If running a sub 16 minute 5K earned you $100,000 per year, 85% of American males 20 - 40 years old would do it.

fools, all of you wrote:

and it sure as hell isn't going to do anything for the blimps that shop at Wal-Mart

With $100,000 per year as an incentive, they would never have gotten to blimp status in the first place and they wouldn't be shopping at Walmart.

Blitzplay wrote:

Says it all really. The average genetic potential is probably a lot faster than we think. Ireland is a tiny country but look at the club runner depth back then.

Ireland had a population of around 4 million then. The top runners came from all over Ireland (and Wales).

Yeah, you found a dozen guys out of several million who can run really fast. Well done.

I absolutely won't argue that we aren't maximizing our potential today, but I'm not sure what you are proving by pointing out that 0.001% of the population were pretty zippy back in the day and now it's only 0.0001%.

To clarify my completely unrealistic hypothetical situation, the monetary reward wouldn't just be sprung out of nowhere on the obese at Walmart.

It would have been put into effect by FDR in 1933 as part of the New Deal. People would grow up knowing damn well that a large sum of money would be theirs for every single year they could crack 16 minutes. Obese people at Walmart would NEVER let themselves get obese in the first place, unless they were physically or mentally crippled.

Yeah, some genetically gifting brainiacs would say "screw that" and opt out of the running and make 10 times that much using their mental apparatus, but the vast majority of us would successfully run for that money.

And then you may say, "well if the government gives nearly EVERYONE $100,000 per year, well that's just inflation and nobody"...SHUT UP!!! Don't over think it you mongoloids. This is just a stupid troll thread.

the truth is in the pudding wrote:

Out of the 15% who wouldn't.

5% would be cripples.

10% would be people who had other talents that would enable them to make more money in other occupations.

You can not really believe this can you? 1st you over estimate how valuable $100k is. 2nd you over look the fact that folks already know they could make $100k doing many other things and yet less 10% do it.

A 16 min 5k is beyond 85% of the group in question. It's kinda fast.

subfive wrote:

You can not really believe this can you?

I admit that this thread was created to rile folks up, but I DO believe that my estimations are sound. About 85% would hit the sub 16 mark at least once in their life, and MANY would hit that mark multiple times in their running career.

This whole thread is full of crap....just look at any of the race results and you will see only about 2-3% of the finishers would finish below 16....and these are mainly highly trained athletes. There is no way 85% of the male population could average under 5:08 miles for 3+ miles. Not 5% of the population could train and run under a 5 minute mile I would guess....I know hundreds of guys in running groups who can't do this. This site is so skewed. Get some perspective, troll or no troll....(for the record I have broken 16 about 50 times)

the truth is in the pudding wrote:

Out of the 15% who wouldn't.

5% would be cripples.

10% would be people who had other talents that would enable them to make more money in other occupations.

Yes. Pulling fanciful figures out of your sphincter is fun!

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

Blitzplay wrote:

Says it all really. The average genetic potential is probably a lot faster than we think. Ireland is a tiny country but look at the club runner depth back then.

Ireland had a population of around 4 million then. The top runners came from all over Ireland (and Wales).

Yeah, you found a dozen guys out of several million who can run really fast. Well done.

I absolutely won't argue that we aren't maximizing our potential today, but I'm not sure what you are proving by pointing out that 0.001% of the population were pretty zippy back in the day and now it's only 0.0001%.

Eh? I didn't find any runners. Intimidated UL runner posted those results. If you have a problem with the results. Take it up with that poster.

run for the money wrote:

fools, all of you wrote:

and it sure as hell isn't going to do anything for the blimps that shop at Wal-Mart

With $100,000 per year as an incentive, they would never have gotten to blimp status in the first place and they wouldn't be shopping at Walmart.

People are blimp status in grade school now. You really think kids are going to have that sort of long term foresight and discipline to stay active and healthy to shoot for a very abstract goal that is a decade away?

If you think even a 20 year old could hear about this deal and suddenly be inspired to train hard, then you vastly overestimate the general population's ability to stay healthy and train for 5 to 10 years with the goal of one day breaking 16 minutes in a 5K and getting paid $100,000 for it.

And I'm not even talking about how vastly you overestimate their ability to do so, as even with the $100,000 incentive a huge majority of 20-40 year old men are never going to be close to 15:59.

What I'm saying is, almost no one is even going to try. And those that do try, most of them are going to quit pretty damn quick as they realize that not only will it not be easy, but that more than likely it is never going to happen no matter their training.

Look how many people drop out of school at various stages even though the decision is more than likely to have a HUGE negative impact on their future earnings.

Unless it's something very immediate, easy, and tangible (like walking down one flight of steps to pick up a huge sack of money), then most people are going to pick laziness over wealth every time.

I DO believe that my estimations are sound.

It's very easy to prove the OP is wrong (skip to bottom ----- if you're bored), but first i'd like to trash the OP thusly:

"Sound" estimations? Hello? What college did you go to? Let me know just as a reminder *not* send my kids there.

An argument is sound only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. You've done nothing of the sort. I would agree that is sound trolling though.

The irish running results are interesting but neither probative nor germain to this argument. Races from 1970s/1980s were self selecting non-randomized subjects, i.e. generally only good runners entered the race. Now races are full of hobby joggers.

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

Ok, here's the proof that no where near 85% of men can run sub 16min 5k. The premise is that Vo2 max is a reasonable predictor for running performance. Now this is not strictly true, runners with the same Vo2 max can have 10k times vary by 1-2 minutes, so 30-60 secs for 5k. But you will see that these variations are so small as to have irrelevant.

Now, the average untrained male has a Vo2 max of 35-40, let's be generous and round up to 40. To run a 16min 5k you need a Vo2 max of about 64-65. About 10% of the population are non-responders for Vo2 max, so you're already taking a large chunk of the "15% can't do it" claim, although some of those non responders may be 15min 5k runners, but not likely. Most crucially, Dr T. Noakes claims that the average person can only improve their Vo2 max by about 10%, which would get them to about 44. This is a 22:50 5k, which in today's hobby jogger world is pretty fast, but absolutely no where near 16min. There you have it, proof QED. Incidentally 16m 5k is equiv to about 55min 10mile, and you can see not many modern running populations do that.

The other proof is simple observation, there are many running clubs with dedicated amateurs out there hammering away (recall previous post about guy running 100mpw can't even break 18min or something like that). And very few break 16k, plain and simple. Their training is far from perfect, but it doesn't take much effort to get 80-90% of the way to your max potential.

I'd be more interested in finding out of a dedicated drug program could get the average male downto sub 16min.

I trained pretty much my entire life from elementary school through college and my PR is in the 16:30's, some people just don't have the talent to break 16 min...the views in this forum are a bit skewed...maybe 18 or 19 min and this would be true.

The only thing $100,000 will buy you around here is a parkstrip in front of a 1,000 sq ft house in East Palo Alto ghetto.

I'd rather earn $50K per year sitting on my ass. And I like running. But not that much.

fools, all of you wrote:

$100,000 is not going to get all but a few of those people across the finish line in 15:59 or faster and it sure as hell isn't going to do anything for the blimps that shop at Wal-Mart that were mentioned above.

What do people in this thread have against people who shop at Walmart? I shop for pretty much everything at Walmart and I don't feel like there is anything wrong with me. I'm a former DI runner, 31 flat 10K PR and not fat at all.

Countdown3 wrote:

What do people in this thread have against people who shop at Walmart? I shop for pretty much everything at Walmart and I don't feel like there is anything wrong with me. I'm a former DI runner, 31 flat 10K PR and not fat at all.

Low IQ? Any venereal diseases? Maybe you have a lazy eye?

Also, the OP has been refuted many times, but just piling on...

I coached DIII and you'd be amazed how hard some kids worked and could not break 16 minutes in the 5K. I'm talking 70-100 miles a week, dedicated training plan, no drinking, healthy diet, core work, etc.

As a DI guy and typical LetsRunner, I'll admit that in my earlier years I prescribed to the notion that, "Everyone faster than me is more talented and everyone slower than me just doesn't work hard enough."

Coaching DIII really opened my eyes to how wrong I was. Sure there were kids on my college team who weren't nearly as dedicated as I was and still broke 30-minutes for 10K. But on the flip side, I learned there are plenty of guys out there training just as hard as me who can't break 34 minutes.

THis thread is amazing. Time and time again, we get threads like this. Most runners just don't get it.They go out for the sport, aren't bad, work harder and get faster. But it's a total self-selecting process. The people on college xc teams are the best of the best. 80% of the population? No way.Many people train and don't get better. I'm not even sure 80% of the population could run one mile at 16 minute 5k pace.See the post below.

and this one

Even if most men are capable of sub 16, which they're not, it would take years of extreme dedicated training to get there, and continued extreme training to remain there if you're going to kick down 100 grand a year.

But it takes about the same amount of training to become an engineer or a lawyer, and believe it or not it doesn't take much brains to do it, just hard work. Once they're done training they make more than 100 grand and they don't have to work so hard ever again. So it's still a better option.

In my high school days nobody on the x-country team broke 19 sec....& I went to a pretty big school. Granted that we were doing the bare-minimum in training.