Something tells me no way this can be true, but if anyone can confirm that would be cool. He also seems to be confused about the difference of a 3- and 4-minute mile...got to this at the end of an article now I feel there's ample reason to dismiss everything he's advocating.
You're probably familiar with the story of the three-minute mile: For thousands of years, it was believed that running a mile in less than four minutes was physiologically impossible. Roger Bannister didn't set any mental limits and he proved everyone wrong. But that's not the best part of the story. The best part is what happens afterwards: Within one year after Bannister broke the three-minute mile, 37 other runners did it too! How do you explain this? Nothing changed in the runner's bodies; nothing changed in the laws of physics; there were no new breakthroughs in running techniques. It was simply the runner's beliefs of what was possible that changed - the mental barrier was broken.