In "running your best" Ron Daws pegged average talent for 10k at 32:05 for males and 35:25 for females if properly trained and didn't need to be "a running zombie" to do that.
In "running your best" Ron Daws pegged average talent for 10k at 32:05 for males and 35:25 for females if properly trained and didn't need to be "a running zombie" to do that.
OBE wrote:
could be........ wrote:
43 minutes - male
51 minutes- female
You really think that if people trained starting from age 14, and beginning at age 17, they averaged 80 miles per week with workout 2-3 per week the average male would run 43 min?
Y’all are overstating your own talent. It takes 0 talent to run a 6 min mile.
Part of 'talent' is the ability to run 80 miles a week without breaking down. Given that a lot of local 5ks are won in 17:30 or slower, presumably by at least some athletic people doing some training, you are not seeing the average guy run 35 as some have suggested.
Free_the_thigh wrote:
RyecorDone wrote:
I agree. 37 is about right. It is around the 70th percentile for 30 year olds. Any faster, he would have to be non- average physically. Your description of training vigilance or dedication already spells "above average" in training.., so 70th percentile could be reachable.
37 mins is not 70th percentile. It’s a 70% age grade, which is not the same.
37 mins is just shy of 99th percentile.
Honestly, I’d be shocked if the average was even 50 mins.
Based on this table, which merely extrapolates from world records in the age bracket. The table assumes that the runner has trained for the race distance. If you drop down to the 50% level, an average 30 year old runner's results, with average piss poor training, is given. But we're talkin about someone who really puts in the work. So I allowed him some advanced achievement: 70%.
http://misweb.cbi.msstate.edu/~rpearson/tables/mendist/men10k30.htmlold fart not the real one wrote:
In "running your best" Ron Daws pegged average talent for 10k at 32:05 for males and 35:25 for females if properly trained and didn't need to be "a running zombie" to do that.
He is wrong simple as that.
Galen rupp, with arguably the most ideal training improved from a 9:08 3K in grade 9 to a pb 3K of 7:30.
Which is equivalent of a 33 min 10k to a 27 min 10k.
So under perfect conditions someone can expect to improve their 10k by 6 mins or 20 or so precent.
Go to any high school track meet (and even disregarding that the below average kids self select out) and tell me how many grade 9s you see running times which are equivalent to a sub 40 10k
RyecorDone wrote:
Free_the_thigh wrote:
37 mins is not 70th percentile. It’s a 70% age grade, which is not the same.
37 mins is just shy of 99th percentile.
Honestly, I’d be shocked if the average was even 50 mins.
Based on this table, which merely extrapolates from world records in the age bracket. The table assumes that the runner has trained for the race distance. If you drop down to the 50% level, an average 30 year old runner's results, with average piss poor training, is given. But we're talkin about someone who really puts in the work. So I allowed him some advanced achievement: 70%.
http://misweb.cbi.msstate.edu/~rpearson/tables/mendist/men10k30.html
Ya that’s age grade results, not the same as percentile.
I posted a percentile calculator
That seems a bit more realistic that people saying high 30s/low 40s. Any 14 year old that is groomed for years with the goal of running a fast 10k would be able to hit mid or even low 30s in the scenario given. OP didn't give an age either, so figure the best coaches/nutrition/everything else for 20 years..... the kid is now 34 years old and has been training like a professional athlete for 20 years and people think he would still barely run sub 40?
Human morphology plays a huge role in this. Your height, weight, and bone structure are key factors. An average east African is much different than an average western African person. The west Africans tend to be much more robust , which explains their success in sprint events. Most world class sprinters are of west African descent. (Jamaicans , and North Americans included) it all comes down to your body structure. Secondary is your heart and lungs. Third is your training methods.
Averages are annoying to say the least, and have little meaning. Having said this. I would put the average male at 35 minutes, and the average female at 39 minutes.
Because they aren't even thinking out the scenario. Fact of the matter is that 35 is not fast at all. They are clouded by seeing all these horrible race times. Back in the 70s and 80s plenty of guys rocked 90-100 miles a week and ran 2:20s and 2:30s. The amount of people running those times was greater than now. Probably too many distractions now. If all we had was 3 tv channels and no internet there'd be all the time in the world for training.
Probably around 35 minutes.
lol at people guessing in the 40s wrote:
Probably around 33 minutes.
Fixed my mistake.
lol at people guessing in the 40s wrote:
lol at people guessing in the 40s wrote:
Probably around 33 minutes.
Fixed my mistake.
That - average man running 33 min for 10k - I think is a huge over-estimate. In England in the 70s (I'm about the same age as Coe and Ovett), I won area schools championships (all schools, not sorted by numbers) at track and x-country, and ran for the county (state equivalent) in national x-country championships at school, junior and senior age. I trained consistently since early teens and raced for a competitive track club.
I subsequently came over here (US), and was able to win a lot of local 5ks, and have placed in USATF Masters Championships several times.
I've got a couple of state age records for 10k (in my mid-50s).
My best 10k on the road was 32:20, although I did age grade a high 31:00.
My case would be that I was not elite, nor sub-elite, but probably in the next level of 'quite good' area runners, and had to work hard to run a mid 32:00, you're 'average' that is median between fastest and slowest runners if all men were trained isn't going to be 33 minutes (about 5:20 per mile). I've known basically fit, not overweight, people who trained every day, who were working to break 6 minutes for a mile. I'd be surprised that the median average would even be as fast a 7:00, so maybe just over 43 minutes.
These threads are always the same. People overestimating average talent by a wide margin.
A few have already touched on it, but a true average Joe can’t handle more than about 30 miles a week without injury, and even less if it’s higher intensity. Optimal training, coaching and diet is irrelevant, an average Joe falls apart quickly at higher mileage. A guy with a perfectly average 14 year old gym class mile time who starts training and builds up to 130 mile weeks is not average. He is someone lacking one aspect of talent and truly blessed in another.
So the real question is what can you eventually get out of a healthy 14 year old who runs an all out 8:10 mile in gym class and can never run more than 30 miles a week with minimal speed work?
Think of your high school gym class. We had about 30 kids and I am guessing that if we all trained well 5 would be under 34. 5 would be between 34-36. 5 would be between 36-40. 5 would be between 40-45. 5 would be 46-50. Last 5 would average 55. Average time would be about 45 minutes. Median about 40 minutes. Boys today grow up spending more times playing video games than sports so the desire to do the training and daily focus may mean the average boy today is even slower than what I think my high school gym class would have been 35 years ago.
The problem is most “average “ people couldn’t handle the workload without getting injured.
I would say upper 30s at best. I don’t have natural speed but can run those times. I just don’t have the turnover for anything faster than high 17/36
I know I also couldn’t handle that mileage over the years.
Cavorty wrote:
Part of 'talent' is the ability to run 80 miles a week without breaking down. Given that a lot of local 5ks are won in 17:30 or slower, presumably by at least some athletic people doing some training, you are not seeing the average guy run 35 as some have suggested.
+1
May as well make a thread asking what the 'average' American male assuming he had a V02 max of 80 could run the 10K in.
Probably 25% slower than the wr. So around 32mins for the average male that dedicates his life to running. If every man had to run most would be running 30-34mins.
nub wrote:
Probably 25% slower than the wr. So around 32mins for the average male that dedicates his life to running. If every man had to run most would be running 30-34mins.
If the kid who ran 8:00 in middle school can train to run 32:00, shouldn't the average for the ones that ran 5:00 be 28:00 or faster?
Betting that most people on this site have self selected running because they were good at it and they have dedicated years to training. Yet I believe that most have not run 32 minutes. Most 10k road races are not won in 32 minutes. Some of you are completely out of touch. What percentage of the population can dunk if they dedicate their life to doing it? That makes as much sense. The average male could get nowhere near 40 minutes.
sparky polastry wrote:
A few have already touched on it, but a true average Joe can’t handle more than about 30 miles a week without injury, and even less if it’s higher intensity. Optimal training, coaching and diet is irrelevant, an average Joe falls apart quickly at higher mileage. A guy with a perfectly average 14 year old gym class mile time who starts training and builds up to 130 mile weeks is not average. He is someone lacking one aspect of talent and truly blessed in another.
So the real question is what can you eventually get out of a healthy 14 year old who runs an all out 8:10 mile in gym class and can never run more than 30 miles a week with minimal speed work?
With 14 years to build up, I think you will find that most people will be able to handle 70+ mpw and of the ones that don't you will be able to get enough fitness off things like biking, swiming, alterG and so on.
Realistically everyone is making stuff up. Nobody really knows what optimal training is or how much faster they would be with a different system (i.e. if I trained like the ingebretsens for 10 years instead of a more daniels approach would I be 60s faster over 10k?). I really doubt the number is sub 30 (i.e. tons of talented kids train pretty well for 8+ years and don't come close) and would be a surprised if it is over 40 mins. But I am not sure I would want to get a whole lot more specific than that.