I once read that 40% of the population is “immune to exercise” and I suspect I’m one of the 0.40.
I’ve been a competitive distance runner for a decade. In that time I’ve watched maybe 100 people join track or cross country teams, and every one who stays on the team more than a month has shown clear improvement, at least at first.
I’ve also known many recreational runners, and there’s a big difference between a median runner on a cross country team and a median recreational runner of the same age and gender. In fact, of the fifty or so recreational runners I’ve talked to in some depth, and thousands I’ve seen at races, I have never met someone who trained themselves independently from the beginning and could beat me at 1500 meters. Meanwhile, I’ve known scores of people who could beat me at that distance, but they all ran on teams or had run on teams in the past.
In my experience, the slowest guys who joined the team and practiced every day would run a mile in about 5:30 after a year, with a median around 5:00, and 4:40 if they kept at it for a few years. For women it was about 7:00 at slowest, median 6:00 and around 5:30 for women who trained for some time. (Talented men and women run much faster; the times I cited are typical for moderately-athletic people. I ran 4:21 and never won anything big.)
Meanwhile, recreational runners I know tell me their bests are about 6:30 median for men and 8:00 for women. I haven’t collected solid data, but the divide is so sharp I’m convinced by personal experience that being on a track or cross country team makes you much faster. This in turn implies that everyone, or almost everyone, is trainable for distance running.
My experience applies mostly to men and women age 15 − 25, so I’m not sure if the same holds for older people. There is also the possibility that only fast people, or only trainable people, would stick around on the teams, but the teams I’ve been on made no cuts and were never top contenders, so the pressure was low. We sometimes had people come in forty pounds overweight and not able to run a mile, and still stick around for the entire season of training. They all improved to the point where they could run nonstop for an hour and run pretty fast for five minutes straight.
The practical advice is that hiring an athletic trainer or joining a team may lead to a significant improvement if you’re having trouble doing it on your own. This specifically applies to running. I don’t know about lifting weights, exercise machines, yoga, walking, etc.
In that time I’ve watched maybe 100 people join track or cross country teams, and every one who stays on the team more than a month has shown clear improvement, at least at first.
Are you suggesting that people join track teams because they have the capacity to improve at running? Maybe a third of those people had no prior experience with running and could not have known whether they would improve.
Or are you suggesting that people who don’t improve quit in less than a month? I can’t really answer that, except that it seems unlikely that all the people with no inborn ability to improve are also the people who will give up on something in less than a month.
The way it works in normal people seems to be that exercising regularly feels really awful at first, but after the first few times it doesn’t feel that bad (indeed, it starts releasing endorphins) and the person starts getting in shape.
Let’s imagine that it works like that for one segment of the population, but for another segment it never stops feeling awful and doesn’t have the same fitness effects. You’d see the exact same effect you note.
Obviously, what you say is evidence that regular running can make anyone more fit as long as they persist– but it’s not necessarily strong evidence.
Let’s imagine that it works like that for one segment of the population, but for another segment it never stops feeling awful and doesn’t have the same fitness effects.
I’m in a segment where it does have fitness effects, but never stops feeling awful. I was in the Army, and it was possible for me to meet the physical fitness standards, but even exercising strenuously every day during eight weeks of Basic Training never produced the exercise high that people speak of.
Are you sure you considered the selection effect (those likely to join a team have what unusual properties?) as well as further selection after joining from dropouts?
However, I can’t argue against your 6:30 recreational median. I trained for a half marathon for a few months and indeed got stuck at around a 6:10 mile (at 185lb).
No, I’m not sure how strong the selection effects are. In fact it’s seems certain that some selection effects exist, and I don’t know how to estimate them. But the signal is so strong that I didn’t think selection effects could explain all of it. It might be an interesting question to investigate. Presumably there are studies done on making out-of-shape people exercise. Military recruiting and training could also provide a lot of data.
I have less experience, but this matches what I saw and experienced in cross country exactly.
My starting point: couldn’t run a quarter mile. After a few years: 6:30 mile, didn’t have much trouble with a 12 mile run.
I basically would be extremely surprised if a serious exercise program didn’t improve performance. The only caveat is if we’re talking about someone who can’t run, due to bad knees or something. I’ve known people like that and I don’t know how to get around it safely.
I’ve been a competitive distance runner for a decade. In that time I’ve watched maybe 100 people join track or cross country teams, and every one who stays on the team more than a month has shown clear improvement, at least at first.
I’ve also known many recreational runners, and there’s a big difference between a median runner on a cross country team and a median recreational runner of the same age and gender. In fact, of the fifty or so recreational runners I’ve talked to in some depth, and thousands I’ve seen at races, I have never met someone who trained themselves independently from the beginning and could beat me at 1500 meters. Meanwhile, I’ve known scores of people who could beat me at that distance, but they all ran on teams or had run on teams in the past.
In my experience, the slowest guys who joined the team and practiced every day would run a mile in about 5:30 after a year, with a median around 5:00, and 4:40 if they kept at it for a few years. For women it was about 7:00 at slowest, median 6:00 and around 5:30 for women who trained for some time. (Talented men and women run much faster; the times I cited are typical for moderately-athletic people. I ran 4:21 and never won anything big.)
Meanwhile, recreational runners I know tell me their bests are about 6:30 median for men and 8:00 for women. I haven’t collected solid data, but the divide is so sharp I’m convinced by personal experience that being on a track or cross country team makes you much faster. This in turn implies that everyone, or almost everyone, is trainable for distance running.
My experience applies mostly to men and women age 15 − 25, so I’m not sure if the same holds for older people. There is also the possibility that only fast people, or only trainable people, would stick around on the teams, but the teams I’ve been on made no cuts and were never top contenders, so the pressure was low. We sometimes had people come in forty pounds overweight and not able to run a mile, and still stick around for the entire season of training. They all improved to the point where they could run nonstop for an hour and run pretty fast for five minutes straight.
The practical advice is that hiring an athletic trainer or joining a team may lead to a significant improvement if you’re having trouble doing it on your own. This specifically applies to running. I don’t know about lifting weights, exercise machines, yoga, walking, etc.
Okay, but which way does the causality run?
Are you suggesting that people join track teams because they have the capacity to improve at running? Maybe a third of those people had no prior experience with running and could not have known whether they would improve.
Or are you suggesting that people who don’t improve quit in less than a month? I can’t really answer that, except that it seems unlikely that all the people with no inborn ability to improve are also the people who will give up on something in less than a month.
The way it works in normal people seems to be that exercising regularly feels really awful at first, but after the first few times it doesn’t feel that bad (indeed, it starts releasing endorphins) and the person starts getting in shape.
Let’s imagine that it works like that for one segment of the population, but for another segment it never stops feeling awful and doesn’t have the same fitness effects. You’d see the exact same effect you note.
Obviously, what you say is evidence that regular running can make anyone more fit as long as they persist– but it’s not necessarily strong evidence.
I’m in a segment where it does have fitness effects, but never stops feeling awful. I was in the Army, and it was possible for me to meet the physical fitness standards, but even exercising strenuously every day during eight weeks of Basic Training never produced the exercise high that people speak of.
This is addressed in the parent’s next-to-last paragraph (which may have been a late edit, for all that I know).
Are you sure you considered the selection effect (those likely to join a team have what unusual properties?) as well as further selection after joining from dropouts?
However, I can’t argue against your 6:30 recreational median. I trained for a half marathon for a few months and indeed got stuck at around a 6:10 mile (at 185lb).
No, I’m not sure how strong the selection effects are. In fact it’s seems certain that some selection effects exist, and I don’t know how to estimate them. But the signal is so strong that I didn’t think selection effects could explain all of it. It might be an interesting question to investigate. Presumably there are studies done on making out-of-shape people exercise. Military recruiting and training could also provide a lot of data.
I have less experience, but this matches what I saw and experienced in cross country exactly.
My starting point: couldn’t run a quarter mile. After a few years: 6:30 mile, didn’t have much trouble with a 12 mile run.
I basically would be extremely surprised if a serious exercise program didn’t improve performance. The only caveat is if we’re talking about someone who can’t run, due to bad knees or something. I’ve known people like that and I don’t know how to get around it safely.