X will give you cancer". I'm not promoting smoking, just saying the harms have been greatly exaggerated.

There is no way you could be so dumb.

Dude you must be a troll wrote:

I do not work for big tobacco wrote:

None, I just get sick and tired of scientist fudging the numbers to make X look much worse than it actually is. Than you'll see a headline in the news the next day that says "X will give you cancer". I'm not promoting smoking, just saying the harms have been greatly exaggerated.

There is no way you could be so dumb.

Never question the scientist, that is blasphemy.

That Washington post link didn't link right. Here is a NY times article on the same story.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/health/dr-piero-anversa-harvard-retraction.html

Oh my freaking gosh. Do you think the idea that smoking causes cancer is all from one scientist who may have fudged his results?