How Fast Can A Hobby Runner Run?

Sam Cai wrote:

So because you can do it everybody else can?

No, I'm saying if a talented guy can do it in one year, someone without talent can do it in 5 years of really good, consistent training and a super untalented one can do it in 7-9 years. 16:xx 5k does NOT require talent. A 16:xx 5k untrained requires a LOT of talent, a 16:xx 5k with 1 year training some talent, a 16:xx 5k with 7 years of training almost anyone can do - that's how good our body's (and brain's) capacity to adapt to stress over time is. There are no "non-responders", just people doing the wrong type of training for their physiology and muscle fiber composition.

I'm an example with above average talent, but look at the poster above me - even with training his 400/800 pb are only 62 and 2:16, extremely low talent for running, but hard work over 5-7 years got him in the 16:00/34:00 range.

Untalented people are the those who can’t break 6 in the mile with 5 years of training, not the ones who are running 16s for 5k with 5 years of training. Average VO2 levels are 40 ml/kg for most men and can improve by 20% with consistant training. Don’t argue with me on that, argue with scientific studies. And also in the grand scheme of things, 62 and 2:16 are not slow and are much, much faster than most physcally fit men run. Maybe not in high school track where all the naturally built-for-athletics kids conjugate but truly average people who try hard for a few years usually don’t compare even fully trained.

I too, have been in the army like OP. I have seen the same gus be dripping with sweat every day for months so it isn’t like they don’t try or are undertrained. Lots of guys in training run for an hour each day (probably about 35 mpw), are at a good weight and find it a bloody good workout to run 7-8 minute miles for an hour or some 400s at sub 6 pace. Most were capable of 400 times in the 1:00 to 1:10 range all out, maybe between 2:30 and 2:45 in an 800 and a mile in probably around 6.

I know the paces we all used to run at were roughly around that. And these people I am referring to are considered very, very fit men by everybody’s standards except you people here. We did quite a lot of running. Men in the army have much more testosterone, physical strength and drive than the average person and thus are more talented.

I have met runners of all abilities - old, young, male and female and 90% of them would be sweating after one 8 minute mile (I’m guessing all of the “non-talented” people here wouldn’t even be at 100bpm at that pace though). Even these young men running a 5:59 mile all out are easily in the top quartile of running talent. A 16 minute 5k guy is easily in the top 0.01% - many, many professional athletes from other sports that require well above average aerobic ability such as soccer wouldn’t even be able to hit those times and don’t you dare tell me those fit, young, explosive me aren’t trained.

My mile PR is 5:09 and my 5k is 17:35 and I am by far the most talented runner in my town. I run 60 miles each week.

Anyway, OP, whether you can or can’t do it will be half up to you and half up to your body. You run a 20 minute 5k and you are fairly trained already, however you are not optimally trained. I would nevr tell you that you couldn’t run 16:59 eventually but I will say that it probably isn’t happening any time soon and you will probably have to split hairs with your diet and dedicate your existence to running to get there. Whether that is worth it to you, only you can say.

Getting a VO2 max test is a pointless waste of money unless you are very, very highly trained athlete. I think you could break 19 with Some consistant work at 40-45 miles per week, your base definitely isn’t as strong as it could be. I would wager it may take you a further 8 months to get there.

After you get to 18:59, you really need to start looking at whether you have the speed to get much faster. Your 200m to 800m times will dictate this. If you can only run a 2:30 800m, you have absolutely no chance of getting much faster because you will have maxed out your endurance for your speed level and you will have to work on strength, explosiveless and activate your nervous system to run at faster paces (between 15 and 18 miles per hour).

However, if you run a 2:05 800m, you definitely have the capacity to get much faster over 6 times the distance with continued endurance work.

The reason I mention 200m speed is because it works like this: your 5000m potential is limited by your 800m speed, and your 800m speed is limited by your 200m speed (basic speed).

Speed is somewhat dependant on genetics however I do think that you will probably be talented enough to get around a 2:15 800m without a world of trouble so if you spend some time working on speed and speed endurance and then you continue to build your base to 60 miles per week that in a couple of years you perhaps could run in the region of 17:20 and 18:00. After that, you would have to be at a very modified weight and you would have to alter your lifestyle completely to favor your running.

1) You are probably not the most "talented" runner in your town, just the best trained/fastest one! Your times are the result of good training and trying to become faster, doesn't have anything to do with talent. Your times are above average, but that's because the average person doesn't optimize their running times.

2) People in the army don't optimize running performance. They are super fit, true, in my opinion they are "fitter" or "healthier" than most faster runners. They do (hard!) strength training, lots of functional training, other sports, all of this takes away from running. When I was lifting heavily I couldn't run well, cos I would spend 2-3 days completely sure just training to absorb the weight session. Since I dropped lifting my running times massively improved. Not many are a superman and can be in the army, combine many sports with top, muscular (strong!) physique. I'd also say a strong, balanced, muscular guy with a 6 min mile is much more useful in the army than a skinny, optimized distance runner running a 4:20 mile.

3) Just because people aren't fast, doesn't mean they can't be. They are NOT optimizing running performance, they don't dedicate half of their life to it. There are SOOO many little things that would lead to improvements, like quitting alcohol, getting more sleep, stretching, "moderate" strength training (not nothing, but also not too much) and a have drive to get faster. 90% of people don't run, and out of the 10% that do only a few % really try to become the best they can be - often, this is much, MUCH better than the level they are at.

And again at OP, just believe in yourself, follow your road, do lots of consistent training, do all the little thing and I'm 100% sure you will run the times you aim for.

I'm also inclined towards LateRunnerPhil opinion that almost any male runner that starts to train before age 35 can achieve 16:xx with consistent training taken into consideration that the weight is also brought down to around 20 BMI.

Sub-16 doesn't require natural speed, it's all up to endurance training and endurance training in it's simplest form equals function of time. So you can either do lots and lots of mileage or train smarter and work on quality (i.e. economy, threshold, hills). If you are willing to invest big time and go for both mileage and quality than no doubt you will be able to run 16:xx.

qw wrote:

Sub-16 doesn't require natural speed

*correction -- I meant sub-17. Mistyped on phone keyboard

You act as though people in the army are 200lb bodybuilders, some of them prpbably were about that weight but most of the guys I trained with actually mainly focused on cardio work and probably only had about 10 or 15lbs of muscle on your average 140lb runner here. I am not saying we didn’t do lifting but most of us were really “built”. Most guys focused on getting slim, strong and ripped.

Also, at the local Harrier’s club there are guys running quite similar mileage as me who are putting out times in the 18:00 to 20:00 range. I have always thought of myself as talented, I was one of the most athleticampgst my peers in terms of both sprinting and outlasting people in physical activities.

*weren’t really built

Sorry to confuse anyone.

By the way, I am in no way saying “most people really can’t run fast times” but my experiences in life and being around a diverse ramge of people who have all tried to reach their potential in some way or another, I find it unlikely that a completely average lerson is going to get as fast as the times that are being thrown around. I think a lot of people here underestimate how ridiculously hard getting a sub 5 mile equivalent is to a normal person. Lots of guys training hard throughout school and college struggle to do it or conpletely kill themselves and get very get close and miss the mark.

I say go for it. Do your best and try a scheduled plan. You'll get faster for sure. Improving over 3 minutes will be very hard. For reference, in residency when I had almost no time to train and weighed 165 I ran a 19:45...on like 10 miles a week.

After residency I picked it up and run 60 to 70 a week. Averaging this for a few years and breaking 17:00 is no joke for me. Most the time I can't do it...just depends where I'm at in my training cycle.

I think you should do some time trials at lower distances, 200m and 800m. This will give you an indication of how good you could potentially get and also how much your endurance drop off will need work.

If your 800m time is more than 5x your 200m time (say you run 200m in 0:30, your 800m should be no slower than 2:30) then your speed endurance is what is limiting you in races. This applies to the 5k. If your 800m is 4.75 x your 200m, then your endurance is optimal and speed is the limiter.

Sam Cai wrote:

*weren’t really built

Sorry to confuse anyone.

By the way, I am in no way saying “most people really can’t run fast times” but my experiences in life and being around a diverse ramge of people who have all tried to reach their potential in some way or another, I find it unlikely that a completely average lerson is going to get as fast as the times that are being thrown around. I think a lot of people here underestimate how ridiculously hard getting a sub 5 mile equivalent is to a normal person. Lots of guys training hard throughout school and college struggle to do it or conpletely kill themselves and get very get close and miss the mark.

Just wanted to let you know I agree with everything you’ve said

People on let’s run are delusional. There are so many kids who train their butts off for a 5:05 mile and end up injured from poor running mechanics. There’s a kid on my D3 XC team who grinds out 70 mpw over the summer and runs barely under 30 minutes for an 8k. Bottom line is he’s just not that talented. All of these stories of 30-40 yo who “got their times down” are STARTING at 20:00 for a 5k. For a sedentary individual, that is FAST. Clearly these individuals have talent, they just never utilized it. Millions of hobby joggers at local road races train regularly and cannot even run 20:00.

Short answer, probably not, but maybe, and no one on LetsRun can tell you definitely.

The previous poster is absolutely correct the people here are delusional. I can only assume because they have with the top 10% of runners they assume most everyone can do that with similar mileage/effort. I am reminded of a conversation with a guy on our D3 XC team. I was one of the slower runners and teammate a little faster than me told me that I just needed to try harder to run with him his races. I responded that he just needs to try harder to run with the top guys on the team. His response was "well they are really good!". It seems the attitude is very prevalent that anyone slower than me is lazy and anyone faster than me is talented.

Personal anecdotes are a single data point amongst the billions of people on this planet. But for what it's worth, multiple years consistent 50+ mpw and I could barely break 18:30. So clearly I don't have a lot of talent.

you are 32 you can duhhh

1. Build Aerobic base

2. Loose some fat weight

3.Increase milage to atleast 50 miles per week

Step 3 has to be 80% or more aerobic so really easy that way you wont injure yourself and will enjoy more.

After at least 5 months start adding more interesing stuff like intervals, but you have to build your aerobic base with a lot of easy jogging, you don't a base right now its all sugar burning at high effort probably carryng a lot of fat. ITS POSSIBLE.

Sam, you are terrified that if the OP can do it then you must not be talented. Your edge over local runners is not talent. It is 60 mpw. Not many “local” runners do that. It gives you a big edge in the turkey trot. Track and cross country runners in high school in the US are usually not good athletes. Certainly they weren’t at my school. In my experience, the best athletes tend to go more for football, basketball, and baseball. Military men aren’t particularly talented either — they just train more than other people. Talented athletes will probably be playing sports in college, not enrolling in the military.

OP, you can definitely do it, but it may take a few years of dedicated, injury-free training. I am focused on the marathon but have run times similar to your goals on Daniel’s vo2max charts at the marathon and half marathon distances (a little slower though). This came after about 1.5 years of solid training starting with 3 miles per day taking it easy on every run and working my way up to 70mpw with a variety of distances and workouts. I’m still improving.

I have evidence that I have no talent. Never ran track or cross country in high school, but I was always one of the slowest guys on the soccer team.

Sub-17 5K, sub-35 10K, sub-80 half and sub-245 marathon may be mediocre for someone who has been running in HS/colledge but they make you the top of the hobbyjogger world giving perks like usually coming first at parkruns, getting sub-elite entry to Tokyo Marathon, etc.

Apparently, not much non-professional people reach this level. On the other hand, being in this kind of shape myself I see quite a few of my peers. Some train harder, some train easier, but everyone trains consistently, at at least 50 mpw. Also, the guys who run their easy and long runs at paces that would probably make me drop dead tend to either underperform at races or be in their early 20s.

All in all it's my fir belief that it doesn't require any particular talent to run like this, but it does require consistent training over a period of several years, that's why most hobbyjoggers are slower: they either lack motivation or are unlucky and get impeded by injuries.

If you don't have any particular timeframe for your bet and like running, keep pushing. Make your hard days hard and easy days really easy. Increase your mileage gradually to the extent where any more running would hurt other priorities in your life. If you need more, throw out some of those other priorities. Take care to recover from inevitable light injuries so they don't develop into severe ones. And you have high chances of winning your bet.

Well Sam Cai, your town sounds like it has a severe lack of talent in it then.

Don't waste your gift card and your running career.

You have 3 or 4 decades of running ahead of you. I can't speak for shorter distances but I am sure you can improve quite a bit up to 10k and then start doing longer races or even ultra races if you want to. You might be surprised what are you capable off, if you just keep running.

I think LateRunnerPhil is under-estimating the talent needed to run 16:00. I was never a superstar (or even a star) , but in a town of well over 100,000 people, and at around seven or eight separate high-schools (baby boomer), was able to win the area x-country championship, and on the track the 3000m, and to represent the county (in England, more like the state) in the national x-country championships, which I also later did as a senior. I was also quick enough that I ran a time in the National Road Relays that was quick enough to make two-thirds of the top 60 teams in England that year (in an era where there was a lot more competitive depth than 30 years on).

Given that I was among the faster members of a cohort that actually trained, I would say that represented well above average talent. I did run well under 16:00 for 5k, but in my late 30s, and still able to run a mile in 4:30, I was running low 16s for 5k, still training hard and regularly. That was enough to frequently win road races on Long Island.

To say that virtually anyone (or any male) can run 16:00 for 5k with the right training is quite ridiculous. I don't know if it is low as Sam Cai's 0.01%, but I'd be very sure that it's not more than 2%.

It makes no sense to set arbitrary goals so far away from your current prs.

Set goals like breaking 20 knocking a minute off your 10km etc then set a new target.

It's all down to haw much talent you have and how much training you can handle without getting Injured.

Get steady mileage in without pushing the pace as a background to faster work