which is harder: becoming relatively decent runner (sub 17) or netting six figure salary?

2/10.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

If you offered somone six figures to run sub 17 it would suddenly be easy

That sounds like a convincing claim, but not so fast. I think people underestimate the talent required to run sub 17. Less than 5 % of runners break 17 for 5k. And if that's comparable to making 100k, why don't more than 10% make more than 100k?! You make it sound like 100k is so desirable that anyone will or can earn it. The vast majority do not!

Depends on the person. I know people who make over 100K but could never run sub 17. For me, on the other hand, sub 17 is pretty easy. I don't know what it will take for me to make 100k one day, but it will certainly be less than it takes for me to run sub-17.

Base pay after a few years is just under $75K. Add in some OT and shift deferential and you're all set. Get a promotion and you'll be better off than your lawyer and doctor friends.

Subfive wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

If you offered somone six figures to run sub 17 it would suddenly be easy

That sounds like a convincing claim, but not so fast. I think people underestimate the talent required to run sub 17. Less than 5 % of runners break 17 for 5k. And if that's comparable to making 100k, why don't more than 10% make more than 100k?! You make it sound like 100k is so desirable that anyone will or can earn it. The vast majority do not!

The majority are not training hard enough for it. Or move upto the marathon without doing the work you need on the shorter distances first

Even doing doubles is a lot less hours than a full time job. I coach a group of 'weekend warriers'. But I'm only really taking the interval sessions as they all want to do their own thing. In particular thay are only interested in the marathon

Several of them have quite easily got down to 17 - 19 mins to 10km. But as soon as they get there they jump through all the distances and want to run the marathon. Then they up the mileage (but not enough to really get good) and do most of it at a slower pace). So the improvement as 5km slow. They get there marathon times down but not as much as if they really got good over the shorter distances

To take another example if you got a 5km road race the looked at those runners who are male and aged 18-35 and running 20 mins plus. How many of that are training at least once per day for the past 2 years. Very few. Of course there is a gap between 17-20 but you need to get close first. So if you look at percentages of people running sub 17 you need to look at what training they are doing first

There are only a certain number of $100k jobs. There are as many sub 17's as people want

I would venture a guess that many more people make over $100K than run under a 17 min 5K. Perhaps that is because most people try to make as much money as they can, and only a segment attempts to run as fast as they can for 5 KM.

I know what patreaus would say..

http://amzn.to/TZuuzO

What is harder - achieving a goal or achieving a goal??

Its hard to do both at the same time. They both require a little talent and both require that you put your time in to get there.

Damn, I can run in the 15's and only make 40k a year with a college degree (3.47 GPA) and two year's experience in the non-profit marketing academic field. I make another 10k bouncing two night's on the side, but I guess I should start applying to new places. The company has been great to me and I receive 7.25% raise a year, but after reading this post I feel I am way behind at 24.

Rainy Day wrote:

I would venture a guess that many more people make over $100K than run under a 17 min 5K. Perhaps that is because most people try to make as much money as they can, and only a segment attempts to run as fast as they can for 5 KM.

True. The more interesting question to ask is: "Would you rather double your salary, or subtract as many minutes of your 5K or marathon time to get halfway to the WR?"

I've done both. To be honest with you, I put a lot more effort in my running than I did my career.

(former NCAA D1 runner)

California prison guards -- yeah they have a politically potent union, very strong. I would not want the job. Not the career for everyone.

I ran under 17 more or less every year from age 17 to 38. Now, at 55, I'd rather run under 17 than make the six figures!

I'll go for a 16:55 5K, but I'll settle for $99,999.00 in pay.

Anyway, you need to think about breaking 20 first, yes?

Run a little D, do some repeat miles at race pace. Good luck!

Making $100k is far easier.

Most people can barely manage 7:00 pace for a 5k -- even with training.

The average 5k is like 30 minutes!

Letsrun posters are dedicated runners who usually have a higher than normal level of natural talent. Running a 17:00 5k comes easy to them. For a normal person with average or no talent, it's damn near impossible.

Case in point, a largish 5k here with 1235 participants. Only SEVEN went under 17:00. I can guarantee you there are dozens of people in that race that make $100k or better. Maybe a hundred or more.

Ask yourself how many people alive have broken 17 for 5K? (probably less than a million, certainly not 2 million)

Now, how many are earning $100,000 or more right now? (about 20-25 million Americans alone)

You tell me which is harder.

Let's look at raw statistics for an answer:

6.03% of individuals in the U.S. make more than $100k

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/100-000-income-no-big-deal-anymore-1.aspx

If we say breaking 17:00 5k is equivalent to breaking 3 in the marathon (VDOT says it is equiv. to 2:43)than 1.7% of runners do this (or 2.8% of males only)

http://www.marathonguide.com/Features/Articles/2010RecapOverview.cfm

So breaking 17:00 is harder.....

Statistics Man wrote:

Let's look at raw statistics for an answer:

Not the right way to approach the question. The question is how many people could, not do- and the 100k has a lot more people going after it than the sub 17 or sub 2:43.

i think both of these goals are basically out of reach for most American adults. You're 1) underestimating how likely it is that a lot of people would get injured on their way to the sub 17 and b) it generally takes a lot of education to break 100k. People either can't or won't.

I think you could take almost any child from like day 1 and raise them in an uppermiddle class household and you'd have a potential 100k earner. Maybe not every, but most. I don't think the same is true for the 5k -- i.e. most girls have ceilings above 17 and some people are just too big to be good runners.

Having said that, if you're 5k PR is in the 20s now, run solid 40-60 mile weeks and a workout once a week for 4 years and you'll be there, no problem, barring injury. Is that easy? It's easy in the sense that there's nothing besides your willpower holding you back. That puts you way ahead of all the people out there who have real barriers.

D.C. runner wrote:

I think you could take almost any child from like day 1 and raise them in an uppermiddle class household and you'd have a potential 100k earner. Maybe not every, but most. I don't think the same is true for the 5k -- i.e. most girls have ceilings above 17 and some people are just too big to be good runners.

There's no such thing as too big to be a good runner. Guys almost 7 feet tall have gone under 4 for the mile. There's also no evidence that girls have a ceiling or that their ceiling is above 17.