Can most (50% or more) of guys run a 5 minute mile?

#1: VO2 max is correlated with running a fast mile but is far from the sole factor in determining someone's capabilities.

#2: Someone with a naturally high VO2 max prior to training will generally reap fewer returns to training than someone with a low untrained max (someone who runs 4:40 untrained will have less room for improvement than someone who runs 9:20). And I don't know how long the time frame is on those studies, but I doubt a "typical" untrained person could only improve their VO2 max by 20% after say 10 years of intense training.

#3: A 15% increase in VO2 max and a 10% increase in running economy is approximately a 25% increase in velocity. Let us not forget how much time people could shave off solely by dropping a few pounds.

#4: If you ran 5:05 1600m off of no training you had the ability to run faster than 4:57, now you are trying to justify your not doing so with "exercise physiology."[/quote]

#1: Yes, you are correct, but someone with a low VO2 is not going to run a fast mile regardless of how good thier economy is.

#2: VO2 max improvement is generally achieved in under 2 years, after which large increases are not likely to occur. Therfore, afterwards, improvements are based on improvement of economy and muscle recruitment patterns, and thus also why runners tend to plateau after a certain period of time. 10 years of training is not needed to maximize an individual's VO2.

#3: Yes, people could shave off a few seconds by losing weight, improving economy, etc, but they are not going to reap massive improvements in time from these.

#4: Yes, I could have run faster as a high schooler, and probably could have run faster as a 20 something had I not quit running at the time. However, I am never going to break 4 minutes for the mile, and that is based on physiology. maybe I could have gone down to 4:30, who knows? I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm proud of the fact that I was able to finally break 5 minutes as an adult when I learned how to train properly, wished I would have maximized what talent I had been given as a high schooler/collegian, but also recognize the fact that know amount of willpower is going to overcome physical limitations.

[quote]AK-47 wrote:

ahh, per usual, an esoteric question on Letsrun devolves into senseless name calling and drivel, and it ultimately starts to swirl round none other than Flagpole Willy. It's like gravity or relativity.

Denver Runner--you are a disgrace to the Centennial State! I'm embarrassed to say that I'm a native with the like of you sullying the intelligence level of the population. Good thing I moved.

You don't appear to be too intelligent yourself pal, with your unprovoked attack on me. I'm glad you left too, we don't need your kind in our state.

JEH wrote:

Condescending?!? Really? I'm sorry.

You see, I've been holding back quite a bit, but I admit it has been difficult given what I think about your statements of fact (of which only the first is). My intent was not to be condescending. I was merely trying to call a spade for what it is... but I can see how it may appear a little condescending.

Maybe I'll get condescending later, though, because I still think you're trolling. (If so, nice job - you got me!)

Regardless, keep up the good training and have good runs.. I mean that sincerely.

How am I trolling? You are the one who has no idea who I am, yet you accuse me of "joking," or "lying." You have nothing factual to substantiate this position on other than your assumption that what I said in my post is untrue.

Please, prove me wrong. Convince me that the statements that I made about my times and my running now are false. Bottom line is that you can't, and I called you out on that.

P.S. I doubt that you are sincere in telling me to keep up the good traing, based on your accusations toward me. If I am wrong, then I apologize.

Wow! Guys, this is more heated than the John McCain/IRaq thread! In order to bring things down a notch I'd like to point out that Lance Armstrong ran a 4:52 at the beginning of an interview, in light trainers and seemed to be working fairly hard. Now if Lance can barely break 5, with his MVo2, 50 % is obviously high!

JEH, congrats again on us being right about Bekele!

I am always sincere in hoping you have good training and running... even if I couldn't stand you. And, I really don't know you at all.

As for the trolling (which isn't any big deal, btw.. people do it all the time), I already gave you your statements you that are suspect. I'll narrow it down to 3.

1) 5:05 in first 1600 of NO training (serious talent)

2) 80-100m training like a pro that produced a 4:57 best (CAN NOT be a pro training for the mile... not with that 5:05 first race talent... no way)

3) the belief that 4:57 may very well be your best (NO fricken way)

Despite my desire to provide some significant physio-speak smack down (sorry, I just feel that it would be a waste of time), I will defer to anyone reading this thread. Is there anyone who thinks ALL of the above three items can be true?

Unprovoked--well you started by go around calling people who disagree with you dolts. You seem to be a most disagreeable, and likely unhappy, person.I'm in agreement with what you're saying, but you gotta chill the attitude, bud. (Flagpole gets a 'bro, you just get a bud).

As for the second part, I have no reason to make anything up on a silly messageboard, if you can't reconcile those facts then yes, you sir are the dolt. At least you got one thing right.

JEH wrote:

Is there anyone who thinks ALL of the above three items can be true?

that can't possibly all be true. i assume denver runner was a little loose with his words when he said he was training now to be the best he could possibly be. he probably meant something similar to that, but not literally that.

taken literally, those three things are irreconcilable.

Mandingo wrote:

Now if Lance can barely break 5, with his MVo2, 50 % is obviously high!

Actually I think the most telling result from Lance's experience is that high VO2 does not correlate that strongly with running a fast mile.

It seems DenverRunner has acknowledged having at one point had the potential to run in the 4:30-4:40 range, which seems to contradict his earlier statement. Just to be clear: DR, do you think your 4:57 was within 5 seconds of your absolute potential, assuming you had undergone 8-10 years of proper, rigorous training during your prime years? If so, I'm sure there are many others out there who did not do "proper" training...pretty much anyone who runs under 5:20 while in high school can be assumed to have enough talent to SOMEDAY break 5:00 IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO.

Rollin' Trollin' D-Runner, you're going to need a pretty good opinion to counter kaitainen's...at least on the runnin' stuff ((smile)... low blow, I know)).

Mandingo, it wasn't that we were that good on the Bekele thing - it was just that the prevailing thought that the odds were sooo far in Bekele's favor (in those conditions) was not so great. (In retrospect, of course some unfavored but excellent runner was going to press the pace and increase the chances of heat playing a big role.) Anyway, I don't think I've ever relished being called an idiot douchebag so much in my life (due to the irony). Is that arrogant of me?

Yeah, I saw the 4:30 comment (which I would still consider on the underacheverish side for a 5:05 first-mile-off-no-training dude), and of course it was in conflict with the earlier statement... which is just another reason to suspect a Trollie McSockitPuppet (or whoever).

So, again, you got me, D-Troller... got me good (but I'm just wasting time and not really arguing the topic any topic anymore - just so you don't get too big-headed about your sucker-catching skillz).

kartelite wrote:

Mandingo wrote:

Now if Lance can barely break 5, with his MVo2, 50 % is obviously high!

Actually I think the most telling result from Lance's experience is that high VO2 does not correlate that strongly with running a fast mile.

It seems DenverRunner has acknowledged having at one point had the potential to run in the 4:30-4:40 range, which seems to contradict his earlier statement. Just to be clear: DR, do you think your 4:57 was within 5 seconds of your absolute potential, assuming you had undergone 8-10 years of proper, rigorous training during your prime years? If so, I'm sure there are many others out there who did not do "proper" training...pretty much anyone who runs under 5:20 while in high school can be assumed to have enough talent to SOMEDAY break 5:00 IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO.

My earlier statement was never that I couldn't have run faster, on the contrary, with proper training I feel I could have run in the 4:30s when I was younger. I also aknowledge that I have some running talent to have run a 5:05 1600 in my first meet off of little training (other than playing basketball).

I still believe that it takes some modicum of talent to run under 5 minutes and that around 20% of the population is born with the talent to do so.

JEH wrote:

I am always sincere in hoping you have good training and running... even if I couldn't stand you. And, I really don't know you at all.

As for the trolling (which isn't any big deal, btw.. people do it all the time), I already gave you your statements you that are suspect. I'll narrow it down to 3.

1) 5:05 in first 1600 of NO training (serious talent)

2) 80-100m training like a pro that produced a 4:57 best (CAN NOT be a pro training for the mile... not with that 5:05 first race talent... no way)

3) the belief that 4:57 may very well be your best (NO fricken way)

Despite my desire to provide some significant physio-speak smack down (sorry, I just feel that it would be a waste of time), I will defer to anyone reading this thread. Is there anyone who thinks ALL of the above three items can be true?

1) This is a fact, other than coming from basketball season where I basically rode the pine and did a bunch of end line to end line sprints as training. I suppose that counts as some sort of training.

2) I was not training specifically for the mile, and the mile that I did run was at altitude, so adjust it for sea level if you would like. That is perhaps good for a 4:50-52?

3) I stated that may be my best now that I am almost 32. I'm sure that I could have run faster in my 20s had I been running and training for the event. Sorry for the confusuion there.

Keep in mind the 5:05 was when I was 16 at sea level, while the 4:57 was at altitude at age 30. I also have difficulty running a 65 second quarter, regardless of altitude or age, so my limiting factor is overall speed.

Anyway, hope that clarifies things a little.

OK-dokey... I can live with all that (smile). Seriously, If I ever appear contentious, I'm just funning around. I apologize if you took offense to my basically saying you were being disingenuous.

Now, I obviously need to stop (a long time ago) as this thread is now catching up to the "dumbest thing hot girls say" thread, and I am afraid I am the culprit for this impropriety.

AK-47 wrote:

Unprovoked--well you started by go around calling people who disagree with you dolts. You seem to be a most disagreeable, and likely unhappy, person.

I'm in agreement with what you're saying, but you gotta chill the attitude, bud. (Flagpole gets a 'bro, you just get a bud).

As for the second part, I have no reason to make anything up on a silly messageboard, if you can't reconcile those facts then yes, you sir are the dolt. At least you got one thing right.

Well, I was just agreeing with what he original said which was that I was either lying or he was a dolt.

So yeah, when I'm basically accused of lying I'm gonna have a little bit of attitude about it. Myself and him seem to have reached an agreement, hopefully you and I are the same.

JEH wrote:

OK-dokey... I can live with all that (smile). Seriously, If I ever appear contentious, I'm just funning around. I apologize if you took offense to my basically saying you were being disingenuous.

Now, I obviously need to stop (a long time ago) as this thread is now catching up to the "dumbest thing hot girls say" thread, and I am afraid I am the culprit for this impropriety.

LOL! You and me both! I think I will move on to other threads as my position on this one stands and it will never be proven right or wrong because it is basically a hypothetical!

Man, this thread gets my ego up. I was the slowest guy in 4th grade when we had to do 2 laps around the playground for PE every week (sometimes it would be 5 laps). Regardless of the distance, I only beat 3 girls almost every time, and I got picked on a lot for that. In HS, I wanted to get rid of some of my bad memories, so I trained my ass off and peaked at 70MPW. I graduated last year with a 4:56, and now I\'m at 2:08 for the 800, which is about a 4:45 mile (I haven\'t raced the mile seriously yet).

Here we go again...

I'd say most guys given the time to train could eventually break 5:00 at some point in their lifetime. Most would take their entire athletic life to do it...up until about age 25 for the mile...after that you just get too old and slow. Keep in mind about 60% of the population and about 25% of those are obese. We'd have to do some major lipo or gastric bypass first. Let's say about 50-75% of the population could, if given their entire lifetime to train, break 5:00 in the mile. Currently?...as said 1000 times, about 1%.

Alan

as JEH said, most of my jibes can be taken with a grain of salt...goes with been around letsrun too long.

DenverRunner wrote:

AK-47 wrote:

Unprovoked--well you started by go around calling people who disagree with you dolts. You seem to be a most disagreeable, and likely unhappy, person.

I'm in agreement with what you're saying, but you gotta chill the attitude, bud. (Flagpole gets a 'bro, you just get a bud).

Well, I was just agreeing with what he original said which was that I was either lying or he was a dolt.

So yeah, when I'm basically accused of lying I'm gonna have a little bit of attitude about it. Myself and him seem to have reached an agreement, hopefully you and I are the same.

I came to running from hockey and my best mile was a gut-wrenching 5:08 on a grass oval. That was nearly 20 years ago. I bow to anyone who can run sub-5:00. 4:00? forget it, an alien life form.