Why do so many HS runners stagnate in the 5:00 - 5:05 range?

1600 mystery wrote:

That's not everyone's PRs, but the pattern generally holds. One genetic freak running 4:30, 2 or so guys running 4:40 - 4:59, a ton of guys in the 5:00-5:05 range, and then a long tail of lazy and/or untalented folks running 5:20 - low 7.

That's a pretty extreme and sharp bell curve. Does anyone have any explanations for this?

Lol.

It’s the same reason we have so many 2:11 marathoners and so few 2:06 ones. Americans get fixated on a time goal and train only to hit that, no faster.

5:00 just happens to be what an “average” human male can run if moderately trained. Why the average isn’t 4:00 or 6:00 is a different question, but it mostly boils down to the basic physiology humans have in common.

dual meets and they aren't in good shape yet

The trend on my team seemed to be stagnation in the 4:50s for 4-5 guys and 1 or 2 gunning for sub 4:30. Not lots of 5:00-5:10 guys. Plenty of 5:20-5:30s though

EV3-3 wrote:

5:00 just happens to be what an “average” human male can run if moderately trained. Why the average isn’t 4:00 or 6:00 is a different question, but it mostly boils down to the basic physiology humans have in common.

Pretty much. With average (even good) HS training and work ethic...this is what you get.

I don't know and I don't know what high school distance stats are.

I'm from Canada and we run the 1500m, not mile. In my HS we had a lot of talent, some runners well under 2 minutes for 800m. One guy didn't focus on the 1500m yet ran about 4:03. So about a 4:21 mile or so.

I was 4:20 for 1500m. Maybe a 4:40 miler. I was not the best miler in my high school. I wasn't the best at any distance.

I was one of the better (top 3-4) cross country runners.

I probably could have become a 4:30 miler or better if I'd done more morning runs. I maxed out around 50-55 miles a week though most weeks were in the 20-30s range and often far less.

In my view, running under 5 minutes is a bit of an athletic accomplishment but should be achievable for any high schooler who's determined, has a little talent and doesn't have the build of an offensive lineman or linebacker.

You don't need to be a genetic freak to run a 5 minute mile in my view. I think my high school could have had as many as 20 or 30 guys under 5 minutes (1500m equivalent) if they were determined. The reality was we had about 6 or 7.

EV3-3 wrote:

5:00 just happens to be what an “average” human male can run if moderately trained. Why the average isn’t 4:00 or 6:00 is a different question, but it mostly boils down to the basic physiology humans have in common.

The weird thing is that this clustering doesn't seem to happen in any other HS event. You don't see a whole bunch of times in the 12.00-12.10 range for the 100m, times in the 60.00-60.99 range for the 400m, or times in the 18:00-18:10 range for the 5K.

As an occupant of the top of that bell curve, i ran myself inside out trying to break 5. Breaking 40min for 10 k only at the end of my HS (and 12 yr) running career. But couldnt get under 5. Looking back, i can say for me, and maybe less well coached HS programs nowadays, there was zero periodization (i raced 52 weeks a yr on roads or track), and I clearly didnt appreciate anything remotely resembling a threshold run.

Or... maybe physiology is just meant to always cluster somewhere. Seems like a lot of HS girls really get stuck 20 min for 5k.

It's because people put too much emphasis on time goals based on neat, round numbers, rather than gradual, small and sustained improvements.

You see this in every distance. People shoot for the round number as a time goal and once they hit it (or get close) they pull back. People will cluster around the 3-hour and 4-hour milestones in the marathon. They'll do the same at 30:00 and 40:00 in the 10K. The mile is no different.

You put in so much effort to hit that round number, then when you finally do (or get 'close enough') the though of getting to the next big time goal seems too hard to justify.

People tell themselves, "I worked so hard to get to that 5 minute mile, I can't bear the thought of going all the way to 4:00, and shaving just a second here or second there, isn't worth it. I'll take my 4:59.9999 (or whatever I've convinced myself is 'close enough') and now I can coast."

It's slow enough for talented runners who barely train to hit and fast enough for folks with no talent but train hard to hit. Although, I honestly find it hard to believe that a genetically normal person who trains seriously (40-50 mpw consistently) cannot break a 5 minute mile.

I know a lot of coaches will disagree, but I know from personal experience that the majority of runners don't put in the work. I remember in high school a bunch of dudes got in trouble for being caught at a burger king during a practice run (LOL). This was common - doing the bare minimum possible. No off-season running, no running outside of scheduled practice, etc. Seriously, I think most guys on my team averaged like 15 miles a week.

lmfao wrote:

Although, I honestly find it hard to believe that a genetically normal person who trains seriously (40-50 mpw consistently) cannot break a 5 minute mile.

I know a lot of coaches will disagree, but I know from personal experience that the majority of runners don't put in the work. I remember in high school a bunch of dudes got in trouble for being caught at a burger king during a practice run (LOL). This was common - doing the bare minimum possible. No off-season running, no running outside of scheduled practice, etc. Seriously, I think most guys on my team averaged like 15 miles a week.

The problem is that most people would not be able to handle more than a week or two of 50 MPW without getting injured. You're right that there were a huge number of slackers on the track team, but those were concentrated among the sprinters and throwers, not the distance runners. If you're lazy, why sign up to do 1600/3200 when you can just do 100/200?

Distance running tends to attract a lot of OCD folks. It was more common for runners to push through a 70 mile week while suffering from tendonitis than it was to do only 15 MPW and race the 1600.

bigmig19 wrote:

As an occupant of the top of that bell curve, i ran myself inside out trying to break 5. Breaking 40min for 10 k only at the end of my HS (and 12 yr) running career. But couldnt get under 5. Looking back, i can say for me, and maybe less well coached HS programs nowadays, there was zero periodization (i raced 52 weeks a yr on roads or track), and I clearly didnt appreciate anything remotely resembling a threshold run.

Or... maybe physiology is just meant to always cluster somewhere. Seems like a lot of HS girls really get stuck 20 min for 5k.

That bell curve is really pronounced for the distances. As you said, there are lots of girls stuck in the low 20 minute range for 5K.

But we don't see this phenomenon in the sprints. The times are more or less evenly spread out with only a slight bump in the low 12s for the boys 100.

It was kind of similar in college as well. Lots of times in the 4:00 - 4:03 range for the 1500 and not many times in the 11.00-11.09 range for the 100.

EV3-3 wrote:

5:00 just happens to be what an “average” human male can run if moderately trained. Why the average isn’t 4:00 or 6:00 is a different question, but it mostly boils down to the basic physiology humans have in common.

Ya this is my answer. If someone shows up to the first day of practice, and in general thinks of themselves as a 'distance runner', and then runs maybe 5 miles per day with some interval training, they'll probably run somewhere around a 5 minute mile.

Now fewer people are willing to train in the off-season and enter the first day of practice already in decent shape. They will progress to be faster than 5 minutes per mile. They might run 4:40.

And then there's the people who not only train in the off season, but they train a ton in the off season. They might do core workouts every day, lift weights occasionally. Maybe some other training in the off season. They can run 4:20's and occasionally one gifted person who also trains a lot and they'll run 4:10.

So ya, most people don't go all in on the training and only do the high school training for a few months at a time and they'll run around a 5 minute mile for that limited amount of training. If you do a ton of training and only run a 6 minute mile, I'm not sure what to tell you. Which is why we don't see that slow of a time either.

Is this even an actual phenomenon? I never noticed it. How about some more convincing stats to back it up?

This. Have those kids run the 1500 instead, and I bet you wouldn't see any clusters around 4:40, even though a 4:40 1500 is equivalent to a 5:00 1600.

Richard Face wrote:

Is this even an actual phenomenon? I never noticed it.

I'm curious, what did you notice? An equal time distribution, meaning something like this?

4:30 - 4:39: 3 runners

4:40 - 4:49: 3 runners

4:50 - 4:59: 3 runners

5:00 - 5:09: 3 runners

5:10 - 5:19: 3 runners

5:20 - 5:29: 3 runners

That can't be right. Or was your spike at 4:30-4:35 instead of at 5:00-5:05? That's too fast at the HS level. And if your spike was at 5:30-5:35, that's too slow.

800 critic3 wrote:

EV3-3 wrote:

5:00 just happens to be what an “average” human male can run if moderately trained. Why the average isn’t 4:00 or 6:00 is a different question, but it mostly boils down to the basic physiology humans have in common.

Pretty much. With average (even good) HS training and work ethic...this is what you get.

That's it.