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

Xoman wrote:

I'm getting tired of people claiming that above average talent is necessary for the majority (95%+) of young male runners to hit times like 16 flat or 5 min mile in their life.

Me and many others claim that a totally average guy could hit those times by training hard (and smart!) enough for a period of several (5-7+) years.

If you are so sure it requires talent, and you know cases that train perfectly, do high mileage with decent workouts and training plan/coaching, don't cut on sleep and eat decently, show me cases where someone did all of these things and plateau'd at 17 min, 18 min, 5:30 mile, 2:50 marathon or whatever.

Show me Strava profiles, preferably of many years of training where someone still doesn't run these times and considers talent to be the only reason he couldn't get further. Or the so called "non-responders" as some of you said.

Don't use the 5 % of people that are either super overweight, disabled, etc.

GL, I'd be very surprised if you can actually back up your claim with real people.

By Request wrote:

Xoman wrote:

I'm getting tired of people claiming that above average talent is necessary for the majority (95%+) of young male runners to hit times like 16 flat or 5 min mile in their life.

Me and many others claim that a totally average guy could hit those times by training hard (and smart!) enough for a period of several (5-7+) years.

If you are so sure it requires talent, and you know cases that train perfectly, do high mileage with decent workouts and training plan/coaching, don't cut on sleep and eat decently, show me cases where someone did all of these things and plateau'd at 17 min, 18 min, 5:30 mile, 2:50 marathon or whatever.

Show me Strava profiles, preferably of many years of training where someone still doesn't run these times and considers talent to be the only reason he couldn't get further. Or the so called "non-responders" as some of you said.

Don't use the 5 % of people that are either super overweight, disabled, etc.

GL, I'd be very surprised if you can actually back up your claim with real people.

Your age and PRs please.

By Request wrote:

Xoman wrote:

I'm getting tired of people claiming that above average talent is necessary for the majority (95%+) of young male runners to hit times like 16 flat or 5 min mile in their life.

Me and many others claim that a totally average guy could hit those times by training hard (and smart!) enough for a period of several (5-7+) years.

If you are so sure it requires talent, and you know cases that train perfectly, do high mileage with decent workouts and training plan/coaching, don't cut on sleep and eat decently, show me cases where someone did all of these things and plateau'd at 17 min, 18 min, 5:30 mile, 2:50 marathon or whatever.

Show me Strava profiles, preferably of many years of training where someone still doesn't run these times and considers talent to be the only reason he couldn't get further. Or the so called "non-responders" as some of you said.

Don't use the 5 % of people that are either super overweight, disabled, etc.

GL, I'd be very surprised if you can actually back up your claim with real people.

Your age and PRs please.

Selection bias wrote:

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.

Xoman wrote:

I'm getting tired of people claiming that above average talent is necessary for the majority (95%+) of young male runners to hit times like 16 flat or 5 min mile in their life.

Me and many others claim that a totally average guy could hit those times by training hard (and smart!) enough for a period of several (5-7+) years.

If you are so sure it requires talent, and you know cases that train perfectly, do high mileage with decent workouts and training plan/coaching, don't cut on sleep and eat decently, show me cases where someone did all of these things and plateau'd at 17 min, 18 min, 5:30 mile, 2:50 marathon or whatever.

Show me Strava profiles, preferably of many years of training where someone still doesn't run these times and considers talent to be the only reason he couldn't get further. Or the so called "non-responders" as some of you said.

Don't use the 5 % of people that are either super overweight, disabled, etc.

GL, I'd be very surprised if you can actually back up your claim with real people.

since we're throwing at stats wrote:

Xoman wrote:

I'm getting tired of people claiming that above average talent is necessary for the majority (95%+) of young male runners to hit times like 16 flat or 5 min mile in their life.

Me and many others claim that a totally average guy could hit those times by training hard (and smart!) enough for a period of several (5-7+) years.

If you are so sure it requires talent, and you know cases that train perfectly, do high mileage with decent workouts and training plan/coaching, don't cut on sleep and eat decently, show me cases where someone did all of these things and plateau'd at 17 min, 18 min, 5:30 mile, 2:50 marathon or whatever.

Show me Strava profiles, preferably of many years of training where someone still doesn't run these times and considers talent to be the only reason he couldn't get further. Or the so called "non-responders" as some of you said.

Don't use the 5 % of people that are either super overweight, disabled, etc.

GL, I'd be very surprised if you can actually back up your claim with real people.

Only ran 40+ mpw 5 times in my life, mostly always between 25-35 mpw..

19:12 5k PR..where does that fall?

Tommy UK wrote:

since we're throwing at stats wrote:

Only ran 40+ mpw 5 times in my life, mostly always between 25-35 mpw..

19:12 5k PR..where does that fall?

This is about the same as what I have achieved. Low 19s on consistant 30 mile weeks. I consider myself average to above average talent, probably about the 60th percentile or something. I exercise a lot, lift a few times a week, have a manual labpur job and run every night, I’m definitely fitter than every other male I know bar one or two who are very competitive athletes in their sports and spend hours each day training and I definitely feel like it comes easier to me than it does the majority of males. Even out of shape I can outrun a fair portion. If you can comfortably get under 20 on less than 40 mpw then I would consider you above average talent, obviously people where will laugh at that satememt because they don’t know anything other than their 5 minut miles. 16-17 is beast for a 5k, pro football players couldn’t even pull it off straigt out the bat and those guys are talented out of their arse. A lot of guys don’t realise that talent plays a massive part when you start dipping into holding 5 - 6 min/miles for a sustained period of time, not everyone’s body adapts well to endurance training. Engine size definitely matters and is the main limiter as to why the hardest workers don’t make it to national or elite levels.