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

You've got to start with the fact that only 5% of adult Americans can run a mile without stopping, then go with how about 51% of them are women.Less than 2% of Americans can run 5,000 meters in under 17 minutes, and it might be even less than that.

ppoldjd wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

So, if the winner is the one that's harder to do, breaking 17 for 5,000 meters is WAY harder than making $100,000 a year...remember we're not talking percentage of D1 distance runners...we're talking percentage of all people who might actually make an income...average people. Sub-17 for 5k wins big time.

The number of people doing something does not indicate how hard or isn't hard it is. On the other hand, the amount of people who are actually trying to do it and don't do it IS indicative of how hard it is.

So I disagree that breaking 17 is way harder. There are way less people trying than are trying to make $100k.

Rather than look at statistics we should probably approach the question on an 'individual effort basis’.

Por hemplo, my freshman year in high school it took me about 9 months of running every day to break 17 min 5k (that was summer miles, xc, winter miles and then track).

To break the 100k barrier I worked most of 9 years after getting a degree and certifications.

So I think that earning 100k requires more effort - in terms of mental and financial commitment.

With this in mind I would say that a better equivalency to earning 100k would be breaking 15 min in a 5k. To break 15 it took me about 7 years with a substantial level of commitment on my part - that I would closely parallel to the 9 years of working.

Sure there are those who got to these levels faster than I did but I think I could be classified as a “typical” collegiate runner/worker bee who never really achieved fame or fortune in spite of the effort given.

I disagree with you too, Flagpole. Running under 17 should be attainable for many guys between the ages of about 20 and 30 if they really want to do it. It's just that there aren't a whole lot of guys who care to pursue that goal. For those who can do it, it will take much less time and effort than landing a good job or running a business.

I have run under 14:20 and make well over 100k in engineering (living in a region with a moderate cost of living...not CA or NY). Running that fast took a lot of work, but it was nothing compared to what went in to my education and now goes in to my career.

Ok. The OP is a neophyte...Yes, this is possible. I am 43 and have run between 15 flat and 16:04 since I was 17. Just today I treadmilled a 16:19....i have been making 100k+ for a longtime. But here's the catch...you have to train consistently all the time. I run at least 40 miles a week-every week, but mainly between 50 and 60 miles with one interval training workout and a solid tempo each week. Just be diligent...and male yourself hurt at leather once a week.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

With this in mind I would say that a better equivalency to earning 100k would be breaking 15 min in a 5k. To break 15 it took me about 7 years with a substantial level of commitment on my part - that I would closely parallel to the 9 years of working.

Same here - took me around 3 years of serious focus as an adult runner to break 15 and also about 3 years in the "real world" in a demanding field to top 100k. All the other sports I did growing up sort of laid the groundwork as did my college and graduate degrees.

I have never done either.

At this point as a 38 year old female, I am more likely to make 100k but that is not an expectation, just a wish.

High paying jobs are there, but as mentioned, it depends on your field and qualifications AND how much DEBT you are willing to go into. It might make more sense to become a plumber than a lawyer.

And of course the field. I went into a field when I was 22 that I could never make more than 50k at the tippy top. I've changed fields and starting at the bottom again, so 100k looks pretty impossible.

Yeah, it wasn't hard for you to break 17 because you have TALENT. Wasn't hard for me to break 17 either. Most people just do NOT have the talent to run under 17 minutes.In my daughter's high school, three boys did that this year in cross country (16:07, 16:53, 16:59), and one boy was close (17:08). NO girls did it of course.This CC team begins training on their own on June 1. They run mileage up to 60 MPW depending on their ability and experience with distance running. Their coach is VERY good. The school has about 2000 students, so 3 in 2000 is .015%. Oh yeah, the team convinced a former soccer player to go out for CC in his sophomore year because he wasn't lighting it up there and they all heard how great a distance runner he was...he got down into the 18:30s. If we JUST count the boys on the team (60), then 5% did it, but this is skewed, because these are the boys who either showed some talent or love for distance running.17 minutes seems SOOOOOO slow to most of us, but most people who would be able to do it have tried running at some point...there aren't a lot out there who have the talent but just decided to do marching band instead of cross country...some yes, but not a lot.Again, only 5% of adult Americans can run a mile without stopping...now you want to ask them all to run 3.1 miles at a 5:27.98 pace? Such a SMALL percentage can do that. Like I said, 2% or under, and if I had to bet, I'd say under.High school cross country gives us enough of a sampling to see that most can't meet this goal.

sdp123 wrote:

I disagree with you too, Flagpole. Running under 17 should be attainable for many guys between the ages of about 20 and 30 if they really want to do it. It's just that there aren't a whole lot of guys who care to pursue that goal. For those who can do it, it will take much less time and effort than landing a good job or running a business.

I have run under 14:20 and make well over 100k in engineering (living in a region with a moderate cost of living...not CA or NY). Running that fast took a lot of work, but it was nothing compared to what went in to my education and now goes in to my career.

Flagpole wrote:

In my daughter's high school, three boys did that this year in cross country (16:07, 16:53, 16:59), and one boy was close (17:08). NO girls did it of course.

And how many students in your daughter's high school make 100k?

Flagpole wrote:

Again, only 5% of adult Americans can run a mile without stopping...now you want to ask them all to run 3.1 miles at a 5:27.98 pace? Such a SMALL percentage can do that. Like I said, 2% or under, and if I had to bet, I'd say under.

5% of adult Americans can run a mile without stopping? You totally pulled that out of your ass. My parents are in their 60s and my mom runs 3-4 miles regularly and my dad would have no problem running a mile. Out of the people in my office, nearly half did the JP Morgan Corporate Challenge (3.5 miles), and most did it in a time that would require them to run most of the way.

I can imagine rural Ohio has a different demographic so your perspective may be skewed, but 5% is ludicrous.

No to sub 17

Yes to 6 figure salary

The more pertinent question is which accomplishment is more beneficial in the long run. Clearly the answer to this question is the 6 figure salary.

Querfeldein wrote:

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 really like this question. Just started a new thread on it here:

ppoldjd wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

So, if the winner is the one that's harder to do, breaking 17 for 5,000 meters is WAY harder than making $100,000 a year...remember we're not talking percentage of D1 distance runners...we're talking percentage of all people who might actually make an income...average people. Sub-17 for 5k wins big time.

The number of people doing something does not indicate how hard or isn't hard it is. On the other hand, the amount of people who are actually trying to do it and don't do it IS indicative of how hard it is.

So I disagree that breaking 17 is way harder. There are way less people trying than are trying to make $100k.

It's really about rarity. Things that we can measure follow the normal distribution.

A sub 17 5k is at least 2 standard deviations beyond the mean (in the general population). Folks making a 100k is not quite 2 std dev. 2 std dev is about at the the 98th percentile. So the sub 17 5k is more rare and we could in a way say it is harder.

But you always have folks who claim that pretty much anybody can do a sub 17. That's just crazy. They seem to think that because they saw a high level track meet and saw the entire 5k field break 15, that makes the 17 look doable by anyone who "trains" hard. That's so misguided!

Only a small percentage people will go sub 17, make 100k+, score 1300 sat, be master chess player, play college football, be 6'5" etc

Subfive wrote:

It's really about rarity. Things that we can measure follow the normal distribution.

A sub 17 5k is at least 2 standard deviations beyond the mean (in the general population). Folks making a 100k is not quite 2 std dev. 2 std dev is about at the the 98th percentile. So the sub 17 5k is more rare and we could in a way say it is harder.

But you always have folks who claim that pretty much anybody can do a sub 17. That's just crazy. They seem to think that because they saw a high level track meet and saw the entire 5k field break 15, that makes the 17 look doable by anyone who "trains" hard. That's so misguided!

Only a small percentage people will go sub 17, make 100k+, score 1300 sat, be master chess player, play college football, be 6'5" etc

No, just because it's rarer does not mean that you can say that in a way it's harder.

And how is it so misguided to think that anyone can run 17? There is no proof that it's worthy of the phrase "so misguided".

jdjs wrote:

No, just because it's rarer does not mean that you can say that in a way it's harder.

Agreed. The number of people who can do it has nothing to do with how hard it is. Any able bodied person can dig a 10 foot deep whole in my back yard. Most people can't find the derivative of X^2. However, finding the derivative of X^2 is a hell of a lot easier than digging a 10 foot deep whole for someone capable of doing both. One can be accomplished nearly instantaneously. The other would take hours of hard work.

I think it comes down to that old problem about getting advice from the best in a field - in my experience they rarely know what it feels like to be a beginner or to not be naturally talented.

If you're running anything from 13 - 15m for a 5k, you're up the top of the running tree and probably can't imagine what it's like to work hard and never run faster than 20m no matter how hard you try. Those of us less capable are better placed to appreciate the difficulties involved in breaking 17.

For the record, 5k PB of 18:20 after two years of running and hit $100k+ five years out of Uni. The running has been harder work than the job was, so guess I have more talent in the work field than running.

jdjs wrote:

No, just because it's rarer does not mean that you can say that in a way it's harder.

And how is it so misguided to think that anyone can run 17? There is no proof that it's worthy of the phrase "so misguided".

Okay then. Let's work this out. We'll start by establishing or perhaps agreeing that there is a 5k speed that "anybody" can not do. Let's start with 12:37. Can anybody do that? That appears comically easy to answer? No.

Lets slow to 14:00. Still naw. 15:00. You still gotta run sub 4:50 miles...nonstop...naw. 16:00. You need sub 5 mile ability for one mile. I still can't see anybody doing this either.

It seems obvious that there must be a ceiling due to a requirement for a certain body type that has nothing to do with desire / traing hard. Do you think there is a ceiling somewhere between 12:37 and say 27:00?

rare does not mean hard wrote:

jdjs wrote:

No, just because it's rarer does not mean that you can say that in a way it's harder.

Agreed. The number of people who can do it has nothing to do with how hard it is. Any able bodied person can dig a 10 foot deep whole in my back yard. Most people can't find the derivative of X^2. However, finding the derivative of X^2 is a hell of a lot easier than digging a 10 foot deep whole for someone capable of doing both. One can be accomplished nearly instantaneously. The other would take hours of hard work.

The question now is can "ANYBODY" run a sub 17 5k! Do you know what "anybody" means??? Even if you're talking about any male in his prime or btween 20 & 39 yo...the correct answer is still..no, anybody(meaning any person)in that group can not run a sub 17 5k. Why do you think anybody can?

And the hole digging vs derivative of X^2 analogy fails. Why can't most people find the derivative of X^2? And how does how fast you can do either matter?

I said "in a way" we could say the 17 5k is harder. Obviously, whether or not a particular indivdual can do it depends on that individuals abilities. But when we try and answer the OPs question, the sensible thing to do is look at it at the level of the general population. And I KNOW there are physical limitations based on physiology that have nothing to do with desire or training hard. You seem to think that 17 is not beyond the vast majority of "people", but the evidence says otherwise.

Well, I read a study about that within the last 5 years or so. I just looked for it and actually found percentages that suggested lower than that even, but I think 5% is about right. It's certainly not 10%...doesn't mean they couldn't do it without training, but if you walk up to 100 random American adults of all ages (18-100) then easily less than 10% right then and there could do it.Anecdotes don't really work, brother. I know an 80-year-old guy who runs marathons, but that doesn't prove anything. I also used to work for a company where no one but me was a runner and I doubt very seriously if 5% could have run a mile without stopping...that was in California too, not Ohio.Good for your mother...she's a runner. MOST people aren't, and believe it or not, but they think a mile is a long way.See a discussion of running a MILE here on a triathlon site - http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=226540I'll pull out some text for you from a young woman whose picture makes it look like she could easily run a mile without stopping:"Today I ran about a half mile. Or, at least I ran 5 minutes straight and think it was about a half mile.Someday I'll be able to run a mile. (In just a few more weeks if all goes according to plan.)"Then some dude says, "I'm going to send my starving hyenas after you...somehow, I bet you're one of the 1% who can manage to survive the mile."Not sure where he got 1%, but notice he said "survive" a mile as if that's a big deal. And these are people who are supposedly into fitness!

Oops, that's 0.15%.

This is the correct answer. Nice job there Subfive. The counter argument (which doesn't hold water) is that not everyone TRIES to run sub 17 for 5k. The problem with that is that we already have more than enough of a sampling of runners to determine how many can do it, and in fact, it is skewed in FAVOR of more being able to do it than can because most runners are so because they showed an aptitude for it. Here in the US, there is MORE than ample opportunity to show distance running ability...they run in gym class, there is the President's Fitness Challenge that all kids do, etc. Johnny can't run 5,000 meters in under 17 minutes, but he'll make $120,000 a year as a salesman one day.