A 2K anyone could hit?

[Egastelump]

This question is about how far can one get even with unfortunate genetics:

A- What is a 2K anyone can eventually hit?
Parameters:
Let's imagine a 20 to 30-year-old male in overall good health.
assume he's trained fairly informed the last 4 years averaging 15km a day.
For anything not mentioned assume he just has whatever your definition is of an above-average fitness lifestyle.
What's the worst 2K this person could have?

In other words: what is a 2K 95% of young healthy males can hit if they put years of consistency and dedication?

B- What do you think I'll eventually hit with 3-4 years of training?
I'm 27 6 feet tall was barely active in the last decade but came back in 2019 and have been training for almost a year, about 7000 meters a day (variety of workouts) went from 225 pounds to 195 pounds, from 7:45 to 7:15 2K. No need to say it, I'm frequently told I'm too slow for my height and age. I'm ramping it up I'm now averaging 10,000 meters a day and plan on averaging 15K a day during my second year and 20K during my third year. Can I realistically expect to hit 6:50 someday?

[Carl Watts]

Personally I think a Sub 7 for the 2K is the magic number that anyone can be happy with.

Sure for a few the goal is a Sub 6 but for the general population and 6 months of structured training the target should be any finish time starting with a 6. You don't need years of training, it took me 6 months training in my early 40's to hit 6:46 so if your only in your 20-30's it shouldn't be that hard to go under 7 minutes.

[Tandstad]

If you have a 7:15 now, sub 7 would definitely be achievable if you put in the time and effort.

But you are aiming at hitting 20k per day in your third year? Why such enormous volume? Is it only to do a fast 2k, or is there any other reasons? 600k per month, that is probably close to what some pros are doing. I know Cameron Buchan experimented with up towards 30k per day, but only for a shorter period.

If you vary your sessions with some intervals, some steady state and some faster pieces, 50-70k per week should get you quite far!

To answer your question, if someone was doing 15-20k per day in a well balanced training schedule, I would expect them to be aiming at something close to sub6 if 2k is the distance of choice.

[winniewinser]

This question is about how far can one get even with unfortunate genetics:

A- What is a 2K anyone can eventually hit?
Parameters:
Let's imagine a 20 to 30-year-old male in overall good health.
assume he's trained fairly informed the last 4 years averaging 15km a day.
For anything not mentioned assume he just has whatever your definition is of an above-average fitness lifestyle.
What's the worst 2K this person could have?

In other words: what is a 2K 95% of young healthy males can hit if they put years of consistency and dedication?

B- What do you think I'll eventually hit with 3-4 years of training?
I'm 27 6 feet tall was barely active in the last decade but came back in 2019 and have been training for almost a year, about 7000 meters a day (variety of workouts) went from 225 pounds to 195 pounds, from 7:45 to 7:15 2K. No need to say it, I'm frequently told I'm too slow for my height and age. I'm ramping it up I'm now averaging 10,000 meters a day and plan on averaging 15K a day during my second year and 20K during my third year. Can I realistically expect to hit 6:50 someday?

I think if you can go 7:15 then sub 7:00 is a definite target for you. You have youth on your side, the rest will come from training and hard graft.

Good luck

[hjs]

This question is about how far can one get even with unfortunate genetics:

A- What is a 2K anyone can eventually hit?
Parameters:
Let's imagine a 20 to 30-year-old male in overall good health.
assume he's trained fairly informed the last 4 years averaging 15km a day.
For anything not mentioned assume he just has whatever your definition is of an above-average fitness lifestyle.
What's the worst 2K this person could have?

In other words: what is a 2K 95% of young healthy males can hit if they put years of consistency and dedication?

B- What do you think I'll eventually hit with 3-4 years of training?
I'm 27 6 feet tall was barely active in the last decade but came back in 2019 and have been training for almost a year, about 7000 meters a day (variety of workouts) went from 225 pounds to 195 pounds, from 7:45 to 7:15 2K. No need to say it, I'm frequently told I'm too slow for my height and age. I'm ramping it up I'm now averaging 10,000 meters a day and plan on averaging 15K a day during my second year and 20K during my third year. Can I realistically expect to hit 6:50 someday?

Maybe, you don’t want to hear this, but why would invest so much effort (20k a day) at something you don’t the talent for. Not that you should not train or anything, but do that for your health.
There must be things, sports or otherwise, where you have much more genetic talent. Invest your time and effort in sonething like that.

Re possible 2k, think this very much depends. But I would guess 95% ish would be between 8min and 6min. Some faster, the ones with real talent and some unlucky ones with really no given talent slower.

[flatbread]

Maybe, you don’t want to hear this, but why would invest so much effort (20k a day) at something you don’t the talent for. Not that you should not train or anything, but do that for your health.
There must be things, sports or otherwise, where you have much more genetic talent. Invest your time and effort in sonething like that.

Re possible 2k, think this very much depends. But I would guess 95% ish would be between 8min and 6min. Some faster, the ones with real talent and some unlucky ones with really no given talent slower.

This catches my interest, on a number of levels.

First, I just love to train, for it's own sake. I've been a reasonably good cyclist over the years. Lots of watts/kg, but my broad shoulders give me poor aerodynamics, and my :05 and 1:00 power have always been poor, even when young. As a result, I only did well in races that turned into conditioning contests (races with 4-8 minute hills, or mountain finishes).

I started erg-ing in 2018 when I had a bad saddle sore that kept me off the bike, but I could sit just fine on an erg. I rowed a bit for July, then just a few times a week in August, then it became my main thing in September when I had a broken distal phalange that meant no bike, but with a splint and a relaxed grip I could row just fine. I didn't touch the erg from Oct 2018 until March of this year.

I've been using the erg as "calorie fill," erging for 10-20k five days a week. Instead of a three hour ride, ok, two hours on the bike, an hour on the erg later. When the school year starts up again in a few weeks, my training load will drop (summer is my time to "put kilometers in the bank"), so probably about 12-14 hours a week, with a 50-50 bike/erg split.

I'm enjoying trying to get better on the erg. But, with maybe just a year of bike racing left, is this all a fool's errand?

[hjs]

Maybe, you don’t want to hear this, but why would invest so much effort (20k a day) at something you don’t the talent for. Not that you should not train or anything, but do that for your health.
There must be things, sports or otherwise, where you have much more genetic talent. Invest your time and effort in sonething like that.

Re possible 2k, think this very much depends. But I would guess 95% ish would be between 8min and 6min. Some faster, the ones with real talent and some unlucky ones with really no given talent slower.

This catches my interest, on a number of levels.

First, I just love to train, for it's own sake. I've been a reasonably good cyclist over the years. Lots of watts/kg, but my broad shoulders give me poor aerodynamics, and my :05 and 1:00 power have always been poor, even when young. As a result, I only did well in races that turned into conditioning contests (races with 4-8 minute hills, or mountain finishes).

I started erg-ing in 2018 when I had a bad saddle sore that kept me off the bike, but I could sit just fine on an erg. I rowed a bit for July, then just a few times a week in August, then it became my main thing in September when I had a broken distal phalange that meant no bike, but with a splint and a relaxed grip I could row just fine. I didn't touch the erg from Oct 2018 until March of this year.

I've been using the erg as "calorie fill," erging for 10-20k five days a week. Instead of a three hour ride, ok, two hours on the bike, an hour on the erg later. When the school year starts up again in a few weeks, my training load will drop (summer is my time to "put kilometers in the bank"), so probably about 12-14 hours a week, with a 50-50 bike/erg split.

I'm enjoying trying to get better on the erg. But, with maybe just a year of bike racing left, is this all a fool's errand?

To each its own. Ofcourse if someone does something and finds pleasure in it, do so! But if you put a lot of effort in and expect big results while you can know that will not be the case..... don’t think thats wise.

For you and cycling, you have to answer that question yourself. Why do you it, what do you want to get out of it?

Cycling is very time consuming if you are serious. It it worth it for you? Or maybe it would be wise to put that effort is something else in your life. You certainly should train and try be be fit and healthy. But how much time is needed for that.

Just my 2 cents, but as a 50 something, I know life is short, so make the best of it. I mean that in the broadest sence. I give no advice, I just tell you to think about it and make a smart choises. Certainly when you young, a lot depends on what you do in the 20/30 bracket.

[lindsayh]

This question is about how far can one get even with unfortunate genetics:
A- What is a 2K anyone can eventually hit?
B- What do you think I'll eventually hit with 3-4 years of training?
Can I realistically expect to hit 6:50 someday?

Too many variables to be accurate IMO particularly around physiology and underlying athletic ability but a young healthy guy with training could certainly be sub 7 in a year. (FWIW I'm a relatively unathletic pretty fit but not particularly physically suited to erging kind of guy who got to 6:46 after about 4 years of good training in my 60s). If you are any good at this then sub 6:30 is not silly even if not super talented.
Good training though doesn't mean more meters and just volume is not the answer as is suggested above. 40-60ks a week is about as much as you need to do BUT it needs to be planned around 2k performance if that is what you want to achieve. If you go much longer then it becomes really hard to maintain both physically and mentally. You want to make it enjoyable and it has to be something you can sustain in the long term.
There is a lot of discussion around training plans on these threads built around long steady pieces, hard intervals, polarising and periodising your training. You also need to ensure that you have rest days programmed in as part of the plan to allow for the body to adapt to what you are doing.

[mitchel674]

Maybe, you don’t want to hear this, but why would invest so much effort (20k a day) at something you don’t the talent for. Not that you should not train or anything, but do that for your health.
There must be things, sports or otherwise, where you have much more genetic talent. Invest your time and effort in sonething like that.

Re possible 2k, think this very much depends. But I would guess 95% ish would be between 8min and 6min. Some faster, the ones with real talent and some unlucky ones with really no given talent slower.

Thought provoking post from Henry. It does seem like a lot of meters without a specific goal. If the 2k is your target, put together a plan to get you close to 7 minutes.

Don't think about where you stand compared with others. You have your current times. Perhaps you should just aim to keep getting a bit faster.

I'm a slow rower. I'll never be fast. But I enjoy rowing and I'm in the best shape of my life since I started 2 years ago. If you enjoy it, just continue on for the positive health benefits instead of viewing it as a competition.

[flatbread]

To each its own. Ofcourse if someone does something and finds pleasure in it, do so! But if you put a lot of effort in and expect big results while you can know that will not be the case..... don’t think thats wise.

For you and cycling, you have to answer that question yourself. Why do you it, what do you want to get out of it?

Cycling is very time consuming if you are serious. It it worth it for you? Or maybe it would be wise to put that effort is something else in your life. You certainly should train and try be be fit and healthy. But how much time is needed for that.

Just my 2 cents, but as a 50 something, I know life is short, so make the best of it. I mean that in the broadest sence. I give no advice, I just tell you to think about it and make a smart choises. Certainly when you young, a lot depends on what you do in the 20/30 bracket.

For context, I've been racing bicycles since 1980. My best days are long gone (In my twenties I just good enough to be in the elites), but putting in the time on the bike is just something I love to do. We never had kids, my putting the km in has always been within the context of doing other things with my wife. I've kept up doing veteran races, but it's starting to look like the time to give it a rest.

Fit and heathly. I think the troublesome question for the middle-aged former "pretty good but not excellent and certainly not great" is how fit? Fit and healthy are two very different things. If I were to try and hang on to every last ml of my VO2 (last year at 71kg I was just hanging on to 70ml/kg/min), the training commitment would not be worth it. Who cares if you're 55 and can still do 90% of what you did when you were 25? Do you really have to be that fit? On the other hand, you have to do what makes you happy.

I'm a better poet than I ever was a bike racer. Yet, I can't make myself read or write for 3 or 4 hours in a single day. I get bored. I can break a sweat all day long and enjoy every minute. To be human is to be a bundle of contradictions.

Thanks for the insights, Henry. All worthy of time and reflection.

[hjs]

For context, I've been racing bicycles since 1980. My best days are long gone (In my twenties I just good enough to be in the elites), but putting in the time on the bike is just something I love to do. We never had kids, my putting the km in has always been within the context of doing other things with my wife. I've kept up doing veteran races, but it's starting to look like the time to give it a rest.

Fit and heathly. I think the troublesome question for the middle-aged former "pretty good but not excellent and certainly not great" is how fit? Fit and healthy are two very different things. If I were to try and hang on to every last ml of my VO2 (last year at 71kg I was just hanging on to 70ml/kg/min), the training commitment would not be worth it. Who cares if you're 55 and can still do 90% of what you did when you were 25? Do you really have to be that fit? On the other hand, you have to do what makes you happy.

I'm a better poet than I ever was a bike racer. Yet, I can't make myself read or write for 3 or 4 hours in a single day. I get bored. I can break a sweat all day long and enjoy every minute. To be human is to be a bundle of contradictions.

Thanks for the insights, Henry. All worthy of time and reflection.

Cheers, Its indeed just my thoughts, maybe usefull for some... but nothing more.

I never thought sports is healthy. Sports is pushing yourself to close to the best you can. We all know that to reach 80/90% not that much time is needed. Those last 10% take a lot more. For health reasons that 80/90% would be plenty.