So I might be making this bet with my brother where I have to run a 16:30 5k within 5 years. I wanted some opinions before I make it an official bet.

I'm 23, about 5'9" 160 lbs. In high school I played Soccer, Basketball and ran Track. I was pretty well known for my speed and had a lot of ego attached to it. I ran a 11.2 hand timed 100 meter my junior year. My senior year I suffered a groin/hamstring injury during basketball season and wasn't able to train fully to chase after the 10.8 100 meter school record. I was bummed but in reality I probably didn't have enough to break it. I had quick feet, but I was too white and didn't have a powerful enough stride to compete in the sprints at the state level. If I could go back I would've moved up in distance and tried to be a middle distance runner with a beastly kick.

I've been semi-active through my college years playing rec basketball and running some on my own. I've partied a lot and have smoked a lot of pot the last few years though. As a result I've lost a lot of my foot speed which makes me sad but oh well.

So ya that brings me to where I am now with the bet with my bro. He said he'd be amazed if I could run 16:30 5k within 5 years. The arrogant runner inside of me feels like this is doable. If I stay dedicated to a 5k training program I bet I could do it in 3 years but I'll take 5 just in case. Staying dedicated is easier said than done at this point with the habits I've developed but I'm looking to break out of them so this should be a good start.

I'm curious how fast can I expect my 5k time to drop? I ran like a 22:00 5k last summer after casually training for 2 months running 3-5 miles a few days a week. Pretty weak time I know, but it was my first 5k.

LOL

100m time will have nothing to do with 5k time.

22:00 is a LONG way away from 16:30.

16:30 is VERY fast.

5 years is a LONG time.

If you're actually willing to focus on this for a long period of time, any male should be able to do this with intense and often training. But **** that's a long-term goal haha.

You really think so? 16:30 is far from elite but its back to back to back 5:15s. I would not take this bet on unless you plan on running 40+ miles a week for a while and probably losing 10-15 lbs. There is also a lot of mental stuff going on when your running a 5k.

Don't be bummed. Most Ethiopian and Kenyan runners are also too white for the short distances.

Dude. Its five years. Of course that is "a while". wtf?

Yeah, what you said is basically what is necessary. Probably more like 60-70+ miles, though. With 5 years to train and 100% unwaivering compliance [obv the hard (impossible?) part], I definitely think the vast majority should be able to do it.

Yeah. I think its a trivial task for most people once you make the assumption that they're going to put in 2000+ hours. It'd be very rare for someone to fail given the amount of time on the track and not being 100% idiotic.

Sorry, but this is a pretty bad sign. While your 7 min/mile pace was definitely nothing to be embarrassed about--especially on such little training--my experience with people who have EVER been able to race a sub17 min 5K is that they would have been able to race better than a 22 minute 5K pretty much without warning (or training) at any point from when they were aged 15 to 40. And that you actually ran around for two months (even a little) before the 22 minute race makes it a bad sign. Trust me dude I don't think 22 is a crappy time (it's not), but 16:30 is just a completely different sport.

The rest of your post was pretty good but the above is really not true. Yeah if every human male was trapped in a thought experiment and hypothetically dedicated their lives to racing a 5K in 16:30, then a bunch more people would be able to do it. But "all males" are just not born with 16:30 in the cards, lol.

eh hard to say with such limited info, but if you start now and can't break either a 5:20 mile or an 18:30ish 5k within a year of dedicated training, then time to think about buying out.

...And of course the other big problem is that the chance you're going to go 3-5 years of hard training without a big setback (injury, overtraining, enthusiasm, random life crap) is basically zero.

What's the fastest mile you've ever ran in gym class or screwing around in track? If it's sub-5:00 then I'd say you definitely have a shot at this. If it's 5:00-5:20 then I'd say meh who knows. If it's 5:20-6:00 I'd say probably not but I hope you prove me wrong. And if it's over 6:00 then just eat a pint of ice cream right now and save yourself the shin splints.

No **** its a while. You nit pick phrases like a fool.

I was just getting at the fact that its very unlikely he has a real understanding of what the training would have to entail for someone who is not a gifted distance runner.

Most people can't handle 60-70mile weeks without significant risk of injury for sustained periods of time. I think the vast majority is also a pretty big overstatement. If you look at a lot of D3 college races a large portion of the field will be slower than 16:30 and they have been training "relatively" seriously for a decent amount of time.

Not setting a tarp here I'm just curious if you would say the same thing about dunking?

This would be one of those bets where it goes from 1000-1 odds against all the way up to an easy money sucker bet, all depending on how much cash was riding on it. If the bet was for $5, you wouldnt even come close. If it was for a billion dollars, youd make it easily.

QFT.......







Not!

if i had my way that post would be banworthy.

Bothered

Edit: I'm gonna go as far as saying you've overreacted there btw. Bit of banter never hurt anyone

None of this shows anything other than a deep misunderstanding of the issue. The idea most people can't handle 60-70 miles a week is completely ****ing 100% idiot talk. Quite literally anyone can handle that amount and more. The question that is left is how that level of work capacity in a specific medium can be built along with how fast they complete the mileage.

You post numerous things showing little to no understanding of exercise theory.

The D3 races are a poor indicator as that is club level. No money at stake. I doubt many even train semi-seriously year round. Let alone train consistently for 5 years.

No. The time frame for power development is shorter than for running.

The huge issue is putting in 5 years of training obviously. How many people who put in five years of training fail to achieve this mark? Not half-hearted noob training, but actual legitimate training to be the best they can be at running?

Ok now time for a serious post. IMO there's a massive difference between a 22:00 and a 16:30 5km, in as much as I don't think some people have it in them to be capable of the latter. Sure, most everyone could hit 22:00 if they trained enough but 16:30 is very very quick. Unless you're looking to take this running really seriously AND you're made for this stuff, I'd save yourself the hassle and just do it for fun or try to beat say 18:00 in a year.

Whatever you do, gl mate.

I think the real question is how many people would put in 5 years of real training?

+1 to everything Thremp just said.

The question here is NOT whether or not most people would put in the training. It's... GIVEN that they will put in the training, is this possible? The answer is yes, within 5 years, this is very, very possible.

I have a ton of friends who run D3. Most train more than semi-seriously year round but just happen to be not gifted with the skills necessary to be "good".

this guy isn't trying to train semi-seriously. he's planning to dedicate 5 years to it. no one is trying to figure out whether he has the mental capacity to do it. they're saying IF he has that mental capacity, does his body have the capabilities of enduring the stress and beating the time. mind and body are 2 diff things, we're assuming he has/can conquer the mind aspect.

I didn't want to do thissssss... anecdotal evidence time.

My running career:

Started as a legitimately fat kid sophomore year during the winter. NOT genetically gifted in any athletics, certainly not running. Never cared that much about track, was always focused on XC. This meant <semi-serious training during the winter, semi-serious training during the spring, and then serious training in the summer and fall. I got reasonably good every XC season, with a PR of 17:15 my senior year.

There were gifted kids on my team. One of them that springs to mind could run an 18:30 at almost any point, including during periods of heavy marijuana and alcohol usage and very little training. When I trained seriously for extended periods of time, though, I could beat him.

MAIN POINT: Long-distance running is a long-term thing. Put in the miles, and you get better. Yes, some people get better faster than others. But the genetic limits for long-distance running are set above 16:30 for (imo) almost all males and probably a large percentage of females, as well.

5 YEARS IS A LONG TIME.

I've never trained seriously for even a full year. In fact, I bet the amount of guys who have trained seriously for >2 consistent years is directly proportionate to the amount of guys who can run under 16:30.

lol Jaysickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Oly lifters don't use steroids.

3m of running track = work capacity training

Moar moar moar

"in a specific medium can be built along with how fast they complete the mileage."

Was referring to that point. Never said that running a 5k is the same as work capacity.

No. You said you trained work capacity by running for like 2 minutes spread across an entire day. Three minutes if you ran 2 400s. So much work being done.

3minutes on the track = I have definitely had more taxing work capacity days on the track than at meets with a 5mile tempo in the morning (sub 30) and intervals in the afternoon followed by a lift.