Average times are slower and it's time to "restore speed"

The answer is obvious - stricter doping controls have increased the average finishing times at your local 5k.

who cares?

average times of millions of racers? I don't see what me going out and doing speedwork is going to accomplish?

I find this very bizarre

Man, the HM sure does seem to attract the much slower runners, relatively.

Read it again, this time with a sense of humor.

The ironmen have really gone downhill 

Those average times still seem low, relatively.

I am not a statistician, but I think a layman can figure out that this is a function of increased participation, with a vast group of larger, slower, people fially getting out there. The more experienced people may be, and if this site is indicative, probably are, getting faster. But like a pyramid scheme, there are many more of the slower of us. The course record for the NYC marathon may have dropped, but I guarantee the average finish time has gone up. 

In fact, my 5k time is so slow, that the change between 2009 and 2012 can probably be single-handedly attributed to my entry into racing in 2011. I can blow out a curve with my average speed alone. 

I better get training since I helped drop the National average.  I feel so ashamed.  Sorry, everyone.

That figure can't be right. I mean, the HM does have a lot of slow people, as it's a goal distance without the commitment or fitness needs of a marathon. Heck, I'm doing my fourth one this year, and that time in in my neighborhood. 

BUT I know all about a 3:30 HM. There are fewer than 5% of us left on the course after 3:10-3:15. Maybe 2% after 3:30. No WAY that 3:30 is a HM average. 

Has to be a typo, or a clue to the article being sarcasm/satire/joke, or something, but it's subtle, so I am not sure. 

I was thinking the same thing. How can the average time be 3:30 and the average Marathon be 4:30? All the other times seem to make sense (10K twice as much as 5K, IM twice as much as HIM) but the HM and Marathon are way off. I know the HM is growing in popularity, but you would think even with a huge number of new runners it would still be closer to half the marathon time.

I know that's not why Trishie posted this, but I thought it was interesting. As far as trying to "speed" people up, I have no idea why Athlinks posted that.

To make matters more interesting, the HM sample size actually went down, according to the email.

The HM is long enough to break ya, especially when untrained, but short enough to attract lots of people to it.

There is also the possibility that they included "walker" times, perhaps?

I observe average HM times to be about 2 hours as well.  Most of the rest don't seem too far off.

Over the past years, I think the dramatic increase in the ratio of female to male athletes has resulted in a shift of average times.

Whoa, this could get good.

At 16 min/mi average, someone is walking.

At 16 min/mi average, someone is walking.

"alarming"?   Did they really use the term "alarming" to describe average run times???

That's funny