Talent needed for 5:30 miles?!?

I am a girl...can do a workout of 4 x a mile all under 5:20!

5:30 is nothing! I ran faster than that in hs my freshman year...

I highly doubt that half could do this. At least half of the population is cut out for running.

If an NFL linebacker runs a 5:30 mile in conditioning during summer camp than he is considered about the fittest guy in the league, and he's a professional athlete!

Think of all the kids out there who are overweight and have no endurance. Sure, perhaps hypothetically if they got totally into it and enthusiastic there is a possibility but it would never happen because the first day they tried to run a hard mile it would hurt so bad they would quit.

I had a $100.00 bet with my cousin when we were about 25. He played h.s football and basketball and lifted a lot. He started working out at the Y and running on the indoor track and I bet him he could not break 6:00 for the mile. He was running 5 days a week for about a month and dropped the bet because he couldn't even break 8:00!

He claimed he kept getting cramps. He was about 6 foot and 185 and my point was it was so hard for him to run long distances it would have been unlikely to improve. The mindset wouldn't rationalize the work and time needed to put into it?

Well, maybe if it was a $100,000 dollar bet?

I work in a gym with 2100 members and can show you about 10 who MIGHT be able to run a 5:30 mile. MAYBE..:)

Let's go a little deeper...Let's assume a 5:30 mile equates to a 18:30-19:00 5k. Here is a random sample:

Indianapolis Race for the Cure:

1064 total

18 under 18:30

23 under 19:00

So about 2%

Lets try to cut out the walkers: Let's say anyone going slower than 4mph, 15:00 mile is walking...and I've seen many people jogging at 4mph....

1034 total...still 2%

Ok, lets cut it down to those going at least 10:00 mile...

757 total...so 3%.

So...lets say that in a random 1000 person high school that there would be 30 people who could go out and do a 5:30 mile right now.

Alan

coming back from a many year injury layoff two years ago, at 35, I was running about 20 mpw with zero speed training and ran a 5:34 mile. the race was by far the fastest pace I had run since before my injury. And I believe that is basically my undertrained level, as I ran 5:32 in 8th grade on probably about the same mileage. I would usually finish first or second in my class in the field day sprints in elementary school, to indicate where I was with zero training and maybe soccer practice, but I never had much speed. even at the end of high school, when I was doing a lot of speedwork and mileage in the mid-30s, I could only run 4:55 mile and a 58 quarter. There is no doubt that talent exists. But simply by doing the right training, e.g. 60 or more mpw including a 2-7 mile tempo run one day and 200-3/4 mile repeats another day, virtually anyone can move up to the top percentile in road races. On 80 mpw with the tempo and the speed day over the past three months, I was able to get top 25 out of 4000 in a road race, at sub 6 minute pace for 10 miles, and I am now probably ready to break my college track pr in the 10k, which would be about a 5 minute improvement since last May. So you can pass a lot of people just by training harder. But at the same time there are plenty of guys doing 60 mpw and my type of workouts who are running 15 minutes or better for 5k. Talent is real but irrelevant for many of us in that we aren't coming close to the level of work needed to maximize our talent.

the past two years I have been running without knowing that i was anemic(ferritin level of 3). i could only manage a 5:36 mile and a 2:18 800 and I only set these PR's after periods of taking some time off from running. i look back now and see it was probably because my body needed more than average time for recovery. anyways, after i started to take iron supplements i set a PR during an xc race with a 5:27. i think off of 30-40 mile weeks i will get pretty close to that 5 minute mark. i'd say that being sick canceled out any talent i had and still achieved close to 5:30.

i ran 5:04 freshman year than 4:36 sophmore year in the mile

Manager of Mcdonalds wrote:

ahh a post your mile time thread. 6:06 6th grade. 1 mpw for 1 week, although i was active on the playground. Steal the flag. Running home after dark. Flag/tackle football. Chasing 6th grade broads. etc.

I ran 6:00 for the mile in 6th grade by myself one day (on no training) just to see how fast I was. After that experience, I deemed the mile too long a race and only ran the half in junior high.

After 8th grade, I began running roadraces starting with a 10k and my illustriously mediocre long distance running career was born. I later worked as a manager at McDonalds before giong on to bigger and better things.

As far as the talent to run 5:30, I have no idea......

I was one of the millions of 4:29 milers in high school.

maybe my school is different since 80 to 90 percent of students participate i sports, but i guarantee you 50 percent of the sophmore guys could break 5:30 with some training. I mean, 9 of 23 kids in my pe class broke 5:40 with no training at all. This is my experience from my school, but like i said it might be a little skewed.

Talent, as far as I'm concerned, is the ability to endure training day after day after day and, despite some set-backs, still keep on keeping on.

If you say put kids on a mile run with no training what-so-ever and see how many of them could break 5:30, that's different. If you are saying, with "proper" training, by SR year, how many of them could break 5:30, I'd say all of them.

This somebody mentnioned and I agree with him whole-heartedly: If the coach tries to force this attitude crap without properly training you, that's wrong. It's his/her job to guide you correctly with adequate attention to each and every one of you. But if the athlete uses this "talent" crap without trying hard; this I mean, proper training, adequate rest, decent nutrition, without those burning-candle-on-both-ends-with-dating-and-staying-up-late-with-internet-and-e-mail-and-partying-late-at-night-every-weekend-and-some-(or lots of)-illegal-drinking and all that;o); then I'd have to say cut that crap! Get your butt out there and run some more!

darkness wrote:

I ran 5:26 off of just a month of training or so IN EIGHTH GRADE. Granted I had good talent, but any high school boy that meets those qualifications should be able to run a better mile than 5:30 after 4 years of working.

Either that or they will run 5:30 a lot sooner.

Yes, but the VAST majority of high school boys don't meet that qualification. Very small percentage can break 5:30.

Runningart2004 wrote:

I work in a gym with 2100 members and can show you about 10 who MIGHT be able to run a 5:30 mile. MAYBE..:)

Let's go a little deeper...Let's assume a 5:30 mile equates to a 18:30-19:00 5k. Here is a random sample:

Indianapolis Race for the Cure:

1064 total

18 under 18:30

23 under 19:00

So about 2%

Lets try to cut out the walkers: Let's say anyone going slower than 4mph, 15:00 mile is walking...and I've seen many people jogging at 4mph....

1034 total...still 2%

Ok, lets cut it down to those going at least 10:00 mile...

757 total...so 3%.

So...lets say that in a random 1000 person high school that there would be 30 people who could go out and do a 5:30 mile right now.

Alan

This is the closes to accurate I've seen. The Race For The Cure does have a lot of "first time" runners though, and most of them are adults and we're talking high school kids here (and it should just be for the boys), but your percentages probably aren't too far off. In a fit state (California, Florida, Hawaii) I'd say less than 10% of high school students (boys) could eventually break 5:30, and more than likely MUCH less -- 5% maybe. In fatter states -- Alabama, Wisconsin -- It's probably 5% at the most that could.

I bet most students couldn't even run ONE lap in 90 seconds let alone 4 in less than that.

That most could do it is BS.

the worst kid i've ever run with came out for track as a sophomore and ran a 16 minute 2 mile for his first race after training for about a month. he went on to run 11:20 as a junior and 5:15 during senior cross (didn't run track as a senior). its hard to imagine someone less talented than him. in my many years of running i have only had a few teammates less talented than me, and i still managed to go 4:26 before all was said and done. thats after a lot of years of a lot of miles and workouts though.

When I was in highschool the national presidental physical fitness test's qualification for 17 year olds was 6:00, I believe.

The presidential standard meant that you were in the top 10% of all in the nation, the same gender and age.

10%

I have got to think that (this was in the 60s with highschoolers run fast miles left and right) running a 5:30 would put you at about 5% and 5:00 at 1%?

I'm no statistician, but I'd say just based on that: a 6:00 mile takes talent.

So we have:

"No talent whatsoever...I still broke 5 minutes for the mile by the time I graduated."

"I have little talent...and ran a 5:05 mile in my first track meet as a high school junior."

"our team's talent level was -10. basically everyone broke 5:30 for the mile and many people broke 5."

"basically no real running talent at all"

"ran a 5:41 when I was 14 without any particular talent for running."

"i have only had a few teammates less talented than me, and i still managed to go 4:26"

"i have no talent at all and I ran 4:56 as a junior"

"As a senior, I decided I cared about running, put in consistent training, and went 15:30...I'd say I didn't have any particular disposition to racing"

"I have limited "talent"."

"Hell, at 36 and no talent I can run about a 5:10 mile"

I think it's fantastic how everyone loves to brag about how little "talent" they have...why is this? False modesty? Need to attribute success to their own willpower? Hoping that someone responds with "actually you're quite talented"? It's like it's a contest to see who the fastest "guy with no talent" is.

How would it ya'll feel if Alan Webb got on here and said, "Well you know I'd like to be up there with guys like Bekele, but for a guy with not much talent I think I'm doing pretty well."

*How would it feel to ya'll if...

Once again the editing typos run amok.

i understand what you are saying, but i stand by what i said. i think that any guy that isn't disabled or genetically morbidly obese would be able to run 4:50 if he trained intelligently for 70-80 miles a week from the time he was 15 until he was 25. There aren't many people willing to do that though.

Need to attribute success to one's own willpower - and to put others down who didn't achieve the same things.

I am not sure why now one recently made mention of this but the question clearly states several parameters:

1. NOT OVERWEIGHT - how many posters so far have said that the overweight kids could not do it. No #$%^ Sherlock that wasn't part of the question.

2. NOT DISABLED - this inlcudes the asmatic(sp) kids

3. EAGER TO RUN - This means that they want to run under 5:30, therfore will listen and do as instructed.

Give me all of the skinny, not asmatic(sp) kids in our school that want to do well, and well yes well over half will break 5:30.

Give me every boy in the school, from the 345 pd kid to the wheel bound MS kid, and no I will not get half of them under 5:30. Fortunately the poster did not ask that.

sorry wrote:

I am not sure why now one recently made mention of this but the question clearly states several parameters:....

Ah, but you forgot that one of the parameters was "even if they limited their training to 15-20MPW".