Climbing is all power to weight ratio. On the flats, the wind drag on a heavy rider does not correspond pound for pound to a skinny rider. A 200 pound rider does not have twice the wind resistance than a 100 lb rider, he has something less than twice. Aero position and power are key on flats.

So, what ... I wasn't arguing. But I see your point, you prefer dubious old information to current stuff. Brilliant.

Or you could read "Running with Legends" :)

Terry

---

"You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream" - Les Brown
"Discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishment" - Jim Rohn

Even if "any healthy male" under 40 lost weight down to 130-ish lbs, and actually could run 120 mi/wk, a 2:50 is still pretty much a long shot, since it implies running 6:30/mi for 26 straight miles. The "any" qualification is extremely broad so I would say 3:30, which is about 8:00/mi, might be a more reasonable expectation for "any healthy male under 40".

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I can say for sure 3:10 requires some talent.

As a pure runner i ran up to 100 mpw on pfizibgers plans followed to the t and never got under 3:11. Sure i could have done it on an easier course but im small and light and if it was that hard for me, im sure itll be harder and even impossible for bigger guys.

I got down from 4 to 3:20 very quickly and assumed id become at 2:50 guy based on that rapid warly progress. Suffice to say ruuuude awakening when i started going under 315 which im sure is near my genetic limit for the marathon as i was 85ish mpw for that.

I've never bought that.

260 miles of cycling corresponds to 260 miles of cycling. It has nothing to do with running. That's it. They're too different in too many ways.

Put a good runner on a bike and they'll probably suck. Put a good cyclist in a pair of flats and they'll probably suck. Specificity reigns supreme for the vast majority.

I'd say anyone under 50 with the right motivation and time could run sub 3:10. That isn't really very fast. I'd tend to agree that a 25yr old could get down to 2:30ish. Obviously would take good coaching and lots of time.

For 10k, I'd say the difference comes in the 32-33min range. Someone that works hard enough can get to 33min.

I can assure you you're def wrong on that. 32-33 min for a 10K? Are you kidding me? I've run 100+mpw at one point on a:xx, which was structured Pfitz program and the fastest I got was a 38:xx which was like rock star times for me (if I'm a pure runner doing 25-30mpw, I'm like a 45min guy, joe average.)

I had no shortage of motivation and effort when I was running that much - I literally could not run any more without overtraining, and there is no way in hell I would have sniffed a 32:xx. And at 38:xx 10k, I was fast enough to dump nearly everyone on all the group runs in LA by a fair margin and fast enough to consistently place in my AG in 10ks.

I think you're wayyyy overestimating genetic run potential. I honestly used to believe similar to you, but rude awakening from real hard training showed me it's def not true unless you have genetics.

I have friends who run 32:xx on very low mileage as pure runners, like 40mpw. It's genetic when you're getting to those paces.

How many days a week were you doing hard 800's or 1,000's on the track? People place too much emphasis on mpw and not enough on how fast they are running those miles. We're you training with a group that was faster than you?

I did the Pfitz Advanced Marathoning 70 and 70+mpw plans several times. It has 1 day a week of legit speedwork. Sure, it's not optimal 10k training, but I am 100% convinced that there is no way in heck that myself or joe average could sniff a 32min 10k.

Just look at local tris and see how many 34-35min 10k run legs occur in local races. Virtually zero. And there are some AGers training plenty hard for those times, functioning at 90+% of capacity. (I put myself in that category)

So I guess you'd say that "any guy" in HS or college, or under 30, could get down to 2:05 for the 800, or 4:34 for the mile??? These times are about 23.6% slower than the current WRs, which is what 32:30 10K is relative to the 10K WR of 26:17.5.

Sure, any healthy young guy can run a 4:34 mile, no problem if he wants it bad enough. My quote below means to me that anyone can be the person they want to be if they want it badly enough. This does NOT mean that anyone can be a 4:34 miler, much less a 3:45 miler.

Let me guess: you've run 32:xx and so you think any 20-something guy can do it.

You are really off the deep end here. Anyone has ever been a kid or who has watched kids playing can see that some kids are just faster, have more endurance, etc, etc, naturally and, when you start at a higher place, odds are you'll end up at a higher level. Genetics play a huge role at every level of athletic endeavor.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I side more with JCTri on this one.

When someone says they ran 100 mpw and couldn't crack 38, my first thought is that their training was completely wrong for them.

I don't think any random under 40 guy can train to go run a 33 min 10k, but I also don't think it's a genetic limitation that prevents it.

And by that I mean that if you took any random under 40/50/whatever year old guy at 10 years old and had them devote the next decade to running, then I would bet 90% of them could approach a 33 min 10k time.

It's not genetics so much as a lifestyle thing at that level. Now once we're talking sub 29/28/27, then yeah, genetics rule the roost, but 33 mins for a 10k? or 38 mins? No way I believe that a random healthy male is genetically limited to a 38 min 10k. Maybe you haven't made the lifestyle choices early on to currently allow you to train (or be able to handle the training) to break 38, but I don't for a second believe it's because you've maxed out your genetic potential.

And that's essentially what the excuse is. And to me, that's a non-excuse. If you're trying for the Olympic standards and coming up short, then yeah, chock it up to genetics. If you're running ridiculous mileage and can't even crack a time that'd win any semi-decent women's 10k, then change your training.

But your "higher level" isn't that high. 32 minutes is not a particularly high level. Take a fat 10 year old who can't run 10 steps without tripping over themself and (magically) give them the motivation, determination, and know-how to train and recover, and 32 mins should be a tempo run in 10 years time.

Running is a very natural human activity and 32 mins, while absurdly fast for the general population, isn't absurdly fast compared to the absurdly fast. I sincerely believe it's not genetics that are playing a role at that level.

Local triathletes are generally not very good runners. Especially coming off a hard 40k.

What exactly do you mean by "it's a lifestyle thing at that level"??? Also, I've never heard of a 10 yr old devoting his life to running; a 10 yr old swimmer sure but not a runner due to the whole bone development issue.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I mean it's not genetics that keep someone from running a 38 min 10k, it's your lifestyle. You don't train enough, you don't recover enough, you have family, work, hobbies, so on and so forth.

The point about the 10 year old is that you can condition their lifestyle and progressively build the training to such an extent to allow them to be able to train at a level to reach 32 mins later on. The point is that it's not genetics that keep people from running 32 mins.

EDIT: ah, I see that originally I was saying the lifestyle thing about the 32 min. Applies the same, just requires a longer lifestyle commitment, in my opinion. Meaning that a chunky pre-teen playing video games all day has far less of a chance of being a good athlete than a kid going out and running around all day. Sort of a given.

Yup, 33 min isn't that fast relative to human potential. I think you can take a 20yr old and train them to be a sub 33 runner. It'll be a huge amount of work on their part, but certainly possible. Take a few years to build up, won't happen in 6months obviously.

Sounds like you agree, anyone who wants it badly enough can run sub 33 or certainly sub 2:45 for a marathon.

Of course you need the motivation and opportunity. If you have a family and kids and work full time, chance are less that you could devote the time to training over a few year period.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you were doing 100mpw and couldn't break 38 or 3:11, something was lacking in your training. That is a huge weekly mileage, almost 15 miles per day. Sounds like you were just grinding out a moderate or slow pace mile after mile.

I'm a huge believer in fast running. Tempo runs with a good group. Track workouts with sub 3min/km pace. To run a sub 4min mile, you need to bang out sub 60 400's repeatedly. Same for the longer distances, you need to be really comfortable running shorter distances above race pace.

let's do some back of envelope calculation, shall we?

population wise, m/s in running ~ 1.05 x w/kg in cycling. To wit, world record in the half marathon is ~58 min or 21.5 kph or 5.97 m/s. Using the rule of thumb, this is 6.25 w/kg, pretty close to the known hour record of 6.4 w/kg.

So what is a 33 min 10k? This is about 5.05 m/s or 5.3 w/kg or perhaps 5.2 w/kg for an hour. Not spectacular, but definitely showing some genetic potential there. If you are on the heavier side of things (say 75-80 kg), this may be good enough to get you a pro (UCI-continental) contract.

Btw, 38 min 10k translates to around 4.6 w/kg for an hour. Most cyclists would never see this number no matter how hard they try, and I'd wager dollars to donuts that the probability of some random Joe breaking 38 min is less than the probability of him not breaking 38 min. Many people come here because of disposition to aerobic activity, and that's an innate self-selection bias of which you aren't aware.

Well, I guess I am going to have to provide some personal background here to illustrate my point. OK, I did not start running on any team or in any races until age 29, but I did start swimming at age 5 and swam age group all the way through high school and swam at a D3 college where anyone could swim on the team. I continued with masters swimming through my early 30s, then masters and triathlon since age 31. Despite having swum all those years, and even doing numerous extra practices on my own, my best time for the 400 meter free in a 50 meter pool (i.e., long course meters or LCM) was a 5:24. Given that the 400 LCM WR time is 3:40, this event is very close to comparison to the mile in running. So, my best time ever was about 47% slower than the WR. According to your theory, since a 32:30 10K is about 23.6% slower than WR, I should have been able to go around 4:32 for the 400 free LCM, especially since I started at age 5.

The 400 free was my best event and I have loved swimming ever since age 5. I trained absolutely as hard as I possibly could for over 20 years. I did work 40 hr/wk after college in my 20s but was not married, no kids, etc, and I swam with a masters group full of ex-D1 swimmers, so obv they were all faster than me. In sum, I think I did the very best I could, and I was nowhere near a time similar to a 32 min 10K.

Also, regarding running, I joined the Air Force Reserve at age 29 and we had our annual PT test every year, sometimes every 6 months. We only ran 1.5 miles but still it was a good every year benchmark. In my first 1.5 mile run at age 29, off purely my swim background, I ran 9:36. Throughout my 30s, still unmarried and no kids, I ran tons of intervals, tempo runs, etc, but the best I ever ran was 8:57, or 5:58/mi, way slower than the 5:14 pace for a 32:30 10K.

Now if I had quit swimming and had not also been cycling for triathlon, perhaps I could've gone faster, but not much.

In summary, swimming and triathlon have dominated my entire life (i.e., still unmarried and no kids), have been my top priority period after school/work, but I've never been able to achieve the levels that you say "any healthy male" can. However, I am absolutely who I want to be because I have laid it all on the line and trained as hard as I possibly could. I do have the hunger and the drive, just not the innate talent.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Echappist - I certainly agree with your conclusions but where did you get the m/sec ~ 1.05 x w/kg cycling??? Have never seen that one before???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I first read it when forumite RChung (big time aero guru) brought it up. He suggested a 1:1 correlation, though i happen to think 1.05 (cycling) to 1 (running). It holds up pretty well for durations over 3 min

Not sure i buy the equivalence to cycling and swimming times. My understanding of power is that a 10% increase in power doesn't equal a 10% increase in speed.

I think needmoreair described it well, is a sub 33 10k genetics? I don't think so, and certainly can't agree with 35+ min runners are limited by genetics.