I find it amusing that we discuss this very same topic once a month it seems. And they come out with these "studies" telling us the same thing over and over... Okay, we GET IT! We're fat and slow and old. Thanks for telling us, Mr Researcher, we wouldn't have known this without your good work.
My recent race results is all the evidence I need to support my declining abilities / profile! At least I'm not FAT, just old and slow.
Youth Has No Age. ~ Picasso / 1st road race: Charleston Distance Run 15 Miler - 1974 / profile
I haven't read through all the posts. I hope to eventually, but I'd like to toss out some numbers from the early 70s. Summarized from the 1971 Marathon Handbook published by Runner's World: There were about 2000 marathoners in 1970. Approximately 750 ran sub-3:00. Summarized from the 1972 Marathon Handbook published by Runner's World: Approximately 1000 ran sub-3:00 in 1971. I couldn't find figures for the number of marathoners but the number of marathons in the US increased from 73 to 102, so I'd estimate the number of marathoners about doubled since field sizes were also increasing. If so, that would still mean about 25% of marathoners ran sub-3:00. I believe the figure now is closer to 2-3%.
I haven't read through all the posts. I hope to eventually, but I'd like to toss out some numbers from the early 70s.
Summarized from the 1971 Marathon Handbook published by Runner's World:
There were about 2000 marathoners in 1970. Approximately 750 ran sub-3:00.
Summarized from the 1972 Marathon Handbook published by Runner's World:
Approximately 1000 ran sub-3:00 in 1971.
I couldn't find figures for the number of marathoners but the number of marathons in the US increased from 73 to 102, so I'd estimate the number of marathoners about doubled since field sizes were also increasing. If so, that would still mean about 25% of marathoners ran sub-3:00. I believe the figure now is closer to 2-3%.
There are about half a million marathon finishers in 2010. With 2-3% under 3:00, that's ~10,000-15,000 finishers faster than 3 hr. I'd say we have FAR MORE FASTER runners NOW than back in the 70's. Am I not right?
------------------------------------
Hey there,
Long time no see.
Hope everybody has been doing great (barring those on furlough :P).
#artbydmcbride
I have a theory
There are only a small number of fast runners in the population, say about 400. This was true in the 70s and is still true today...about 400.
There are more slow people running alongside those fast people now than there used to be.
Runners run
Hip Redux
I think we can all agree that runners have no clue when it comes to demography studies. I think most of this thread falls under the category of "wild ass guess". lol
Yep. Not body is getting slower (we actually have more faster runners). We just get more slower runners, on top of fast ones, joining in the sport.
I have a theory There are only a small number of fast runners in the population, say about 400. This was true in the 70s and is still true today...about 400. There are more slow people running alongside those fast people now than there used to be.
Are we there, yet?
There are about half a million marathon finishers in 2010. With 2-3% under 3:00, that's ~10,000-15,000 finishers faster than 3 hr. I'd say we have FAR MORE FASTER runners NOW than back in the 70's. Am I not right? ------------------------------------ Hey there, Long time no see. Hope everybody has been doing great (barring those on furlough :P).
More in terms of absolute numbers, but why isn't the number 10 times that since we have 100 times as many running?
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K, 9:11:09 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
I have personal experience demonstrating how amateur marathoners are slowing down over time. For each of my marathons, the second half is slower than the first half. Q.E.D.
Or to quote the esteemed Dr. Thomas Dolby: Science!
Dave
Some brain exercises some times are fun.
Demography studies is easy. You just need meaningful data.
But let's not bend so out of shape trying to find answers to satisfy imaginary questions, like a cat chasing its own tail, with no end.
There are only so many fast runners. I think every body agree with this statement. We'll get more faster runners as more people joining the sport. But there will be diminish return as the number of runners grows. I think we also all agree back in the 70s most of the races only saw faster runners. Nowadays, runners come from all walks of life.
Now the question seems to be that some people worry there're less fast runners "because of" more slow runners in the sport. That worry is not any where near the fact at all.
Our populations have grown in the last 40 years. My guess is that the % of very fast runners is about the same today as it was 40 years ago. But there are far more races than before, to accommodate the new, more amateur, running crowd. So each race today seems to produce a lesser % of very fast runner, because those runners are spread out over a greater number of races. Does it make sense, Sky? You've always been my scientific gal.
I think we're just repeating the same thing over and over, here.
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
Our populations have grown in the last 40 years. My guess is that the % of very fast runners is about the same today as it was 40 years ago. But there are far more races than before, to accommodate the new, more amateur, running crowd. So each race today seems to produce a lesser % of very fast runner, because those runners are spread out over a greater number of races. Does it make sense, Sky? You've always been my scientific gal. I think we're just repeating the same thing over and over, here.
If the percentage of fast runners in the population remain constant, then that should carry through to maintain the percentage in races as well. Absolute numbers would differ, but not the percentages. The data doesn't support this. Most of the comments here have referenced marathons, but I think they hold true at the other end of the spectrum for 5Ks as well. The differences seem more related to the level of training runners today are willing to do and the different reasons that draw people to running and the correspondingly different goals.
I agree with most what you said.
But we do have far more faster runners even if we take into account the population growth. Fast marathoners (assuming they are also more serious than slower runners) tend to be able to perform well only for 1-2 races a year. That has not changed since before the 70's. (I know you're exceptional, so is the Japanese marathoner Kawauchi. But you guys don't count .). (Forgot to finish my sentence) So the growth in the number of faster runners is real.
(EDIT: I completely agree with this assessment of wcrunner's)
It's harder to draw conclusion from the shorter distance data since unlike marathoners, runners may run from 0 to many dozen 5K races a year.
But if we do concern about the performance at the higher level, we always can pull out the state meet data, for example. That's where serious runners will go face challenge, right? Are the sate meet participants running slower than before? Are there less or more state meet participants?
I will ask my math teacher wife to draw some conclusions once and for all based on all the stats. Then once my popsicle headache wears off I will post that ASAP.
Smaller By The Day
It's all global warming, and if Al Gore is right, I'll win Boston in 2017. You can't argue with science.
Improvements
Weight 100 pounds lost
5K 31:02 Sept. 2012 / 23:36 Sept. 2013 (Same Course)
10K 48:59 April 2013
HM 2:03:56 Nov. 2012 / 1:46:50 March 2013
MARATHON 3:57:33 Nov. 2013