I’m a bit older but way above average in athletic fitness and dedication (and Dunning and Krueger sure are my overlords) and I couldn’t do it in nearly a year of running in good part thanks to injuries. I’m pretty sure I can now because of my significant recent improvements in lower distance times, but I still have never actually seen 59’ or under on my watch even for a 10K training run.
It’s not easy for an average person , say the 50th percentile, irrespective of how much money you offer.
Over 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese and don't exercise very much. 2 months isn't enough time to lose the chunk. Maybe 10 to 20% of people could. I think most people on these boards don't realize how fat and out of shape most people are.
slaaa wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
I found a source that said the median time for males was right around 56. That’s roughly 63:15 7-mile pace, but that’s also all adults. Weed out the older outliers and the time is certainly faster.
Even without taking out the masters runners, they’d have to run 30 seconds per mile faster to break 60, but with the money on the line and maybe a pacer to keep up with, I think 50% of 30-something males could do it.
Now add in all the people who havent run a step since that gym mile 20 years ago. Thats probably 90% of the population. Still think 50% seems reasonable?
Those of us who can "run" 7mi are wild outliers in the US. Of the total population 30s males who could even run 7mi without walking in 2mo is probably less than 5%. Maybe 1% under 1hr, even with $1M dangling in front of them.