Can most (50% or more) of guys run a 5 minute mile?

escape artist wrote:

If any of you fools think that sub-5:00 is so "doable", by "anyone who isn't in a wheelchair", just look at the results of any decathlon, and see how many get under 4:37 hahahahahaha

Well training to throw the shot 60 feet and running a fast 1500 are not exactly compatible. Those guys COULD run significantly faster if they dropped some weight and trained for the event, but in general they are a far cry from your typical "distance runner" physique, so if they can run close to 5:00, seems like most people should be able to.

IMHO Mandingo is pretty much on the mark. Paul Osborn provided a nice link to the previous discussion, in which a poster named Stevsey actually resorted to hard data (imagine that). Stevsey's post excerpted below:

***********************************

Even amongst runners, sub 5 is a very small group, here is last year's 5th Ave Mile for comparison:

72 of the 2,464 finishers of the 2005, 5th Ave. Mile broke 5:00, including Toby Tanser at 4:57, in a downhill road mile in perfect weather. That's only 2.9% of a pretty selective running population. This does not include the elite groups where 31 of 33 (93.9%) men and women broke 5:00.

Time distribution:

-----------------

4:00-4:59 72 or 2.9%

5:00-5:59 553 or 22.4%

6:00-6:59 1,078 or 43.7%

7:00 + 831 or 33.7%

Sex/Age distribution:

Men – 1537 Women – 927 Total – 2464

Finishers by Age and Gender

Age Group Men Women Total

12 - 14 33 29 62

15 - 19 48 20 68

20 - 29 307 300 607

30 - 39 616 354 970

40 - 44 184 74 258

45 - 49 123 62 185

50 - 54 82 29 111

55 - 59 50 20 70

60 - 64 22 8 30

65 - 69 16 3 19

70 - 74 11 5 16

75 - 79 3 2 5

80 - 84 3 0 3

85 - 89 1 0 1

90 - 99 1 0 1

************************************

A few conjectures (I could very well be wrong):

a) This sample group of finishers is biased in the sense that these runners are not representative of the entire population. That is, they are self-selected and beneficiaries of survivorship bias. However, let's stipulate that their *origins* are representative (average).

b) If you include the elite athletes, then approximiately 4.12% of the runners broke 5:00. I.e. above the 95th percentile.

c) Assume for the sake of argument that NO woman in race broke 5 minutes, then only 6.6% percent of the men broke 5 minutes.

d) Guess what? The 95th percentile is approximately 2 standard deviations above the mean.

e) Tentative conclusion: Perhaps the ability to run a 5 minute mile is nowhere near as common as I used to believe, or would like to believe. Perhaps there is a physiological time window for aerobic training, like the neurological one for learning languages (i.e. much easier before age 10).

Let's say that my data are flawed, my assumptions unrealistic, my reasoning wrong. Still hard to bump the mark below 1 standard deviation, which would imply a cap of about 14% of the population. So my guesstimate is that only 5-14% of the current male population can break a 5 minute mile if sufficiently trained.

Maybe the figure goes up if you run to school everyday like the proverbial Kenyans. I don't know what the absolute human potentialities are. But the 5-14% figure seems to hold for the here and now in the good old USA.

THe other post that was very enlightening as well was the one that talked about a 60 mvo2 or Vdot needed to break 5. Since a fraction of 1% have that as an MVO2 the corresponding sub 5 ablility is around that level as well.

Even looking at something like the NYC marathon where a 60 vdot corresponds to a 2:43 marathon supporting your mile results that even amoung runners, sub 5 ability is relatively uncommon. Contrast that with the people WATCHING the marathon!

Bryan Clay is smaller than Paul McMullen, and his PR is 4:38 (=5:01). He runs 47 for the 400. If a world champion all-around athlete, who makes his F'n living off this can't pull it under "battle conditions", then Joe Blow has NO chance.

kartelite wrote:

escape artist wrote:

If any of you fools think that sub-5:00 is so "doable", by "anyone who isn't in a wheelchair", just look at the results of any decathlon, and see how many get under 4:37 hahahahahaha

Well training to throw the shot 60 feet and running a fast 1500 are not exactly compatible. Those guys COULD run significantly faster if they dropped some weight and trained for the event, but in general they are a far cry from your typical "distance runner" physique, so if they can run close to 5:00, seems like most people should be able to.

I concur with 5-14% being capable of 5:00 with proper training. 5% without major mental roadblocks, 14% assuming people are sufficiently motivated to overcome such obstacles.

Is that Clay's PR during a decathlon or his PR from an open 1500?

The 1500 in a decathlon is pretty much a survival event. You're bushed from the previous nine events and the order of finish is nearly set in stone (aside from a DNS or DNF the point spread will be very small in a deca. 1500). Guys aren't out there trying to run sub 60 quarters...they just want to get around the track 3 3/4 times without losing contact with the other runners.

If I were a betting man, I would say that a fresh Brian Clay could easily throw down a sub-5 mile.

As a female who runs regularly just under 5 min miles, with some kind of training (much faster with real solid training), I am going to weigh in on this. I often run with groups of men from a running store as part time work. I would wager that less than a handful out of maybe 100 that show up at any given time could beat me in the mile. And these are guys who are out there running.

Also, when I go to the local indoor track, which is usually packed with club runners, I would say that maybe 10% of the men in there could run under 5 minutes. And they are training.

So, I would say that, based on my experience with men who are actually training, less than 50% of them have the basic physiological tools to run under 5 minutes for the mile. Now, include all the people who aren't trying, many becuase they have even weaker physiological tools, making running absolutely miserable and so they don't even bother trying, and you are way below 50%.

The original question was more like:

"What percentage of people (guys), IF SUFFICIENTLY MOTIVATED AND PROPERLY TRAINED, could run a sub 5 mile at least once in their life"

NOT

"What percentage of people could run a sub 5 now?"

The answer to the first question is around 70-80%, while the answer to the second question is around 1-2% (maybe even less).

Back to basics wrote:

The original question was more like:

"What percentage of people (guys), IF SUFFICIENTLY MOTIVATED AND PROPERLY TRAINED, could run a sub 5 mile at least once in their life"

NOT

"What percentage of people could run a sub 5 now?"

The answer to the first question is around 70-80%, while the answer to the second question is around 1-2% (maybe even less).

Even in a sample of people who are properly motivated and trained; the various groups cited; the answer is nowhere near even 10% and those are the high end. Much less than 1% can and maybe 1% could. 70%; have you looked around lately? Even with training, look at who is in your gym? All the EPO in morroco couldn't make 10% of those guys break 5. Sub 5 is moving regardless of how many guys want to belittle it.

Mandingo wrote:

Much less than 1% can and maybe 1% could. 70%; have you looked around lately? Even with training, look at who is in your gym?

I meant "properly trained to be competitive", not "training just to finish". Most guys at the track, roads, or gym are running just to keep in shape, finish a race, or run for the social aspect of it. They are recreational joggers, not competitive racers.

Money talks wrote:

You don't need much (if any) talent for a sub 5. If a million dollar prize was offered to any American highschooler who breaks 5, I guarantee that our inflation rate will be higher than Germany's in the 1920s, since the only boys who couldn't claim the prize will be those in wheelchairs.

This is one of the most accurate posts on this thread. Think about it, a sub 5 mile is worth what, about a 4:38 1500? High school girls have run that time (4:38) for the 1600.

Some people are saying that the average guy, if given world-class equipment (altitude tents), training, and coaching throughout all his years of high school and college, would not be able to beat a top high school girl after being given a 100 meter head start?

I say BS.

I'm willing to bet Jordan Hasay could kick the crap out of 98% of a well trained population in response to the above comment, Also i have seen some collegiate wrestlers run the mile and maybe 1 out of 30 guys could go sub 5 on a nationally ranked D1 team, i realize that they are not training for a mile but they are in incredible aerobic shape and especially in the lower weight classes they are made of lean muscle mass and are not very bulky at all.

Some common cents wrote:

if it is possible for most guys to run a 5:00 mile if they were motivated and began training for it at an appropriate age.

it takes next to no talent to run a 5 minute mile. the assumptions in your question are (1) appropriate age, (2) motivated and (3) training.

given those three things (which it seems like half of the posters here are completely ignoring), i would bet two out of three males, at least, could run a 5 minute mile.

it's just not that fast people.

if nothing else, please stop posting anecdotes about 40 year old men. that's not the question.

To "Back to basics":

Let's think about what you just said.

Assume a normal curve for running ability in the population.

Assume that everyone is perfectly trained and motivated, etc.

If as you say 70-80% of all men could break 5 minutes under such conditions, then what in your opinion is the AVERAGE time for men?

Average denotes the 50th percentile, the mean, or mode. (They coincide under a normal curve.) To rephrase, what is the mile time that 50% of properly trained men can run? 4:50? 4:45? 4:30?

Evidence, please.

Not everyone is from Lake Wobegon.

If only 3% of well conditioned marines can break 6 minutes in boot camp, I would say 1 out of 100 probably can run a five minute mile. To say 10% of population can run 5 minutes is ridiculous!.

One of the few times I actually agree with Kaitainen.

I am going to go with 50%. What people do and what people could potentially do are two very VERY different things.

JEH wrote:

One of the few times I actually agree with Kaitainen.

I am going to go with 50%. What people do and what people could potentially do are two very VERY different things.

How do you reconcile this with 3% of marines in boot camp being able to break a SIX minute mile? Are 47% not trying? These are young, well trained men. For 50% overall to be feasible the marines would have to be at 90-95%.THink of all the guys you know. IN perfect conditions at the optimal age you think they could have or could break 5 min? THe road race mile results proved even amoung those trying it's a rare feat.

Mandingo wrote:

How do you reconcile this with 3% of marines in boot camp being able to break a SIX minute mile? Are 47% not trying? These are young, well trained men. For 50% overall to be feasible the marines would have to be at 90-95%.THink of all the guys you know. IN perfect conditions at the optimal age you think they could have or could break 5 min? THe road race mile results proved even amoung those trying it's a rare feat.

1) marines are not training to run a mile on the track;

2) marines are not wearing spikes and racing to break 5 minutes;

3) they are not all men;

4) they are not all young;

5) they did not start training at an optimal age;

6) they trained for maybe 6 weeks;

7) road races are rarely 1 mile;

8) road races are rarely limited to people below 25 or so, what i'd consider the limit of the optimal age to run a 5 minute mile;

9) road races rarely involve only runners training competitively;

10) (related to 7), even those road races who are training competitively rarely train to run a single mile on the track;

11) of all the guys i knew in high school - which is really the relevant question - the vast majority could have run a 5 minute mile if they ran track for all 4 years, had decent coaching, and had the motivation to train on weekends and over the summer (remember we are assuming motivated).

to suggest only 1 in 35 men could have ever run 4 consecutive 75 second quarter miles at any time in their lives is just silly.

the OP's question, at base, is this: what percentage of men are born with the talent to be able to run a 5 minute mile under ideal conditions? and your answer is 1 in 35? i'm sorry, that's just not realistic.

DUDE, again, you are answering a DIFFERENT question. You are answering what people DO, not what they COULD do. See the diff?

What incentive is there for as Marine to break 5 as opposed to 6? Even though they may be generally of good well-rounded fitness, do you really think that ANY of them are doing their absolute best in the run you're using as evidence (with years of good running training under the belt)? I don't think very many.

Same thing with the road race mile.

Give me an average Joe who will be disciplined/committed (devoid of other things that take away from the training, like the job, significant family commitments, etc) and within a few years he'll more likely than not break 5 if that is the goal. On average, he'll have the potential to do that.

Yes, I think 50% could have broken 5, but few would rather break 5 than to train for 2 days, much less what would be required. I guess I am only including physical ability in my definition of "talent". If you are including desire and motivation to run in your definition of "talent", then we're talking apples and oranges.

I'm a little offended... do you think I am not aware of what people actually do? Sheesh!