I started running to reverse some of the health complications from an underactive thyroid, my autoimmune disease is now in remission and I am a lot more healthy and a lot less depressed as a result. I replaced many bad habits such as drunking, binge eating and smoking for running. My 5k is about 22:30 and I do intervals, miles and occasionally doubles. Everybody is different.
Check out Carlyspat on Instagram.
How about a different bird: the guy who has loads of ability, trains hard, but doens't race at all? I used to a train a bit with an Ethiopian in his 40s who could have been one of the best masters in the country (like around 15:00 for 5K), easily, and would talk about races but then bail at the last moment with some excuse. This went on for years, then he just vanished.
I knew a guy like this. His excuse was ‘a race would interfere with his training.’
I have no problem with the OP, but it continues to surprise me how many people don't realise how big a variation in 'natural talent' there is in the general healthy population.
Big studies of both fit and sedentary people show that the standard deviation for VO2max for an age group is about 7.
So say for 15-24yo active men, V02max average is 50. about 2 thirds of people would be 43-57 (5k 17:30- 22:30 if trained) and 95% would fall between 36 and 64 (5k 15:00-25:00)
Although more training can improve V02max, it's not by that much, so there's probably a 10 minute variation in 5k ability across the healthy population at any age, no matter how hard they train.
I'm generally more impressed by the person who has got everything out of their natural ability, no matter how slow/fast they are, than by the actual time they have run.
In order for a perspn to score a vo2 max of 50 they would have to be capable of a 20:00 5k which is by no means average, quite above actually. Even a 22 minute 5k which correlates to a max of 45 would not be average. The average young adolescent male would probably run about a 27 minute 5k which is a max of what.. like 31-32?
I donnot understand these vo2 max charts on the internet, they well overpredict the average lerson’s fitness level. It says on the website below that average men aged 20-24 score 44-50. There is no way mr average even in their prime runs 20-22 minute 5000m. Average = untrained and untrained = closer to 30 minutes than 20 in the 5000m.
https://mensrunninguk.co.uk/health/measuring-vo2-max/
These stats are wrong, very wrong. It even says the average woman aged 20-24 is capable of a 5k between 23:30-25:00 which is absurd seeing as I bet 90% of the females I know that age would be proud to even finish a 5k, let alone in a certain time goal like 30 minutes, 25 minutes or anything else.
Vo2 lab tested at 59 17:30 minute 5k guy wrote:
In order for a perspn to score a vo2 max of 50 they would have to be capable of a 20:00 5k which is by no means average, quite above actually. Even a 22 minute 5k which correlates to a max of 45 would not be average. The average young adolescent male would probably run about a 27 minute 5k which is a max of what.. like 31-32?
I donnot understand these vo2 max charts on the internet, they well overpredict the average lerson’s fitness level. It says on the website below that average men aged 20-24 score 44-50. There is no way mr average even in their prime runs 20-22 minute 5000m. Average = untrained and untrained = closer to 30 minutes than 20 in the 5000m.
These stats are wrong, very wrong. It even says the average woman aged 20-24 is capable of a 5k between 23:30-25:00 which is absurd seeing as I bet 90% of the females I know that age would be proud to even finish a 5k, let alone in a certain time goal like 30 minutes, 25 minutes or anything else.
Jackass, having a VO2 max of 44-50 does NOT imply they could run a 5K in 20-22 minutes. That's not how it works.
not how that calculation works wrote:
Vo2 lab tested at 59 17:30 minute 5k guy wrote:
In order for a perspn to score a vo2 max of 50 they would have to be capable of a 20:00 5k which is by no means average, quite above actually. Even a 22 minute 5k which correlates to a max of 45 would not be average. The average young adolescent male would probably run about a 27 minute 5k which is a max of what.. like 31-32?
I donnot understand these vo2 max charts on the internet, they well overpredict the average lerson’s fitness level. It says on the website below that average men aged 20-24 score 44-50. There is no way mr average even in their prime runs 20-22 minute 5000m. Average = untrained and untrained = closer to 30 minutes than 20 in the 5000m.
These stats are wrong, very wrong. It even says the average woman aged 20-24 is capable of a 5k between 23:30-25:00 which is absurd seeing as I bet 90% of the females I know that age would be proud to even finish a 5k, let alone in a certain time goal like 30 minutes, 25 minutes or anything else.
Jackass, having a VO2 max of 44-50 does NOT imply they could run a 5K in 20-22 minutes. That's not how it works.
In order to score that high on a test their bodies would have to be trained to take in that amount of oxygen. So you're telling me that a person who never does cardio can take in the same amount of oxygen as a guy who runs a 20 minute 5K? These tables are bullshiiit and are clearly tested on athletic types actually willing to participate in a vo2 max test. How many average joes 20-24 year old joes are interested in vo2 max? None apart from regular sportspeople and competitive athletes.
Plus if you google “average vo2 max for men” some charts will say 38-40 and others will say 46-48.. HUGE difference. MASSIVE difference. Vo2 is such a poorly understood concept, I do not know why anybody uses it. Lactate threshold and performance are the ONLY two things that matter in aerobic sports.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Sid22 wrote:
I don’t understand how I am being a judgy dick? I am simply observing. I am happy for him and the fact he his fitter than 99% of people because he worked his ass for for it. Observing these people makes me grateful to be lucky enough to be running in the 16s. I am sure there are 22:xx minute runners who feel the same about 20:xx runners and so on.
Or 14:00 guys about 16:00. Don’t think you are anything close to special sonny.
Ha ha, exactly. Said it before but there is no worse type of runner, and no one more delusional, than the elite hobbyjogger.
I think I do undersatnd how these things work fairly well. You are right, they won't immediately go out and run 20 min for a 5k, but if adequately trained they will. And yes, there are people who don't do exercise who can take in more oxygen than many of those who train alot
These studies were done on the general population, both sedentary and active ( the one below was about 10,000 people). It was to create the normal range tables. They also measured the aerobic threshold and the threshold variations among the population were of a similar order of magnitude.
here's a link to one such study
Its natural to think everyone with slower times is not very good at running, you are really good and those with better times are fast.
The reality is you are pretty average just like I was. Half the people running slower times than you are probably doing half the training are older or women
Join a proper running club or do some track races especially shorter ones and you will soon find your place
Interesting thread though
Anne Archist wrote:
Douche bag
Whatever:
Better than sitting, drinking in a bar for the same amount of time talking about the local pro sports teams, wearing a Yankees cap.
But wrote:
not how that calculation works wrote:
Jackass, having a VO2 max of 44-50 does NOT imply they could run a 5K in 20-22 minutes. That's not how it works.
In order to score that high on a test their bodies would have to be trained to take in that amount of oxygen. So you're telling me that a person who never does cardio can take in the same amount of oxygen as a guy who runs a 20 minute 5K? These tables are bullshiiit and are clearly tested on athletic types actually willing to participate in a vo2 max test. How many average joes 20-24 year old joes are interested in vo2 max? None apart from regular sportspeople and competitive athletes.
Plus if you google “average vo2 max for men” some charts will say 38-40 and others will say 46-48.. HUGE difference. MASSIVE difference. Vo2 is such a poorly understood concept, I do not know why anybody uses it. Lactate threshold and performance are the ONLY two things that matter in aerobic sports.
Absolutely. A person can have a VO2 max off the charts in an untrained state.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Sid22 wrote:
I don’t understand how I am being a judgy dick? I am simply observing. I am happy for him and the fact he his fitter than 99% of people because he worked his ass for for it. Observing these people makes me grateful to be lucky enough to be running in the 16s. I am sure there are 22:xx minute runners who feel the same about 20:xx runners and so on.
Or 14:00 guys about 16:00. Don’t think you are anything close to special sonny.
Anyone know if 13-flat guys about feel this way about those running 13:30? Cuz that's where the split between being able to run as a job or not happens.
Most runners on Instagram.
You'd think they were pros how much time and energy they put into running, strength training, and talking about it and then you see their PR is over 4 hours for the marathon....
He started a separate thread about your spelling.
Sid22 wrote:
I literally never ... ever ... ever said I was. Jesus, people here are so hostile. Pretty sure there was a thread about that not too long ago, y’all need to go chill out and smoke a doobie or something, maybe I would be a 14:xx guy if I didn’t smoke so much of that, who knows?
?
He’s running 16:xx and he smokes. What a man. Bravo.
This is an easy one. I know several ultramarathon runners who have no intention of ever running under 10 minute pace and regularly post about the 15 minute pace 5-6 mile runs and how great they felt.
I ran with the same training group for about 15 years. We had pace groups divided up by marathon goal time. There was a group for sub 3 runners. It was very interesting to see how people progressed in that group. We were all very dedicated and mostly did the same workouts and logged very similar mileage. I progressed from 3:08 to 2:47 over the course of about seven years. There were a bunch of guys who were running 2:5x who got down to low 2:40s and plenty of 3:0x runners who broke 3 hours. But there were a couple of 3:05 to 3:10 runners who just never budged. A few probably were overachieving given their build. But there were definitely a few that were build right, trained right, and had the right attitude, but just never were able to break through. There is definitely a genetic component to distance running that is a big factor in each runner's potential.
I remember reading a thread where someone mentioned that research shows someone with average trainability (responsive to training) and average talent, when doing optimal training in their prime (mid 20s), would run: ~20:00 5k for men and 23:00 5k for women.
The simple truth is that most of us are a lot more talented than we think we are. The guy from the park probably has truly average talent. And there's nothing wrong with that, its totally out of his control.