Talent vs hard work for decent hobby jogger times? Proof it!

Line up all of the high school seniors in your state that got up to 70 miles per week during their end of summer base training phase and has dozens of 50 mile weeks from the past couple years and I bet 90 percent are running under 17 minutes for 5k, and probably 40 percent get under 16 minutes. So few are willing to get in the consistent work over many months or years. So I agree with you, it's the work and not the talent.

(Almost..) No elite runner reaches their peak in HS. Most improve in the early-to mid 20s and set PRs in the 1500m all the way up to the longest distances they run.

1) People in high school give up if they realize they have lower talent than others. They see no perspective, and don't wanna dedicate everything to running (no alcohol, more sleep, more hours training, recovery things, etc) just to run a 16 flat 5k.

2) Many don't even do the work over the summer - they rather hang out with friends or party instead of grinding down the miles with doubles doing a nice summer of malmo.

People not reaching their potential is the problem, not lack of talent. Everyone can choose to do with his life whatever he wants, but people shouldn't say "i've done everything in my life and dedicated all to running, i just can't get faster than 18/19/20/25/30 min etc i'm running for a 5k".

Physiologically almost all of us can. I do admit however that there isn't much point to do it, other than personal satisfaction. But talent is not in the way to run a 16 flat 5k, it is just in the way to run a 16 flat 5k on little effort like some VERY talented guys can do (Ritzenhein did sub 16 in his first year, and got to sub 15 on less than 30 mpw for example).

Talent exists, but solid performances can be achieved through HARD work alone!

The part you are not addressing:

Talent is being able to hit those times (or faster) without training perfectly, without doing high mileage, without decent workouts, without training plan/coaching, cutting on sleep and not eat decently.

Confuzzled wrote:

The part you are not addressing:

Talent is being able to hit those times (or faster) without training perfectly, without doing high mileage, without decent workouts, without training plan/coaching, cutting on sleep and not eat decently.

That's all true! No one of us said that talent flat out doesn't exist. No one said that (ignoring Doping) the Olympic champion trains the hardest, the silver medalist the second hardest and the bronze the third hardest. Talent has EXTREME impact in running, on all levels!

Whether it's a true champion getting to run 13 flat or sub 28, or someone in the local running group improving much faster than anyone else, or the soccer player who tries a 5k and runs 16 flat without any running specific training, talent does exist in all it's forms (resistance to injury, vo2max, adaption to trainings, etc.).

But should it ever be blamed? Almost never! The people that complain about talent or not hitting sub 16 despite "everything i'm doing.." need to stop blaming talent and really try to min/max everything if they want to run those solid times (enough to win local races or become a superhero in the local running club/community).

I have seen the training (and lifestyles) of many of these guys. It's terrible. So has been my own one before I got a coach and learned about proper training and recovery.

Average guys training well for 5 years hit 18 -20 minutes.

Not going of my opinion but off science. Anything abive 60 ml/kg and you ARE considered a genetic outlier, a lot of men do not get that high with training and science has proved this. The average healthy young man has a max of 45 ml/kg which can be trained by up to 20%. This is 54 ml/kg.

I dare you to coach a 54 ml/kg guy to a 16 minute 5k. Note: it will never happen.

Rez wrote:

Average guys training well for 5 years hit 18 -20 minutes.

Not going of my opinion but off science. Anything abive 60 ml/kg and you ARE considered a genetic outlier, a lot of men do not get that high with training and science has proved this. The average healthy young man has a max of 45 ml/kg which can be trained by up to 20%. This is 54 ml/kg.

I dare you to coach a 54 ml/kg guy to a 16 minute 5k. Note: it will never happen.

Cam Levins ran 13:15 with a VO2MAX of 62. According to Jack Daniels calculator, 13:15 "needs" a VO2MAX of 80. Paula Radcliffe peaked her VO2MAX at 17 years, but still improved her times for like a decade after.

Therefore, yes a 54 VO2MAX guy could run a 16 min 5k. Training makes you more efficient and improves running economy. You make MORE out of the oxygen you get in your body and use it more efficiently.

It has been stated countless times in academic papers that VO2MAX doesn't mean anything, and it's RACE performances that matter. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

If you all spent as much time training as you spent deluding yourselves then I’m sure most of you would be able to knock at least a minute off your 5k prs.

My team had 20 guys do that and none broke 16 minutes for 5k. Only 20 kids broke 16 minutes in the entire state.

Show me a runner wrote:

Line up all of the high school seniors in your state that got up to 70 miles per week during their end of summer base training phase and has dozens of 50 mile weeks from the past couple years and I bet 90 percent are running under 17 minutes for 5k, and probably 40 percent get under 16 minutes. So few are willing to get in the consistent work over many months or years. So I agree with you, it's the work and not the talent.

Most high school students who are willing to run 70mpw have above average talent. If you are in the bottom 1/3 of your 7th grade PE class in a mile run, you are not likely to train hard for the next 5-6 years for distance running. Every once in a while, a below average talent tries very hard, either because they like running or because they are even worse in other sports. Those are the 10% who cannot run under 17 min by the end of their high school. And this 10% ratio goes up way higher if more kids with below average talent try to train hard.

First 16 flat 5k is much better than a 5 minute mile.

Second if you have ever spent time around a high school cross country team and paid attention to the slower runners you would see that they are constantly dealing with injuries. It is not fault of coaches. Many high school kids cannot handle even 20 mile weeks.

I have been around XC teams my entire life. The fastest kids on our team are injured more than the slow kids who never seem to get injured.

Nobody who sucks at running is going to devote their life to it. We cant show you the strava profiles because they dont exist. Thats like saying I am going to sink many thousands of hours and dollars of my life into learning how to be a mediocre artist when I don't enjoy it. Give up hoss, talent matters and the people who dont have it usually quit.

and btw over 30% of americans are obese (more are just overweight) so that 5% number you threw around is wayyy off.

Lots of people who suck at running dedicate their lives to it, just search #MarathonMoms on instagram.

You really believe a 16 could be run by the average young male? Did you run in HS? A 16 5K would be equivalent to being a better than average HS baseball player. So if every kid practiced enough, he would start on the HS baseball team? At my HS the baseball players were far better athletes than the average male student. I loved baseball but I wouldn't have had a prayer of making the team no matter how much I practiced.

Just because it is conditioning sport doesn't mean everyone that trains hard is going to make the top 7 of the XC team.

And there's a big difference between a 16 5K and a five minute mile.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

First 16 flat 5k is much better than a 5 minute mile.

Agreed, so let's split the difference. The revised statement would be, "If optimally trained for his best event, almost any male can achieve a performance that will give him 575 points on the IAAF tables." Any of the following will be good enough for 575 points:

100m in 12.16

200m in 24.86

400m in 55.26

800m in 2:08

1500m in 4:26

Mile in 4:47

3000m in 9:34

2 mile in 10:18

5K in 16:25

10K in 35:02

HM in 1:17

Marathon in 2:48

Still completely doable provided that he starts serious training in his early teens.

IAAF table reference:

You arent special wrote:

Nobody who sucks at running is going to devote their life to it. We cant show you the strava profiles because they dont exist. Thats like saying I am going to sink many thousands of hours and dollars of my life into learning how to be a mediocre artist when I don't enjoy it. Give up hoss, talent matters and the people who dont have it usually quit.

Which is a complete shame since your times as an untrained kid or pre-teen have virtually no correlation to your times as a well-trained adult. People mature at different rates and respond differently to the same types of training. The kid you beat at age 12 may be kicking your ass at age 20 even if both of you have the same coaches, do the same workouts, and lead similar lifestyles. I've experienced and come across this (and the reverse situation) too many times to count.

High School Coach wrote:

My team had 20 guys do that and none broke 16 minutes for 5k. Only 20 kids broke 16 minutes in the entire state.

There's still a lot of improvement left from age 18 onward. Many lifelong runners don't even reach their peak until age 25+.

In middle school I ran a 5:30 in PE which was the fastest in the class. I watched the other heat and saw normal sized kids huffing, puffing and redfaced struggle to run 7:00 minute pace. You believe that with serious training they could run 5:10 pace for 5K someday? I was as untrained as they were, so why didn't I go on to run 13:00?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

In middle school I ran a 5:30 in PE which was the fastest in the class. I watched the other heat and saw normal sized kids huffing, puffing and redfaced struggle to run 7:00 minute pace. You believe that with serious training they could run 5:10 pace for 5K someday? I was as untrained as they were, so why didn't I go on to run 13:00?

Different people have different responses to training and mature at different rates. I was one of those 7 min/milers in middle school. Have I run 5:10 pace for 5K? Not yet, but I'm less than 10" per mile off, and the 5K isn't even my best event.