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

Sub 5 is ridiculously fast to the average joe. The first time we met for a class, we were told to introduce ourselves and name one random talent we have. I told them I could run a mile in less than 5 minutes, and I got responses like "Daaaaamn", "Holy cow!", and "Were you on steroids when you did that?".

If all of those guys trained their butts off for a few years, I doubt that more than a quarter of them would get sub 5.

Runningart2004 wrote:

I think a lot of the pro argument is coming from people with an athletic background...basketball players, hockey players, soccer players, etc. Of course you're going to have a better chance at running a 5:00 mile. You are already athletic. Most people in the world are not. There are people out there who train their entire life, put in 50, 60, 70 mile weeks...and can't break 4 hours in the marathon (9min pace) or can't break 3 hours in the marathon (7min pace). It's not due to a lack of trying.

Alan

I agree. Not only are most not, the VAST majority of people are not. Any of you out there who can run 2 miles even in under 12 minutes are vastly superior to the masses. Average people just don't have it in them to run a 5 minute mile.

Be average wrote:

Sub 5 is ridiculously fast to the average joe. The first time we met for a class, we were told to introduce ourselves and name one random talent we have. I told them I could run a mile in less than 5 minutes, and I got responses like "Daaaaamn", "Holy cow!", and "Were you on steroids when you did that?".

If all of those guys trained their butts off for a few years, I doubt that more than a quarter of them would get sub 5.

Oops, I forgot to mention that one of the responses was "Are you training for the Olympics?". To them, a sub 5 seems about as unreachable as a sub 4.

JEH wrote:

200! You know the drill Wejo... been a little disappointed with the speed of service as of late.

As to the topic, I will act as the review committee. It's been determined that A Journalist got at least 5/6 correct.

Yes JEH, but which question did he get wrong? We KNOW it's got to be the one where he said I was full of myself. I'm too awesome for that to be true.

Keep in mind that not all people have the required muscle composition for a sub 5. You could make an argument that half of all properly trained guys could run the EQUIVALENT of a sub 5 mile (12.5 100m, 2:15 800, or 17 min 5K). This way, the guys with more fast-twitch fibers would train for the 12.5 100, while the slow-twitch guys would train for the 17:00 5K.

However, the argument that half of all properly trained guys could run a sub 5 is complete bullsh!t. I'd say the number is around 20%.

Here are some standards base on the President's Physical Fitness Challenge website--

85th percentile 1 mile run for 17 yr old boys is 6:06

50th percentile 1 mile run for 17 yr old boys is 7:04

http://www.presidentschallenge.org/educators/program_details/physical_fitness/qualifying_standards.aspx#

You'd think that those numbers would drop a bit through age 20 or 21, perhaps around 5:50 and 6:45 respectively. With a year of rigourous training--30 to 50 miles/week with intervals, long runs, tempos, and the whole works, once again you'd probably get no more than 10 - 20% able to break 5:00.

good point about slow twich fibers and equivalencies.

I'm sure 20% is still very high for the question at hand.

In the average gym put the treadmill to 12mph even for a minute. People are stunned at how fast you are going. At some point in their life half the guys in the gym properly trained could do even a minute of 5min pace? no way. 5 minutes at 5 min pace i.e. a 5 min mile; maybe if you're in a gym in Nairobi!

I'm still liking 5% as the answer based on what I've seen; MVo2 averages, improvement possiblilities and even the anecdotal evidence of how many guys have as a % of those who could. I just don't think there are as many guys predisposed to being able to run who don't. Of course there are natural born talented guys who don't bother; there just isn't that many. Lazy guys are usually lazy because they aren't talented enough to get the reinforcement to continue.

AK-47 wrote:

With a year of rigourous training--30 to 50 miles/week with intervals, long runs, tempos, and the whole works, once again you'd probably get no more than 10 - 20% able to break 5:00.

so with a more appropriate lifestyle for an athlete than the current standard for american kids (have you seen the numbers on childhood obesity), you'd expect at least 30% then, right?

i can certainly believe that the "true" answer to the OP's question is around 25-30%. i'm just not on board with the 1-2% camp.

an NBA point gaurd is already a small sample of all player's in the NBA. All players in the NBA make up 1% of the players in college. Player's in college make way less than 1% of the players from highschool.

You can't take an extremely small sample of the highest athletes and say because they could probably break 5, anyone can.

People on here are trying to use the "other athlete" excuse or "this many people on my distance team" excuse to keep there numbers hight. Athletes are already a smaller sample size than the entire class, and the sample you're picking is already swayed toward being athletically gifted in some way.

Sure there might be some soccer players who could do it, and some basketball players who do break 5, maybe even a few football guys if trained correctly, however, you still have to take into account all the un-athletic kids in the entire class into consideration. Open up your year books and go through each person and tell me that over 20% of them could run a 5 minute mile... no way.

a 6 minute mile, I would say yes, but a 5 minute mile takes some talent. In the Army, if you can run an 11:54 2 mile, you get 100 points, the maximum allowed. They have a huge sample base of all different types of physical people and rarely will you get someone who can run under 12 minutes for 2 miles... and they train fairly hard. Now take into consideration an average guy stepping up and running 5 minutes... no way.

And to run 5 minutes, you don't need to train for years to get it, if you can't break it within a year, you probably never will.

Even with "good lifestyle" you're not going to get more than a few percent running sub 5 without a certain amount of specific training (probably several months).

kaitainen wrote:

AK-47 wrote:

With a year of rigourous training--30 to 50 miles/week with intervals, long runs, tempos, and the whole works, once again you'd probably get no more than 10 - 20% able to break 5:00.

so with a more appropriate lifestyle for an athlete than the current standard for american kids (have you seen the numbers on childhood obesity), you'd expect at least 30% then, right?

i can certainly believe that the "true" answer to the OP's question is around 25-30%. i'm just not on board with the 1-2% camp.

This is an excellent post. I agree 100%. Especially about the following:

1) "And to run 5 minutes, you don't need to train for years to get it, if you can't break it within a year, you probably never will." Exactly! Maybe in some cases a little longer than one year, but about one year is right. This is not a marathon we're talking about. It's a mile.

2) "People on here are trying to use the "other athlete" excuse or "this many people on my distance team" excuse to keep there numbers hight. Athletes are already a smaller sample size than the entire class, and the sample you're picking is already swayed toward being athletically gifted in some way." AGREED! Not only is what you're saying true, but I think a lot of the examples provided are BS...100 soccer kids broke 5:30 for the mile easily and could have all been trained to break 5:00?! Hilarious! In my case, I HAVE run with other athletes, those who are supposedly better equipped to run a sub 5 minute mile, and of that group even the percentage is extremely low. About 7.5% of my large cross country team in high school could break 5 minutes. The rest couldn't -- ever. And remember, these are supposedly half way decently athletic kids. Tons of unathletic kids at school who were involved in nothing.

Anyway, very nice post Giddy.

AK-47 wrote:

Even with "good lifestyle" you're not going to get more than a few percent running sub 5 without a certain amount of specific training (probably several months).

yes, i was combining my identified portion of the hypothetical - the decent childhood lifestyle - with your portion - the year of rigorous training.

Giddy wrote:

And to run 5 minutes, you don't need to train for years to get it, if you can't break it within a year, you probably never will.

in general, i don't think the anecdotal posts add a lot to this particular discussion. but i do think that they disprove this statement of yours.

there are plenty of high school track athletes who don't break 5:00 for the first time until their junior or senior year.

perhaps you are thinking of somebody who is already at or near their athletic prime training for it. who knows? maybe it would be accurate in that context. or maybe you are thinking in the terms of the hypothetical - ideal training conditions for a year.

in the real world, many people eventually break 5:00 for the mile without doing so in the first year.

Sorry. I'm back in because the quoted statement below is nonsense (seeing that kaitainen already addressed it, but I'm piling on). You DO NOT, no matter who you are, reach your running peak in 1 year. Again, we are not talking what do most people do - we are talking what COULD most people do. For me, I (presumably more talented than the norm) ran an untrained mile one year. The next year, after some training, I ran 1min faster. The next year after that, another 15secs came off, and then the following year, another 8 seconds (and I pretty much stopped pursuing the mile there, but I think I could've whittled a little more off if I kept with the mile). My point is that "ideal" training builds on itself and takes more than 1 year to reach ultimate bests. Tell me, what elite miler/distance runner got there in one year? Wouldn't "fast-responders" develop faster than the norm? How are you coming up to the conclusion that people can possible reach their full potential in 1 year? I would concede that after 1 year, one might be able to see the direction they’re going and maybe assess their talent level somewhat, but you haven't reached your best - no freakin’ way no how. And, I haven't even mentioned the significance of the fitness one has when coming into such training.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

1) "And to run 5 minutes, you don't need to train for years to get it, if you can't break it within a year, you probably never will." Exactly! Maybe in some cases a little longer than one year, but about one year is right. This is not a marathon we're talking about. It's a mile.

First off, Thanks for the props FP.

next, to kaitainen,

You're right in the sense that i'm reffering to people in there athletic prime, that would make it more accurate. My point is along with Flagpole and that is it doesn't take years of endurance running or base training to run a 5 minute mile. If you haven't done it while training around your physical peak, I don't think you're going to be able to do it period.

Secondly, In regards to your comments about the kids who eventually break 5 minutes when juniors or seniors are also usually the kids who don't do any summer training or any winter training. They are the guys who usually get better season by season simply because they are older and stronger, not because they train harder, so in turn, they are breaking 5 minutes off of ability first, training volume second. And even with that, the number is still relatively small for an entire school.

man running a sub five in nope as tough as everyones making it seem, everyone is capable of doing it as i said before with right training and if your not a complete pussy you can easily do it at the proper age.

Giddy wrote:

a 6 minute mile, I would say yes, but a 5 minute mile takes some talent. In the Army, if you can run an 11:54 2 mile, you get 100 points, the maximum allowed. They have a huge sample base of all different types of physical people and rarely will you get someone who can run under 12 minutes for 2 miles... and they train fairly hard. Now take into consideration an average guy stepping up and running 5 minutes... no way.

Military guys do a fair amount of physical training but I would call what they do very far from ideal training to run a fast mile.

woww wrote:

man running a sub five in nope as tough as everyones making it seem, everyone is capable of doing it as i said before with right training and if your not a complete pussy you can easily do it at the proper age.

Would you like to provide some evidence? I think the "everyone can do it" types are probably the also the "talent is a myth" people. I've never quite understood how anyone could believe that running requires absolutely no talent. No one would ever claim that the reason most people can't hit a 90 mph fastball or bend a PK around a wall is that those people aren't trying hard enough, but somehow runners believe that anyone can run fast (and some seem to think very fast) if they just had the cojones. Hate to break it to you, but distance running requires as much talent (and as much hard work) as any other sport. Great distance runners (like all great athletes) are as good as they are thanks to a combination of natural ability and hard work.

A small percentage (5-10%) of guys in the army can run a 6 minute mile. If they were trained solely to run a competitive mile, they could probably improve their times by about a minute. This means that 5-10% would be able to run a sub 5 mile. Assuming half of them are not of an appropriate age, this brings that percentage up to 10-20%.

No way is it close to half of all guys.