Why is this website so out of touch how hard it is for most normal people to run?

It doesn't take any talent to run a 7:00 mile. I know because I have no talent. I didn't run in HS or college and smoked and drank heavily in my 20s. I started running in 2003 at 31. I could run a 7:00 mile with a year of consistent running. I was embarrassed to enter a race and when I finally did I ran a 1:39 half. I then realized how fat and lazy most runners are. I'm almost 48 and can run sub 6:00 mile. My last 5K was 19:37. I don't think LRC is for talented or fast people. Its for people that have enough determination to try and not be a fat lazy piece of crap.

Ummm, if you ran 14:12 for 2 miles, how was a subsequent 7:30 mile a PR???????????????

It’s your parents’ fault. As they say.. “you must choose your parents wisely”

Ummm I’m assuming your observation is only of Americans... the average person is certainly not obese, actually far from it. Here in the U.S we have the privilege of suffering from diseases of affluence

Lol guess Americans are soo sedentary these days that they have overcome the evolution of the past thousands of years in just a few hundred. Who says they can’t? All people have at least average athletic genetics. Remember that most of us are average; few are very unathletic or elite. That’s why we implement a bell curve. Most Americans these days are just extremely unhealthy.

ah. I see. You should check out the HERITAGE study— they took some people, put them on a training plan for a couple weeks, and measured their progress afterwords. There essentially are four types: Low baseline Low responder (the average unlucky Joe); High baseline, low responder (Paula Radcliffe; started with something like a 75 VO2 Max at age 17); Low baseline, high responder (Jim Ryun; very average when he first started but catapulted running a 4:26 off of very little training in his very first year); and High baseline, high responder (most elites). Basically you’re a very low responder, AND started with a low baseline VO2. Doomed.

nope wrote:

ah. I see. You should check out the HERITAGE study— they took some people, put them on a training plan for a couple weeks, and measured their progress afterwords. There essentially are four types: Low baseline Low responder (the average unlucky Joe); High baseline, low responder (Paula Radcliffe; started with something like a 75 VO2 Max at age 17); Low baseline, high responder (Jim Ryun; very average when he first started but catapulted running a 4:26 off of very little training in his very first year); and High baseline, high responder (most elites). Basically you’re a very low responder, AND started with a low baseline VO2. Doomed.

I wish I was born with better parents

Brah. Lots of elitist white peoples of liberal privilege here. Sorry for your experience so far. The owners of this site actually do a great job! Hang out and hang on. The Biden Bois will eventually forget and go away.

david45 wrote:

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

It terrifies me since there is a small chance this guy isn't a troll and actually thinks his watch is measuring his VO2. The ideas that. you just believe a number cause it comes from a computer is just nuts.

I said it was an estimate

No. You said the estimate was accurate. It isn't unless you think having like a 20-30% margin of error is accurate.

0/10 To be credible you should have said 6:00. Nobody is going to buy 7:00. My little sister can run faster than that.

david45 wrote:

People here think the average person should be able to run a mile in under 7 minutes, yet I never could run a mile in under 9 minutes in high school PE even though we ran 15 minutes everyday. Why is this place so out of touch?

What? It took you two years to break 6:30 mile? I have only been training for four months, and I am very close to breaking 6:30.

whaaaaaat wrote:

0/10

To be credible you should have said 6:00. Nobody is going to buy 7:00. My little sister can run faster than that.

david45 wrote:

People here think the average person should be able to run a mile in under 7 minutes, yet I never could run a mile in under 9 minutes in high school PE even though we ran 15 minutes everyday. Why is this place so out of touch?

Gz on your sister being fit. We used to do a so-called "cooper test" in HS when we were 18 years old. It was on the track, during 12 minutes to run as many laps as possible.

I reached 5.25 laps (2100m), and was second last. Many people in the 2100-2300m area. My performance was equivalent to a 9-min all-out mile. Few years ago, when I was slightly more physically active (3h sports/week in school instead of 1h/week) I ran 2900m (7.25 laps) as 13-year old.

I think in my early 20s, when I was my unfittest/most sedentry, my level was around 1800m in the 12 minute test, ~10:30 all-out mile with some walking.

Now with training, I would run something like 3800m, 9.5 laps. Average people CAN run a sub 7 mile (I even say sub 5 for guys, sub 6 for females) but they are NEVER NEVER NEVER going to be in that shape. Even the recreational runners jogging few times a week will not be close to their potential. Real average is 8-10 min/mile all-out, with training it could be got down to 5-6 min/mile.

If Canova can get runners with high baseline ability/talent from a 33 min 10k to a 27:30, anyone with a 60-75 min 10k can be got to a 33 min or something. Training/aerobic activity is king when it comes to develop performance in aerobic events.

Lol I wrote that out of order...

I ran 7:30 during base, and then the 2 mile TT

nope wrote:

ah. I see. You should check out the HERITAGE study— they took some people, put them on a training plan for a couple weeks, and measured their progress afterwords. There essentially are four types: Low baseline Low responder (the average unlucky Joe); High baseline, low responder (Paula Radcliffe; started with something like a 75 VO2 Max at age 17); Low baseline, high responder (Jim Ryun; very average when he first started but catapulted running a 4:26 off of very little training in his very first year); and High baseline, high responder (most elites). Basically you’re a very low responder, AND started with a low baseline VO2. Doomed.

Jim Ryun ran 4:07 in the mile his very first year. Not 4:26.

kw1954 wrote:

As my handle indicates, I am 66 years young.

I was a HS star (9:12 for 2 miles when tracks were cinder and uphill on both sides)

A decent big school D1 varsity foot soldier.

A good open runner and a very good master's runner.

Now I'm old and slow. I mostly walk with occasional jogging breaks (as opposed to running with occasional walking breaks).

50 years of hard running destroyed my running legs.

But I am happy and healthy and comfortable and content in my own skin.

Thanks for asking.

Be well!

Thanks! Great background. When did you notice the drop-off as a Masters? I was an average competitive runner most of my life ( low-15 5k) with lots of injuries. I had a good spell as a Masters and ran high-15 5k in my mid-40's. I'm 50 now and can run in the 16's still for 5k but my mileage has gotten a lot slower and more difficult to complete.

I think it depends on if you were doing long distance or short distance. It also really depends on how much your run.

who cares how fast your little sis is I have run more than a 8 min. mile and have won a 5k 3 years in row, plus i have foot injuring 2 of those two times it's about stregth and how long your planning to run.

I meant his first mile race of that season. He improved dramatically several times.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

david45 wrote:

I said it was an estimate

No. You said the estimate was accurate. It isn't unless you think having like a 20-30% margin of error is accurate.

“Taken as a whole, the studies suggest that the Garmin methodology can give you a VO2 max estimate within about 5 percent of your true value.”

“The high degree of accuracy found in their study remains consistent with other larger scientific studies“

You’re wrong, dude. Now lay off.