Sub 5 Mile: Tops in Human History?

the ones that finished outside the US.

LouSiffer wrote:

agreed with a lot of what you said.. the point i have tried to make is that our sport currently gets the people who are likely to excel (they have known for awhile they are the fastest in their neighborhood, class, school).

for guys we get the ones capable of running sub 4:20ish.

BUT there is a whole stable of guys capable of running sub 5:00 who are doing other sports. It is that middle ground type of athlete, the good but not great kid that we have lost to other sports over the years. And i believe that is particularly true for girls.

Wow, I agree with you. I still think you have to train that stable of middle ground guys though. They can't just step onto the track and run 5:00. They probably need a year or two of consistent training.

Mileage21 wrote:

I can't believe how many people have said that there were only 1-2 people who could break 5:00 in their whole school. At my high school, it took sub 5:00 to letter, and we usually have at least one freshmen if not more do it every year.

See, I wish I had gone to a school like yours. You probably had a good coach, strong running tradition, fast upper classmen to look up to.

When you're only running 15-20 miles per week, only running 5 days per week, not doing a long run, running every workout as hard as you can...can you see how 5:00 would not be common?

I ran a 4:30 but that was my sophomore year and I never improved in the mile after that. My 400's and 800's continued to improve, but never my mile or cross country times. I don't think I was lazy - I just didn't know any better.

LouSiffer wrote:

good god dude where did you go to school?? right next to a little debbies factory outlet?

our local HS has just under 200 students

track team has 6 boys and one girl under 5:00

there are probably 10 to 12 baseball guys who could and another 2 or 3 field hockey/softball girls

the girls soccer coach was a D1 all american and could probably scare 5 if not get under

both mens XC and track coaches run under 17 for 5k so i would put them in there

basketball coach is also the PE teacher and runs sub 20 for 5k but has some good wheels so maybe

alright, your high school has 3-4 girls who can break 5 mins in the mile. with 200 students in the school....i really beleive you, i truly do. You realize that would put you as one of the best track schools in the nation.

10-12 baseball guys.....i doubt that as well.

a lot of you people are making a 5 min mile seem like its no big deal. My highschool, me and maybe one other guy could break 5 in the mile. That makes it 1 or 2 in 1200. My city of half a million, 30% couldnt for sure. 5% almost definately not. Im sure the number is well under 1 percent.

[quote]LouSiffer wrote:

very wrong... to run sub 5 one only needs to average 37.5 per 200.. for someone with a 32 best that is a slowdown of 5 1/2 seconds. you really dont think you can put together 8 200's with that kind of slowdown? i know my mile pr was run with much less of a gap (around 4 seconds)

I am talking athleticism not skill. what clemens and bonds have is skill, i would not call either an athlete at this stage of their careers.

[quote]meh wrote:

5 sec slowdown is not a lot at all. alan webb im sure could run 23 at least in the 200, yet can not sustain 8 200's at 28 seconds.

all the people posting numbers like 5% have to understand first of all, HOW MANY PEOPLE THERE ARE IN THE WORLD

and second of all HOW FAST A FIVE MINUTE MILE IS (of course looking at it from an objective view) go back to the early 1900s and look at the world records. More like recreational runners but still, and im sure people then are in better shape on average than people now.

the number is probably around 0.05% or less

um...if webb can run 23 flat, add in my 5 1/2 secs to get 28.5 which is a 57 flat quarter, which if my math is right comes out to a 3:48 mile which is ....

Mr Webbs PR (if my memory serves me correctly at least

[quote]wonerin wrote:

5 sec slowdown is not a lot at all. alan webb im sure could run 23 at least in the 200, yet can not sustain 8 200's at 28 seconds.

quote]

maybe im just weird but i train and i've run a 4:26 but only a 16:57. also a 5 second speed decay from 200 to a mile is impressive. you only achieve that through a lot of training.

What is really interesting here is that every once in a while, a high school will produce 10 or more male and 1 or 2 females who can run under 5 minutes for the mile. The Posters from these schools think that this is the norm; in

fact, it is not; it is entirely the result of ONE great Track Coach who is popular with all the students for his/her, ability to make PE a blast ... so they join the track team. The Coach likely had a full track scholarship at U and knows how to train themselves and others. The result is ... a pack of excellant runners who have broken the "magical" 5 minute barrier. The point is ... that this Coach ... would have produced the same crop of sub 5 runners, at any school they coached at.

How many high schools in this country ... or in the world ... have a dedicated and knowledgible Coach like this?

The other interesting observation is, that many posters on this subject think that just because a guy/girl is a great athlete in some other sport, they can run under 5 minutes for the mile. My guess is that about 1 in a million can naturally, without specialized training, can go under 5; that type of person might be excelling at an International level at soccer ... like Noredine Moreclli, Said Aoita or

Hicham El Guerroj ... lets throw in Jim Ryun and Steve Prefontaine as well.

Peace

Q

just saying! wrote:

Wow, you really have no idea, do you?

At my high school there were 1,100 students, plus probably 100 teachers, janitors, and various staff people.

For 3 of my 4 years of high school I was the only person who could run sub-5 for the mile. By my senior year one of my buddies broke 5 also.

That's 1 to 2 people per 1,200. And you really think 1 in 6.5 people could run that fast with a gun to their heads? I don't think so.

(By the way, you may be thinking that the soccer players, for example, were capable of running 5 minute miles but never got the chance. No way - the varsity standard for soccer was that you had to run 2 miles in 12 minutes. Only two guys ran that fast, and both were also on the track team and neither ran sub-5 for the mile).

WOW did your HS suck. WE had 1400 at our school and there were many people on our track team that could do it. WE had seven guys on XC that actually ran under 4:50 for 1600 (4:19 to 4:48 for 1600). I didn't pay any attention to the others but there were a bunch of other guys just behind that top-seven that could not sprint or throw or jump so they ran the 800, 1600 and 3200 and some of them were sub-5:00. I would say five.

At least 10 other guys could have run sub-5:00 but were so far from that event that they never would have tried it. We had four sprinters that ran 10.70 to 10.90 and all hit 50-52 in the 400 (their endurance was poor). Two of them could have run under 5:00. We had a guy run :49 and 1:56 and he could have done it. We had a bunch (five or six) second-tier guys who ran :53-:55 and 2:05-2:10 in the same year and they could have all done it when their 800 was under 2:10.

We had one guy who was just too slow at everything, but he was a football player and coach made him run track and he wanted a varsity letter and coach made him run the 1600. He ran 4:59 in a dual meet.

The girl's XC coach jumped into a workout with us boy's one time and he was pushing me pretty hard and we did that rep in 4:58 on the track, so there is at least one teacher.

SO, there were conservatively just 10 boy's who actually did it and one teacher, but there were easily 30 could have (swimmers and soccer players could have). We had four sub-5:00 1600 runners on my freshman track team alone. One guy went 4:44 (he was a national-class age-grouper the year before), I went 4:50/10:20, Mike Johnson went 2:11/4:59, and Forrest Driggs went 2:11/4:56.

We were not a super-power HS from the sunbelt either.

jutter man wrote:

(ps - One final thing. The stereotype of long distance runners as castoffs from other sports - I don't buy it. I'm a very good athlete and I just happen to love running.

i love this guy, i agree 100 per cent. same with me. i play basketball with kids from the varsity b-ball team from my school, and we are pretty good.

i beat the 10 kids from the varsity baseball team in a HR derby last weekend.

i beat the 2nd singles kid from my tennis team.

i played as a freshman for the 22nd ranked varisty soccer team in America, and believe it or not have play soccer with Freddy Adu, and an 18 year old that plays for manchester united, giuseppe rossi.

im an athletic kid, i just find track appealing for many reasons. its not my only sport, but i enjoy it

Hmm, all this talk is getting me motivated to try and crack 5 min. So far, I've run two 5k's in the 17.20's this year. The only problem is that I'm in my mid 30's...

Hmmm, I don't totally agree with this.

We had a small school with several guys that went sub-5.

Our coach at the time was an ex-Navy guy who was a very good runner - probably could have beaten all of us at any distance over the mile back then.

But he was also a strict disciplinarian. We did lots of pushups for our "sins".... No way people came out to run track with this guy to "avoid PE". They HID in PE to avoid him! He ran most long runs with us, which was good and bad. He watched and coached while we ran, which was positive, and prevented us from screwing around too much (good, but seemed bad). Like you say, he knew about training and how to train/motivate (scare?) us.

The previous coach was also very accomplished. He set the record for Badwater back when it went all the way to the top of Whitney, and was only a few crazies out there, not the source for Karno/Reed trash talk. I never had him as a coach. I was told that he just sent the runners out to do their long runs and never accompanied them. Some of the guys who went sub-5 under the new coach floundered under him. They all just ran up to the 7-11 and played video games for an hour and jogged back to school. So, even though this guy knew how to train himself, it didn't trickle down to the runners. HE was the one who got lots of students to do track instead of PE. And they accomplished much less than under my coach. I am pretty sure I would have run much slower also under his guidance.

So I think a really good coach has to be far more than some popular PE teacher who was a good runner. And it always helps a coach to have good athletes! (Not saying WE were especially good, just decent, and all there to share in the pain together, which helped us all)

again you are mixing things up... yes 55 is what people in D3 need to run, but those are sprinters... they don't have the endurance for a sub 5 minute mile... again for distance runners, those who run fast in a mile, for women 61 is a fast time... and as evidence i gave you paula radcliffe

the best athletes... not necessarily, the best runners - probably. it's a self-selection process... i would argue that especially for women some of the best athletes go to running... they don't have football, wrestling and softball isn't as popular. at my high school in the fall women could choose from field hockey or cross country and that is it

[quote]LouSiffer wrote:

second, re HS track. do you honestly believe that the BEST athletes are running track? especially for girls? we get the bottom tier (unfortunately) so what passes for 'elite' is hardly representative of the total pool of athletes.

[quote]hrunner wrote:

its D3 dude...SLOW...and its only 55.

Paula is a marathoner and she has run high 58's

Mary Slaney, Suzy Favor both mid distance types have run 1:56/57s for 800. A good female miler is under 2 for the half and is doing reps in the low 60's. Maria Mutola has run in the mid 51's I believe and run a decent 1500.

yes i agree with all of those times... you are talking about suzy favor, maria mutola do you think they are at all indicative of the general running population, or the general population at all...i really could give a crap, the person I care about can run in the 50s and come close to 2 for an 800 but those times are not at all common for a DI runner... why don't you bring up kenny b and use him as a guide for what are good times, wtf? i'm done as there is no point in arguing with a person who just spins stupid crap

LouSiffer wrote:

its D3 dude...SLOW...and its only 55.

Paula is a marathoner and she has run high 58's

Mary Slaney, Suzy Favor both mid distance types have run 1:56/57s for 800. A good female miler is under 2 for the half and is doing reps in the low 60's. Maria Mutola has run in the mid 51's I believe and run a decent 1500.

If you live on the East Coast, West Coast, or Texas I'm sure sub 5:00 is more common, but come to the Midwest once and a while and you'll see lots of large schools with very few sub 5:00 milers in their history.

Alan

I run at a high school in ohio and we have 15 guys and a girl that have run under 5. and that includes guys running 4:13,4:19:4:27,4:31,4:34,4:35,4:45,4:47 and two guys at 4:50 they rest are 4:55-4:59.99... we are decent in cross, but nowhere near state champs as of now. This doesnt include 400/800 guys that have never run the mile either. so to say the midwest isnt strong is kinda wrong since we dont come close to winning state.

wow my school suddenly seems fast with our 7 guys under 5