It's too damn hard to run a sub 5 mile

There should't be problem to average guy run 10k under 34 with good few year training and decent aerobic system. Talented guys run under 31

lvrhs1992 wrote:

There should't be problem to average guy run 10k under 34 with good few year training and decent aerobic system. Talented guys run under 31

Wow, that is so wrong.

Average means in the middle, not bottom.

Of course, I know some runners, who can't go under 35 in 10k, because they have weak heart and aerobic system despite training for many years.

For runners who haven't trained on a banked track before, a flat indoor track usually produces a faster time than a banked one. I think sub 5 outdoors in California is very likely.

Flagpole wrote:

lvrhs1992 wrote:

There should't be problem to average guy run 10k under 34 with good few year training and decent aerobic system. Talented guys run under 31

Wow, that is so wrong.

lvrhs1992 wrote:

Average means in the middle, not bottom.

Of course, I know some runners, who can't go under 35 in 10k, because they have weak heart and aerobic system despite training for many years.

Never thought I'd say this, but Flagpole is right.

Sub 34 is two back-to-back sub 17 5Ks. Less than a quarter of the male seniors in my high school XC team could even run ONE sub 17 5K, and this is among a self-selected group who stuck with the sport for 4+ years. And we were one of the better teams in the local area.

Then what is talent? What does that mean?

If out of 5 parameters in one You are average, You then are talent?

converter wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Wow, that is so wrong.

lvrhs1992 wrote:

Average means in the middle, not bottom.

Of course, I know some runners, who can't go under 35 in 10k, because they have weak heart and aerobic system despite training for many years.

Never thought I'd say this, but Flagpole is right.

Sub 34 is two back-to-back sub 17 5Ks. Less than a quarter of the male seniors in my high school XC team could even run ONE sub 17 5K, and this is among a self-selected group who stuck with the sport for 4+ years. And we were one of the better teams in the local area.

Well, I see you have finally matured then to be agreeing with me. Congratulations!

lvrhs1992 wrote:

Then what is talent? What does that mean?

If out of 5 parameters in one You are average, You then are talent?

Pick 100 random able-bodied baby boys and train them optimally for the mile. Suppose that by age 35, a quarter of them run 5:00 or better, another quarter of them run 5:01-5:19, another quarter run 5:20-5:39, and the remainder run 5:40 or slower.

In that case, a 5:00 guy would have talent, because he accomplished something that most people couldn't do even if they were optimally trained. Does he have world-class talent? Of course not, but he has some talent.

Average person running 55 sec at 400m??? Not a chance man....... ))

Do You think, that if You take 50 random 18 year old guys and train them sprinting for 5 years, half of them wouldn't run under 55?

Most distance guys runs 55 without sprint and weight training.

If elusive dreams trained with good coach for many years, he easily would run way under 5 for mile.

converter wrote:

lvrhs1992 wrote:

Then what is talent? What does that mean?

If out of 5 parameters in one You are average, You then are talent?

Pick 100 random able-bodied baby boys and train them optimally for the mile. Suppose that by age 35, a quarter of them run 5:00 or better, another quarter of them run 5:01-5:19, another quarter run 5:20-5:39, and the remainder run 5:40 or slower.

In that case, a 5:00 guy would have talent, because he accomplished something that most people couldn't do even if they were optimally trained. Does he have world-class talent? Of course not, but he has some talent.

A quarter of all able-bodied men, even if "trained optimally" can not and could not break 5 minutes for the mile.

You are like too many other runners...you believe the work you put in and your toughness is what makes you able to run whatever milestone...in this case sub 5:00 for the mile. Nope. It's the talent that lets you get there with training.

95% of adult Americans can not run a mile at any pace without stopping. We have gone through a running boom in this country. Every kid gets a chance to shine in gym class if they can run a little bit. Those who can run even a little bit go out for track and cross country. We have enough of a sample size. Many of them never sniff sub 5:00, and it's not because of their lack of training. Got a HS kid who run 5:07 as a HS PR, ok, he could likely get there with some more training as he gets a little older after high school. The vast majority will never be able to do it. Around 3% is likely if they get optimal training, and that's pushing it. It's just too fast.

lvrhs1992 wrote:

Do You think, that if You take 50 random 18 year old guys and train them sprinting for 5 years, half of them wouldn't run under 55?

Most distance guys runs 55 without sprint and weight training.

No freakin' way. I have a son who was a HS All-American distance runner, and he couldn't break 55 in a 400 into and through college.

If you take 50 "random" 18 year olds, you'd be lucky to get maybe 2 who could break 55 seconds in a 400.

Depends on how random you mean ;) If random 18 years old Kenyan runners I think about 50 % of theem could run sub 55 in 5 years sprint training, but if random 18 years old Western guys brought up on junk food and mobiles in their hands and extensive computer gaming I`m not so sure ,haha! ))

None of us know what the exact percentage is, but a quarter of all able-bodied men sounds reasonable. No offense to the OP, but he has about the worst running form I've ever seen, and even he was able to get a 5:03 so far. His training is consistent but haphazard at best - a few failed attempts to run high mileage, then some years of sprint training to get his sub 12 100, then more mileage, then a complete 180 to the "Easy Interval Method", and now back to "high" mileage.

I think you and most people are underestimating how much you can improve after HS. A 4:02 HS senior is probably very close to his lifetime best, but a 5:30 guy might be able to run in the 4:50s a decade later.

Wow, you know absolutely nothing about distance running.

Running form has nothing to do with how fast you can be. It's the engine we have, and that's it.

Your percentages are way off. A 5:30 high school guy is more likely to be super fat and can't run a mile in under 10 minutes 10 years later. Even with training and reasonable weight, it's a stretch to get a kid who actually ran track in high school (and trained) with a 5:30 PR to get to under that later on.

We also have to start with the fact that the vast majority of high school kids can't even run 5:30.

In high school(18y.o) I could barely run 400m under 60. Even with 7 year training.

2 years later I ran 51.41. now at 29, I probably can go under 50.

Most kids improve after high school if they continue to train well.

In my country almost all HS kids runs 1500m under 4.30, 800 under 2.05 or 400m under 54.

But when they start college, they dissapear because they need to earn money on job. It is super hard to learn, work and train.

lvrhs1992 wrote:

In high school(18y.o) I could barely run 400m under 60. Even with 7 year training.

2 years later I ran 51.41. now at 29, I probably can go under 50.

Most kids improve after high school if they continue to train well.

In my country almost all HS kids runs 1500m under 4.30, 800 under 2.05 or 400m under 54.

But when they start college, they dissapear because they need to earn money on job. It is super hard to learn, work and train.

Then I can say with 100% substantiated that your HS coach was garbage! lol

You think only 3% of able bodied men who were trained from birth to run a fast mile would never break 5 by the time they're 35 ?!?! I'd guess 99.999% could, and maybe 99% could go under 4:30. If you took 100 of these theoretical kids and told them that if they ever broke 5 they'd get $1B USD, but that if they couldn't then everybody they ever knew would die, do you really think only 25 of them could achieve it? Breaking 5 at 12 years old takes talent. Breaking 5 at 20-25 only requires motivation, a history of dedication/consistency with the sport, and avoiding bad injuries. Track and XC is not a sample size of people who are truly putting forth every fiber of their being into running fast times; 90% of the training of people on these teams looks like skipping summer workouts, consistently falling short on sleep or calories, maybe skipping the spring/winter seasons to do a different sport etc.