Could anyone run a 5 minute mile?

As an untalented lurker on this forum, I'm a good example of someone who couldn't break 5:00 even with optimal training.

I ran a year of track in HS at 14 and never broke 6:40, so I didn't have a lot of potential as a teen. I've picked up running again as an adult and have run several halfs, gotten down to about 10% bodyfat, and done a lot of weeks between 30 and 50 miles. I tend to break down at that mileage though and can't keep any kind of consistency. I train reasonably intelligently with tempo runs and some intervals. As an adult, I got to 6:34.

In no way am I saying I'm a great or even good runner or that I'm doing everything I could to break 5:00. Still, there is no way I could survive the amount of additional training required to cut another 95 seconds off my mile time. I have a fracture in my foot right now from the mileage peak in my last HM training cycle, and I'm pretty sure I'd break down again if I trained hard enough to run that fast.

And for what it's worth my 5k times were above the average in the races I ran, so I'm above average among the running population without even taking into consideration the general population. Despite my father being an excellent runner, I just have no athletic talent at all.

I think what you guys are failing to take into account is the whole 'genetic' limiter thing.

Throwing out all these random stats to somehow validate your allegations is a bit pointless because not one of such stats takes into account that virtually NO ONE trains to their genetic potential.

And when put into that light, 1-2%?!?!?

Friggin' ludicrous.

chinocochio wrote:

Stats, brah. As of 2011, only 347 americans have EVER broken 4.

So what you're essentially saying with your stats is that maybe less than 1% actually tried to break 4? And of that less than 1%, 347 succeeded?

I can handle those stats.

Now change that to 100% of healthy males trying to break four and I'll accept that you're finally on the right track.

Except I'm not wrong in the least because we're not discussing what most average people could do NOW, we're discussing whether or not there are genetic limitations that would prevent them from doing so.

And you seem to be implying that 98-99% of the male population has a genetic deficiency that would prevent them from running a sub 5 mile.

And that, as I said, reduces the human body to an absolute farce.

Running is one of the most natural activities one could possibly do. We EVOLVED running.

Like I said before, get real.

[quote]Flagpole wrote:

...there are TONS of people who could run 100+ miles a week, eat well, sleep well, try as hard as they can who could NEVER break 15 minutes or even 17 minutes. We are SOOOOO limited by our inherent talent when it comes to running.

[quote]Flagpole wrote:

And there are even more people that would need 100 miles a week to get there but would break down long before they achieved that mileage. The genetic cap is on recovery ability as much as on aerobic/anaerobic capacity.

So 18 americans broke 4 minutes in 2011, which was by far the most ever for a single year. If we assume that everybody trained their hardest and reached their genetic potential (and 1% could break 4, as the previous poster suggested), then 480,000 young american men could have broken 4 in 2011? Going from 18 to 480,000? Really? I doubt it. Talent is needed. Very few will be sufficiently talented. Not everybody is capable of doing sport or job A, B, C.I was assuming that there were 160 million men in the US in 2011 since there are 320 million americans alive and that 30 percent were "young" males.

insane wrote:

chinocochio wrote:

Stats, brah. As of 2011, only 347 americans have EVER broken 4.

So what you're essentially saying with your stats is that maybe less than 1% actually tried to break 4? And of that less than 1%, 347 succeeded?

I can handle those stats.

Now change that to 100% of healthy males trying to break four and I'll accept that you're finally on the right track.

Everybody "tries" to run fast when they are young. However, the vast majority of people that are in shape but not hard-core trained (much, MUCH more than 99%) run something like above 5 minutes in their HS mile test in gym. It doesn't matter if you put a gun to their head and tell them to run sub 4. They won't do it. Only a handful will be able to.

insane wrote:

chinocochio wrote:

Stats, brah. As of 2011, only 347 americans have EVER broken 4.

So what you're essentially saying with your stats is that maybe less than 1% actually tried to break 4? And of that less than 1%, 347 succeeded?

I can handle those stats.

Now change that to 100% of healthy males trying to break four and I'll accept that you're finally on the right track.

chinocochio wrote:

So 18 americans broke 4 minutes in 2011, which was by far the most ever for a single year. If we assume that everybody trained their hardest and reached their genetic potential (and 1% could break 4, as the previous poster suggested), then 480,000 young american men could have broken 4 in 2011? Going from 18 to 480,000? Really? I doubt it. Talent is needed. Very few will be sufficiently talented. Not everybody is capable of doing sport or job A, B, C.

I was assuming that there were 160 million men in the US in 2011 since there are 320 million americans alive and that 30 percent were "young" males.

I suggested that 1-2% may be a more reasonable assessment for a 4 minute mile, not a 5 minute mile (keyword 'maybe' to ensure the proper context from which we're working).

With that said, 1% more than encompasses outliers, and I would certainly say sub 4 would be an outlier, wouldn't you?

So 480,000 healthy men optimally trained from childhood with a program that culminates in sub 4 peak condition? Is that really that far-fetched?

No way. You guys put far more stock into some mystical concept of 'talent' than you do the life-long pursuit of excellence. I think that's just a scapegoat way of approaching things.

chinocochio wrote:

Everybody "tries" to run fast when they are young. However, the vast majority of people that are in shape but not hard-core trained (much, MUCH more than 99%) run something like above 5 minutes in their HS mile test in gym. It doesn't matter if you put a gun to their head and tell them to run sub 4. They won't do it. Only a handful will be able to.

[

They do? I don't know a single person that tried to run fast when they were young (how young are we talking about here, because when I say young, I mean before high school).

And why are we talking about a hs mile test?

Who in the world is even physically mature at that point, much less optimally trained to the point of peak performance (ok, maybe Alan Webb-esque folks, but not the vast majority)?

slugbug wrote:

And there are even more people that would need 100 miles a week to get there but would break down long before they achieved that mileage. The genetic cap is on recovery ability as much as on aerobic/anaerobic capacity.

On a long-enough time line....

I will virtually guarantee you that there is not some genetic problem that limits your ability to run sub 5.

Maybe you started too late, maybe you didn't train enough, maybe you just lack the motivation and diligence and consistency.

But don't blame it on your DNA. That's just ridiculous.

To answer you're question in short, no, not everyone can break 5. However, I believe given several years of good training the AVERAGE man could run around 5:00 give or take 10 seconds. But there are so many men below average who could never do it as well (as very few women, even among those of above average ability).

Well, part of the problem with your thoughts here is the language you're using. Nobody said there's a "genetic problem" ... more that those who CAN run a sub-5 have a genetic advantage. And that seems reasonable to me.

If we set 4min as a standard of elite athleticism, how does 5 mins look?

5mins/mile is to a 4 min mile what a 12.5sec 100m is to a 10sec 100m. I sincerely doubt that the average male could ever run a 12.5 100m, regardless how hard they train. Certainly a lot of men could, but you're suggesting most of them? There's no way in he**.

I think it just comes down to the disparity in natural talent. Think of what the very top IQs are, and then suggest that with the right education, the average person could score a 150. Or an absurdly high SAT score, for example.

I taught guitar for a long, long time. "Good" students might progress reasonably rapidly. But ... the average person, with an awful lot of training, can barely stay in time. I think we'd be surprised if we really how broad that 'talent' curve is.

When I watch the OG, for example, I'm reminded of how exceptional these people are. 2:05 marathon? That's inhuman. A sub-4 min mile statistically doesn't even exist, and you're suggesting that those who CAN run that time aren't really that much better than the average human. And that's ludicrous.

A 6 min mile would be 'average' for men with a lot of training, imo. But there'd still be a whole host of guys who'd simply never run under 6:30. Ever.

at my school we had about 200 boys in the entire school but we got about 17 guys to come out from XC.

My junior year we had 5 guys under 18min for 3miles. I'd say we were quite impressive considering we had a zero talent pool to work with.

Dude, I know you said 1-2% for 4 minutes. Seriously. 4 minutes? 1-2%. Seriously? With the figures I had estimated (there are probably less than 30% "young" males in the US out of 160 million total males) you think we could go from 18 to 480,000.Think about it. 18 to 480,000.Yes. It is very fare-fetched. According to reputable running coaches, one's god-given talent is our main limiter. An infinitely small percentage even has the talent to do so. Everybody (most) on letsrun thinks that everybody is capable of anything in running. That sprinters can morph into dynamite distance runners and vice-versa. Not true.

The thing is that the people that DO break 4 are working their butts off for years. They are already VERY close to reaching their lifetime genetic potential. I fail to see how doing a few more miles when you are young suddenly vaults the many 4:30 guys (although it is still fairly rare for males to run this) to sub 4. With a tiny bit better training, some of the 4:05 guys may break 4 but even then the numbers wouldn't be too appreciable. I say that it would go from 18 to something like 100. Elite runners are already very close to using 100% of their genetic potential.

It's not a genetic deficiency...that implies that we should all have that ability and 98% are just missing it. It's just a genetic reality.We already have a HUGE sample size...kids all over the US for sure and in most parts of the world are given the opportunity to run (recess, gym class, President's Fitness Challenge, etc.), and the best ones typically do go down that path. Fewer than 1% of people have run a 5 minute mile, and those with the most ability are likely already in that group.In my high school, my graduating class of about 500 had 4 kids in it who could run a sub 5 minute mile (I was one of course). The class the next year had ONE kid, and the class after that had ZERO.Just because for many of us here, it was an easy accomplishment, that doesn't mean it is for most people, because it isn't. My PRs are pedestrian when compared against the best runners in the world, but they put me at better than the top 1% of people ever...MUCH better than the top 1% even.

insane wrote:

On a long-enough time line....

I will virtually guarantee you that there is not some genetic problem that limits your ability to run sub 5.

Maybe you started too late, maybe you didn't train enough, maybe you just lack the motivation and diligence and consistency.

But don't blame it on your DNA. That's just ridiculous.

Perhaps with a phenomenal amount of effort I could get there. Personally I would guess my limit is more like 5:30 to 5:45. Regardless, my personal situation wasn't my point in this post so I'll concede it and move on.

My point is that among a self selected group of runners (participants in the larger 5k races I have run), I am already above average for men if only slightly. There are many men in those races who are slower than I was, who don't have the potential that I do. And there are even more who self selected not to run who are even slower than them.

Daniels Running Formula talks extensively about how genetics limits both your ability to recover from training and your capacity for endurance and speed. If you can't endure the training and you have the muscle fiber composition of a sprinter or powerlifter, you will never run a 5:00 mile and there is no amount of perfect training and lifestyle that will overcome that.

If you set the bar a little higher I think most people would agree with you. I don't know if the threshold is 6, 6:30, or 7, but there's no way it's 5.

Uh uh wrote:

I think it just comes down to the disparity in natural talent. Think of what the very top IQs are, and then suggest that with the right education, the average person could score a 150. Or an absurdly high SAT score, for example.

This is an excellent comparison. I don't know what the bell curve for mile times is, but an IQ of 150 is about 3 standard deviations above average. It corresponds to an SAT score of about 1560 back when I took it in the early 90's. (The SAT is frequently used to normalize IQ scoring, at least according to a wiki article I saw.)

If you have an IQ of 150 you're likely to be one of the 3 highest in a group of 1000. From what people on here are saying about their high school sizes, it sounds like there might be slightly more than three people in 1000 that can run a 5:00 mile, but that it's at least close enough for discussion purposes.

Let's say you are average and score 1000 on the SAT. What in the hell are you going to do to get from there to 1560? I know people that scored both. There was no way to bridge that gap. No amount of studying, strategy, test prep, or miracles was going to get them another 560 points. It's the exact same trying to get from an average (7:xx?) mile as a healthy guy to 5:00. You might drop a minute, but no one outside of the unawakened elite is dropping three.

insane= troll

I think it's the same guy that starts a "there's not such thing as 'talent'" thread at least once or twice a month.

Don't feed the troll.