What talent? wrote:
Yes, the old " I could have but don't want to but you have to believe I could have".
Fine, so let's assume that I couldn't have gotten any faster no matter what kind of training I did. Still proves mine and the OP's point that no talent is required to run these types of performances. I didn't even run a sub 7 mile until my freshman year of HS.[/quote]
You mean less talent. No talent is when it takes dedication s before you can even run a continuous mile.
5 minute mile is the equivalent of benching 300lbs
Go on let’s see you skinny twigs with all your “average talent/genetics” try and bench 300 after a few years of “optimal” training
You're still wrong wrote:
What talent? wrote:
Yes, the old " I could have but don't want to but you have to believe I could have".
Fine, so let's assume that I couldn't have gotten any faster no matter what kind of training I did. Still proves mine and the OP's point that no talent is required to run these types of performances. I didn't even run a sub 7 mile until my freshman year of HS.
You mean less talent. No talent is when it takes dedication s before you can even run a continuous mile.[/quote]
Under that definition, almost every young male has talent. Running a continuous mile for a HS boy is only a matter of smart pacing and willingness to tolerate a slight bit of discomfort. The only reasons why they can't finish a mile without stopping is because they start the race as if it's a 400 and begin walking as soon as they start feeling tired.
The only possible exceptions would be the obese and the disabled, but even the obese can get to a healthy weight if they devoted their lives to running, and there are plenty of fast times in the Paralympics.
I know a HS kid who has wanted to break 16 for over two years now. He ran 40-50 mpw in 2017 and this past summer 2018 he was sustaining 60 mile weeks for at least 3 months. His times have fallen dramatically, but his 5k PR is still a hair over 18 minutes. The question is, I suppose, is he average or below average?
Obviously if he sticks with it another 3 years as OP suggests, he will likely improve. I would say though that given his mileage and workouts, he is not improving nearly as much as I would have thought. It is hard to imagine him getting under 16 minutes. His form is goofy af and I'm surprised he hasn't blown a knee out based on the way they bow when he runs. With any luck, he will continue to chase the dream and I can weigh back in with his results in another 3 years.
All this being said - I have not ran under 16 so perhaps my perspective is inadequate.
cheers
Everyone has talent wrote:
. Running a continuous mile for a HS boy is only a matter of smart pacing and willingness to tolerate a slight bit of discomfort. The only reasons why they can't finish a mile without stopping is because they start the race as if it's a 400 and begin walking as soon as they start feeling tired.
Smart pacing for them involves walking. Try again.
OP: " (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."
A: Good runners are attracted to running. Not all of them will hit 16 flat with good training.
B: What Naziregime would you like to apply for these guys to make it happen?
They will never do it. And even if you got Adolf Eichmann to build a camp for them
most could not hit 16 flat because of lack of talent and injuries.
easy to get confused wrote:
I know a HS kid who has wanted to break 16 for over two years now. He ran 40-50 mpw in 2017 and this past summer 2018 he was sustaining 60 mile weeks for at least 3 months. His times have fallen dramatically, but his 5k PR is still a hair over 18 minutes. The question is, I suppose, is he average or below average?
Obviously if he sticks with it another 3 years as OP suggests, he will likely improve. I would say though that given his mileage and workouts, he is not improving nearly as much as I would have thought. It is hard to imagine him getting under 16 minutes. His form is goofy af and I'm surprised he hasn't blown a knee out based on the way they bow when he runs. With any luck, he will continue to chase the dream and I can weigh back in with his results in another 3 years.
All this being said - I have not ran under 16 so perhaps my perspective is inadequate.
cheers
He might just be a fast twitch guy who should be a sprinter or at least a 400/800 guy. Bolt has talent and even he might not be able to run sub 16 if he trained for it.
The goofy form can be fixed, and in any case, it shouldn't be a big barrier to running a fast 5K. There are people who can racewalk a 5:30 mile.
easy to get confused wrote:
I know a HS kid who has wanted to break 16 for over two years now. He ran 40-50 mpw in 2017 and this past summer 2018 he was sustaining 60 mile weeks for at least 3 months. His times have fallen dramatically, but his 5k PR is still a hair over 18 minutes. The question is, I suppose, is he average or below average?
Obviously if he sticks with it another 3 years as OP suggests, he will likely improve. I would say though that given his mileage and workouts, he is not improving nearly as much as I would have thought. It is hard to imagine him getting under 16 minutes. His form is goofy af and I'm surprised he hasn't blown a knee out based on the way they bow when he runs.
You just identified the problem right there.
Fix it and he'll be a 16 minute guy.
Hitler applaudes wrote:
OP: " (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."
A: Good runners are attracted to running. Not all of them will hit 16 flat with good training.
B: What Naziregime would you like to apply for these guys to make it happen?
They will never do it. And even if you got Adolf Eichmann to build a camp for them
most could not hit 16 flat because of lack of talent and injuries.
A: Proof? Is there any young male you know who couldn't run 16 off of optimal training even though the 5K was his best event?
B: None. Starving overworked people don't make good runners.
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.
5-7 years?! What if a talented runner trained perfectly for 5-7 years?
Take all the runners in your study and have them race a 5k on NO training. Then give them all 5-7 years of training and see what happens. All you'll find is that there is baseline talent and 5-7 years of training will advance them proportionally. The guys who start at 18:00 will get down to 15:30-16:00 and the guys who start at 16:45 will get down into the 14:00's
A 5-minute mile and 16:00 minute 5k aren't good metrics for your talent argument because for the truly talented, they aren't difficult. For some they are not in the realm of physical talents.
Most people can never dunk a basketball, bench 300lbs, or throw a 95 mph fastball.
Physical limits, brah.
easy to get confused wrote:
I know a HS kid who has wanted to break 16 for over two years now. He ran 40-50 mpw in 2017 and this past summer 2018 he was sustaining 60 mile weeks for at least 3 months. His times have fallen dramatically, but his 5k PR is still a hair over 18 minutes. The question is, I suppose, is he average or below average?
Obviously if he sticks with it another 3 years as OP suggests, he will likely improve. I would say though that given his mileage and workouts, he is not improving nearly as much as I would have thought. It is hard to imagine him getting under 16 minutes. His form is goofy af and I'm surprised he hasn't blown a knee out based on the way they bow when he runs. With any luck, he will continue to chase the dream and I can weigh back in with his results in another 3 years.
All this being said - I have not ran under 16 so perhaps my perspective is inadequate.
cheers
Yes, my point exactly. Baseline talent matters so much.
My first ever XC race was 17:43 and I got it down to 15:57 on 25-30 mpw before i graduated high school.
Well duh... wrote:
easy to get confused wrote:
I know a HS kid who has wanted to break 16 for over two years now. He ran 40-50 mpw in 2017 and this past summer 2018 he was sustaining 60 mile weeks for at least 3 months. His times have fallen dramatically, but his 5k PR is still a hair over 18 minutes. The question is, I suppose, is he average or below average?
Obviously if he sticks with it another 3 years as OP suggests, he will likely improve. I would say though that given his mileage and workouts, he is not improving nearly as much as I would have thought. It is hard to imagine him getting under 16 minutes. His form is goofy af and I'm surprised he hasn't blown a knee out based on the way they bow when he runs.
You just identified the problem right there.
Fix it and he'll be a 16 minute guy.
Nope. Worth almost nothing as far as time goes. You think the World class guys with flailing form are 12 minute guys?
I think the people that can best answer the question are runners who really have no talent (or put another way, perhaps those right in the middle of the bell curve of talent).
I'll submit myself as a possible example. My 5K PR is 19:47, but I never trained specifically for it. So, I'll relate where I am now as a possible proxy.
At 56, I just ran 22:23 on a track on January 30. This was after a two-month break from running in the summer and starting again in August. Started doing workouts in mid-October (every fifth or sixth day) and running a little less than 50 miles per week.
Since I met my goal of 22:30 for 5K, I moved on to the 10K and am now training for a Half.
The most specific training I did for the 5K was 5 x .6mi (7:00 pace). I didn't do any kind of repetition pace training (so not sure how much that would help or what else might) but I feel as though I couldn't ever go much faster than the 22:23 I just did (maybe if I worked and worked at it I could maybe run 21:47, or 7:00 pace?).
As it is my 22:23 is about 18:00 age-graded, maybe 21:47 would be at best 17:30 I'd guess.
So, I'd submit somewhere between 17:30-18:00.
It's seems ridiculous to me to suggest runners with no talent can run 16:00...
I started a thread last year that asked what age-graded % could a runner with no talent reach?
One poster in particular suggested 75%, which I thought was the best answer.
What's the 5K world record - something like 12:39?
75% of that would be just under 17:00 - seems pretty close to the answer of what someone with no talent could run to me.
You have to be Physically STRONG to run 75% of what the best in the world can run.
Hopeless people with no talent would be closer to 60% age grade fully trained.
BLtheKid wrote:
I think the people that can best answer the question are runners who really have no talent (or put another way, perhaps those right in the middle of the bell curve of talent).
22:39 5K off of "half-assed training" to 3 mile tempo runs at 6:15/pace and a 4:59 mile on 30 MPW and half a year of training at age 34:
https://www.outsideonline.com/2167096/mission-barely-possibleBLtheKid wrote:
I started a thread last year that asked what age-graded % could a runner with no talent reach?
One poster in particular suggested 75%, which I thought was the best answer.
What's the 5K world record - something like 12:39?
75% of that would be just under 17:00 - seems pretty close to the answer of what someone with no talent could run to me.
The 75% figure also sounds right for the sprints. Average guy in HS tries the 100 and 200 in his late 20s and ends up with a wind legal, electronic time of 12.15 and 25.09 after 2 years:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8100711This has already been posted before wrote:
22:39 5K off of "half-assed training" to 3 mile tempo runs at 6:15/pace and a 4:59 mile on 30 MPW and half a year of training at age 34:
https://www.outsideonline.com/2167096/mission-barely-possible
Coincidentally - mile world record of 3:43...75% of that is about 4:58.
Jabb wrote:
You have to be Physically STRONG to run 75% of what the best in the world can run.
Hopeless people with no talent would be closer to 60% age grade fully trained.
We're talking an average able-bodied male, right? 60% would mean a runner doing 40-50 miles per week (and doing workouts) in his prime would only be able to run a 21:00 5K.
100m guy wrote:
The 75% figure also sounds right for the sprints. Average guy in HS tries the 100 and 200 in his late 20s and ends up with a wind legal, electronic time of 12.15 and 25.09 after 2 years:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8100711
75% for the marathon would be about 2:42. No way would I ever believe someone running faster than that has no talent. I think 75% is the ceiling and if anything it might be a little lower by a percent or two...