[twawaaay]

No, I just want to say that probably most of healthy people (well, at the very least men) can, with a bit of preparation, achieve the above mentioned result with no prior history of doing any serious sports. It would require some effort but it is doable in 6 months.

Why does everybody assume this is vanity?

[mdtusz]

The problem is that you said you're not athletic or not a conditioned athlete, then described exactly what it takes to become a conditioned athletic person - dedication to training and putting in the mileage.

Anyone that can run a half marathon every weekend and 30km+ during the week is almost by definition athletic. Yes, nearly anyone can achieve this with the dedication it takes, but that doesn't change the fact you're being overly humble about your own athleticism.

It's like someone saying "I'm not an engineer, and am not particularly good at math or physics, but I studied 3 days a week and got an engineering degree and now I work at an engineering firm and can solve most math and physics problems."

[notacoward]

The numbers simply don't agree with you. Instead of repeating myself, I'll just cite my other comment in this thread (including link to RunRepeat).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32900865

[jeltz]

That does not contradict with what he said. If you average 8 km per day I think most men and quite many women would be able to run a 45 minute 10k. You just need to be willing to put in that much hard work and not be obese.

[notacoward]

Both I and the person I was responding to cited numbers and you come back with "I think"? Really? Here are the results from the Peachtree Road Race, which is the largest 10K in the US. Only 1036/34877 (3%) of participants finished in under 45:00.

https://www.athlinks.com/event/115192/results/Event/1016777/...

Second largest is Dick's Sporting Goods Bolder Boulder: 1202/27997 (4%).

https://www.athlinks.com/event/6172/results/Event/1020677/Co...

Third largest is the Cooper River Bridge Run: 549/16053 (3%).

https://www.athlinks.com/event/9036/results/Event/1013345/Co...

Clearly, getting under 45:00 takes a lot more than just "hard work and not be obese" - some combination of youth, talent, and years of grinding it out harder even than most other runners. No, not 8km every day; that's a bit of a tell for lack of direct experience or expertise. I know only a handful of people - including myself but excluding many marathoners - who average even half that beyond a brief (month or two) pre-race training period, and all of us take days off. Any training guide will explain why. 45:00 for 10km is something that most people will never achieve, even with practice and even if they are considered very fit by any reasonable measure. FOr those who can do it, kudos, but let's not hold it up as a meaningful standard.

[jeltz]

But your numbers are largely irrelevant. Most people who sign up to races are not regular runners, and do not come close to averaging 8 km per day if you even run at all. If we instead look at a race for regular runners (but still amateurs) we will see vastly different numbers. Also not everyone in a race goes all out, some people run with a slower friend or just run to have fun.

Premiärmilen 2022: 610/1455 (42%)

https://registration.marathongruppen.se/ResultList.aspx?Lang...

Hässelbyloppet 2021 441/1001 (44%)

https://www.marathon.se/racetimer?v=/sv/race/show/4972%3Flay...

Höstrusket 10k 2021: 220/621 (35%)

https://www.marathon.se/racetimer?v=/sv/race/show/5011%3Flay...

Sorry for only citing Swedish races, but from my experience running many races and being a member of running clubs I can say that your 4% is misleading since in many races there are a lot of people who never run. In races where most people run (and many of those still run less than 8 km per day) I expect ~40% of the men to run under 45 minutes.

Edit: That said running 8 km per day is a lot and few people average that outside marathon training programs. Which is also why I doubt even most people running in the races above average close to that much.

[twawaaay]

And this matches my experience.

I once joined a 10k without much research. It was on the weekend I wanted to run fast 10k (at the time that was 50 minutes for me) and I decided I might want to run it with other people.

The detail I missed was the race was organised by a local sports school to commemorate 50 years of the school and the participants were mostly alumni.

I quickly found myself at the end of the pack and even though finished around 50 minute I was still mostly surrounded by 40 and 50 year olds, everybody younger or my age was far faster than I was.

[notacoward]

> Most people who sign up to races are not regular runners

[citation sorely needed]

Yes, some non-regular-runners sign up for a charity 5K, but as I already said that's much less true for a 10K. "Most" is a drastic overstatement.

> In races where most people run

i.e. where most people fit the definition of "well conditioned athlete"

> I expect ~40% of the men to run under 45 minutes

i.e. 45:00 is still below median. Even by your own shifty definitions, you're refuting your own point.

[twawaaay]

I think you might be looking wrong at how big an accomplishment it is to be in top 3 or 4% of random sample of people in a field where a lot of people do it recreationally.

All running events I took part look more or less like this -- there is a line of a dozen or two dozen "serious" people and then there is hundreds or thousands of people that are just doing it for fun.

If you put a random sample of drivers on a track, the person that is half percentile from the top result would still be an amateur with poor result by any possible standard.

Or, think in terms of Settlers of Catan. If you've red any strategy tutorial on how you should properly play it to win the game you are probably in the top 0.1% of players. Does it make you special? Does it make you a professional player? Most certainly not...

I think it is true for a lot of fields, including running, that if you are trying at all, putting any effort, you immediately jump to top percent or two of all participants.

[notacoward]

Why do you assume it's me who's looking at it wrong? Your own PR is "no big accomplishment" by your own standard, despite having worked hard to get it. Does that seem sensible to you? Would you not have taken offense if I had been the one to dismiss it with a hand-wave? You're not even being consistent here.

A lot of people will run a 5K recreationally, but that's much less true of a 10K. Just completing the distance puts them in a pretty high percentile relative to the general population. I know a lot of dedicated runners, people who have been running three to six times a week for years, who nonetheless have never run a 10K in under 45:00 and never will. Many of them have never even submitted an official time. They're not unfit. They're not obese. They're not doing it for fun, either. They're dedicated and often quite competitive; they're just not fast, and many of them couldn't be even with the utmost dedication.

That's why age-grading exists, and it's based on more science than you seem to know. Even elites lose alveolar density and joint flexibility as they age. That's why all of the world records are held by young people, who also dominate all of the top events. Believe it or not, being over 40 is a thing. It's a significant percentage of the population right there, never mind the younger folks who also range from the disabled through the genuinely lazy to those who are actually super-fit but specialize in other activities or just aren't hyper-competitive enough to devote their time to HIIT and other speed-specific training methods.

> the person that is half percentile from the top result would still be an amateur with poor result

That is simply not true, and it's strong evidence that it's you who lack perspective. Being within half a percentile of the top is an excellent result practically by definition. "Hanging with the elites" is a ridiculous cutoff. Even the person in the middle of the pack for any of those races I cited is a "well conditioned athlete" by any sane set of definitions. In any room of a hundred random people, they'd stand a good chance of being the fittest one there. Moving goalposts to exclude them seems a bit disingenous.

[sn9]

You're ignoring that he's talking about performance given a certain baseline training volume while you're talking about performance regardless of training history.

It's two very different populations.

This is like someone saying a reliable way of making six figures in the US is to study CS and become a developer and you're responding with the average income across the human population as evidence for why this isn't a good strategy.