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

Brian, are you ready for a good laugh? You're about to either hear about how much of a freak of nature you are, OR about how you MUST be using PEDS. I mean, 5min/mile is pretty freakin' unbelievable! (smile)

omurphy21 wrote:

I'm in high school now, and after seeing all the shitty, uncoordinated kids on the team who couldn't even break 6 with good training, I have come to doubt the 50% of the population, even with the proper training, could break 5.

Damn straight brother! I broke 5 minutes the very first time I raced a mile on a track (actually 1600, but I ran 4:54) as a freshman in high school. BUT, I was HUGELY more talented than most high school kids (well inside top 1% of all who RAN even). I've read here that many of you can't hit a baseball or are not good at any other sport other than running (not true for me, but whatever). Do you think that tons of training to get better would just enable you to become a good baseball player? Time on task even done the right way does NOT turn people into good runners. While a 5 minute mile is not spectacular in any way shape or fashion, no freakin' way can anywhere near half of all "age appropriate" men (whatever that means -- I'll assume high school to about age 30?) could break a 5 minute mile even with proper training (how long does the training last? Not that it even matters, because NO AMOUNT would bring 50% capable to do this). I agree with the poster who called all of that fantasy land. Not sure how you can get someone who does not have the talent to run a sub 5-minute mile the proper motivation in order to do so. At some point realism sets in and the person realizes they can't run faster than a 6 minute mile let alone a 5 minute one.

I've been running for a long time and I've seen all kinds of runners. There are TONS out there who have been doing it for 30 years because they love it, and while they might be too old (when talking of "appropriate age" to break a 5 minute mile now), they NEVER were able to do it, and no amount of training advice and actual training would allow them to. I used to train with a group of 20-somethigns when I was also one on Stanford's track once a week. These guys considered themselves to be runners, and they worked hard. Easily more than half of them could not break a 5 minute mile, and these are guys who trained and were young and loved running. Granted, there are some out there who could have benefitted from different training or just never had a goal to break a 5 minute mile who could change things and do it, but 50% -- NO WAY, NO HOW.

But JEH my friend, your comments are usually like BUTTA (as I said before).

so what percentage of male human beings are capable of doing what you were able to do within a few weeks at age 14?

i'm perplexed that there is even a difference of opinion on this. the theoretical question is simple: are half of all male human beings that are born capable of running 1609 meters in under 5:00 minutes under ideal circumstances? in other words, do half of all male human beings born have the ability or the talent to at some point in their lives run below 5:00 minutes for a mile?

i honestly cannot fathom how it would be possible for the majority of male human beings to NOT have this ability.

kaitainen wrote:

so what percentage of male human beings are capable of doing what you were able to do within a few weeks at age 14?

i'm perplexed that there is even a difference of opinion on this. the theoretical question is simple: are half of all male human beings that are born capable of running 1609 meters in under 5:00 minutes under ideal circumstances? in other words, do half of all male human beings born have the ability or the talent to at some point in their lives run below 5:00 minutes for a mile?

i honestly cannot fathom how it would be possible for the majority of male human beings to NOT have this ability.

1) I had been an on again off again runner since age 8 (never trained consistently, but I ran whenever I could -- let a friend borrow my bike as I ran to the baseball diamond, etc.) Even so, my junior high school did not have a track or cc team, so my first experience with consistent training came my freshman year in high school. So, while I hadn't really been running THAT long when I ran a sub 5 minute mile as a freshman, it was a little longer than just a few weeks. I realize this puts your point in your favor a bit, but as always, I'm about the truth, regardless of who it benefits.

2) At age 14, with the minimal training I had, I would say maybe one tenth of one percent are capable of running 1600 meters in 4:54 (probably even better than that). Just a guess. Does this mean I have talent for running that is about in the one tenth of one percent of all runners? Probably so actually. I ran 14:58 for 5,000 meters. This would mean that I'm the best of a thousand runners. That's probably right. It's probably even much better than that. Just shows how much better you've got to be to be the cream of the crop. Top one tenth of one percent doesn't cut it. Just to be clear, this isn't bragging. It's just truth. When I ran 14:58, I was about as good as the best American woman at the time at 5,000 meters, so I know where I stand. The fact remains that I probably need to talk to 1,000 runners before I find one faster than me. Imagine all the 5k road races run every weekend where the winner "crushes" everyone in 16:14. He's not even close to 14:58, and of course neither is anyone behind him.

3) Do half of all men at the ideal age (whatever age that is) and after the ideal amount of training have the ability to run a mile in under 5 minutes? I say no way. Not even close. Why not? They can't develop the ability to do that because they do not have the physical talent necessary to do it.

4) Why do I believe so? I've run with TONS of runners. I've been in high school track meets with 30 runners in the 1600 where I ran 4:30 something and no one else broke 5 minutes. I've run the 3200 in high school in 9:48 when no one else in a field of 30 broke 10:50. The vast majority of these runners were training more than I was (as I've said before, I ran 15-20 miles a week in high school MAX). I trained with a very serious group at Stanford. Many of these guys ran 100 miles a week and did speed work on the track in order to get better. They were in their 20s. Easily more than half could not break a 5 minute mile, and these were guys who were attracted to running because they were moderately good at it.

5) I get the idea that what people have done is different than what they CAN do, but you already have a HUGE sampling of runners. Runners who tried their hardest in high school and post high school. Of these runners, no where near close to 50% could break a 5 minute mile, and they are supposedly the cream of the crop or they wouldn't have been running in the first place. Sure there's a stoner or two out there or a fatty or two out there that if they changed their lives around they could do it, but half of all men in whatever eligibility age range you're talking about? No way. I ran with a guy in high school who trained his ass off every year to get better and better. He didn't have an athletic bone in his body. He finally after all the training and long runs and speed work and four years of running every day during the summer (I never did that), he finally broke 6 mintues in his last race. SIX minutes, not 5. He ran 5:58 or something like that (and that was for 1600 meters). Dude was 18 at the time. He NEVER could have shaved another minute off that time. WAY too uncoordinated, and he went into oxygen debt pretty much immediately. He's the hardest worker I've ever seen, and there are tons with his level of talent or less even -- way less. Many of you who have always been fast just don't realize how fast even an 8 minute mile is for most people. We're talking getting people to run faster than 10 miles per hour for a mile. No way 50% can do this even if properly trained. I see 5% MAX, and that's under ideal conditions. I would not be surprised to see that number be less.

Answer if you want, but other than clearly presenting our opinions there's not much more to say -- we can't set up a test, so it's all conjecture.

A curious observer wrote:

kaitainen wrote:

also, you really had 8 guys who trained year round for four years who couldn't break 5 minutes in the mile???

Definitely. Here was the breakdown:

1 guy above 6:00

2 guys between 5:30 and 5:59

4 guys between 5:10 and 5:29

1 guy between 5:00 and 5:09 (me - I ran a 5:04 as my high school PR.)

The sub 5 guys in my school were running 4:41 and 4:53

This scenario is VERY common. Some of you who were in big schools or in areas that were competitive for the time you were there may have a skewed opinion. I went to both a small high school and a large high school (moved after sophomore year). As a freshman, I once won a 3200 at a big invitational in 10:40. Even at the larger school I went to, commonly there were tons of runners running much slower than 5 minutes, and often they had trained year round, ran cross country, etc.

Most of us who post here don't think of 5 minutes as being all that fast, and when talking about the cream of the crop for distance runners, it isn't. When talking about that time against all men, it definitely is.

kaitainen wrote:

good points. another measure that i would suggest would be to look at those who actually were motivated and who actually did the training. what percentage of those males have broken 5 minutes in the mile? can you honestly think of a single person who you know who ran for 3-4 years, did sufficient training, and who could not break 5 minutes in the mile? (again, limiting this to an appropriate age range, around 15 to 25).

Me. I ran my mile PR at age 26, off four years training, 50+mpw, 5:07. Have never gotten faster.

letsrun.com idiots wrote:

kaitainen wrote:

good points. another measure that i would suggest would be to look at those who actually were motivated and who actually did the training. what percentage of those males have broken 5 minutes in the mile? can you honestly think of a single person who you know who ran for 3-4 years, did sufficient training, and who could not break 5 minutes in the mile? (again, limiting this to an appropriate age range, around 15 to 25).

Me. I ran my mile PR at age 26, off four years training, 50+mpw, 5:07. Have never gotten faster.

You're not alone brother. VAST majority of people (men even) have never broken 5 mintues even with the training specified by kaitainen.

I've long known that talent was by far the biggest factor. I trained the same amount as the kids I went to school with, and that was not much (15-20 miles per week). We did the same long runs at the same pace, did the same track workouts, same warm ups and cool downs, everything. I was running 9:48 and 15:48 though, and they were running 11 minutes and 18-19 minutes. Why? Talent. I had some. They had little (as most people do).

Oops. Made an important typo. A 5 minute mile is 12 miles an hour, not 10 -- that would be a 6 minute mile.

I can't think of any male runner from my high school team who trained hard for four years and couldn't dip under 5 minutes in the 1600. Except me. I ran 5:12 for 1600 meters. It took me another four years to run 4:37 in the 1500, a sub-5 equivalent, in my last college track meet. It was actually a bit anticlimactic after eight years of hard work.

However, my high school coach was really good at putting people in appropriate event groups. Those who did not have distance-related talent wound up in the sprints, the throws, the hurdles, whatever...something they were good at. The ones who really didn't like it didn't finish out four years. I had a teammate who finished with a PR of 5:30, but I am sure he would have been much faster had he run in the winter instead of playing basketball. He was probably at least equal to me in talent if not better, and his siblings were really good.

I think given proper preparation, about 50% of males can break five minutes in the mile at some time in their life. But it could take many years of hard work and a lot of stubbornness.

I'm not going to argue since there's no point, but it is interesting how there seems to be no middle ground here. Half of you say 50% could do it and the other half are saying it's 5% or less. There's not a group saying 25% or 33% or somewhere in between. Interesting...to me anyway.

letsrun.com idiots wrote:

Me. I ran my mile PR at age 26, off four years training, 50+mpw, 5:07. Have never gotten faster.

it's far easier for me to entertain the argument that relatively few people can break 5:00 in the mile from someone who has been unable to do so. from those who have done so, it seems to me that they are trying to make their accomplishment seem greater than, in my opinion, it is.

that said, it certainly sounds like you are among the 50% that i am positing have the necessary talent to break 5:00. it sounds like you never ran with a team, and it is doubtful that you ran in competitive mile races on a track, with a similar level of competition, more than a couple of times. my assumptions are based on the fact that you trained from approximately age 22-26 and ran a 5:07 race at age 26. i'm not sure who you would be racing against at that age on a regular basis. you probably ran more road races than track races.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

Answer if you want, but other than clearly presenting our opinions there's not much more to say -- we can't set up a test, so it's all conjecture.

I see 5% MAX, and that's under ideal conditions. I would not be surprised to see that number be less.

Why do I believe so? I've run with TONS of runners. I trained with a very serious group at Stanford. Many of these guys ran 100 miles a week and did speed work on the track in order to get better. They were in their 20s. Easily more than half could not break a 5 minute mile ...

(obviously i've rearranged your quotes)

1) i agree. it's conjecture.

2) thanks for putting down a guess number, even if it is conjecture. i think there is a meaningful difference between saying 5% and saying 1-2%. 5% is probably a substantial portion of reasonably coordinated, reasonably athletic, reasonably thin males. 1-2% suggests that only a small subset of even these males can do it.

3) i have also run with tons of runners, as i would imagine anyone posting here has. plenty of high school teammates did not break 5 minutes, but none of my high school teammates, including myself, came remotely close to fully developing our ability.

4) i'm sorry, i just don't believe that any guy in his 20s running 100 miles per week and also during workouts on the track is incapable of breaking 5 minutes in the mile. i have to assume that you are talking about different people - some who trained that seriously, others who liked running and whose participation was limited to the distance runs.

5) you could really stand to ramp down the arrogance. why is it relevant that you won a 1600 race in high school while running 15-20 miles a week? i don't need to list my athletic accomplishments to post my opinion on this topic.

letsrun.com idiots wrote:

Me. I ran my mile PR at age 26, off four years training, 50+mpw, 5:07. Have never gotten faster.

To me, this is more of an idicator than not that a significant % of guys could break 5.

I agree that this guy probably had the talent to get below 5:00. I mean 5:07 is VERY close. However, certainly someone out there has a ceiling of 5:07 or even 5:01. Just because you get close to a milestone time doesn't mean you can get under it.

I disagree that for those of us who have broken 5:00 that we're thinking it a bigger accomplishment than it is. In fact, I think just the opposite is true. I think those of you who think 50% could do it think that what you did was a big accomplishment. Here's why:

1) I broke 5:00 EASILY and without much training initially. I did this just based on God-given natural talent mostly. Just took a little bit of running to unlock the talent to do it.

2) Those of you who think that 50% could do it are putting more emphasis on the training, meaning that you believe it was your hard training and work ethic that got you to where you were. This makes it so that YOU were primarily responsible for your accomplishment -- your toughness, your mindset, your relentlessness. While those are all important qualities for a distance runner, those alone do not get a person to a 5 minute mile. Gotta have physical talent. Talent is innate. Ability is what you can do with the talent based on training. Gotta have the talent. So, I think it's more arrogant of a person to believe that 50% could do it than to believe that 5% or fewer could for that reason. We're all fully willing to say that only 1% or less actually DO it (and actually it's way less than 1%). I say I was able to do it based on God-given talent -- something I had NOTHING to do with..couldn't be further from arrogant with that outlook. Some of you say it was more your own doing and that others could do it too -- that's way more arrogant.

Now kaitainen, I'm not sure if you've broken 5 minutes. The way you worded this last post of yours, it appears that you haven't, but I have a feeling that you have. If someone has NOT broken 5 minutes and they feel that 50% could do it, then I think it's just wishful thinking not arrogance. They are hoping so badly that 50% could do it just to give themselves more of a chance to do it. If only the rewards of running were directly proportional to what you put into it. That would seem to be fair. But, running is not fair. Those with the most talent rise to the top. Sure they train hard, but so does the guy who runs 16:00 to win the local 5k by more than a minute. He's the local stud. He runs 100 miles a week, but he can't run even two minutes slower than 13:30 (which many here say is slow). He can't because he wasn't blessed with world or even national class talent.

kaitainen wrote:

5) you could really stand to ramp down the arrogance. why is it relevant that you won a 1600 race in high school while running 15-20 miles a week? i don't need to list my athletic accomplishments to post my opinion on this topic.

It's not arrogance brother. It's a real world example of how talent is the most overriding thing. I don't know how much other top guys in my conference ran. I only know how much I ran, and that was 15-20 miles per week. It's pertinent to the discussion because it shows that talent is the main thing. Many (especially today) would say that 15-20 miles per week is not sufficient training, yet I set the Wood County Cross Country Championship record of 15:48 in 1984 that still stands today. Why? I have boatloads of talent that most don't have. Not arrogance at all. Simply fact. Most people don't have anywhere near that kind of talent, and surely not close enough to run a mile in under 5 minutes, no matter how much training they do.

You've not read my posts closely enough if you think I'm arrogant about my running. At my very best, I was as good as the best American woman at 5,000 meters, and that was my best distance. I know exactly where I stand. Not arrogance. I post for truth and justice only brother...NEVER to be arrogant. I wasn't good enough to be arrogant. I was talented enough though to be more talented easily so that I was in the top one tenth of one percent though. That's not arrogance. That's just fact. Not bragging either (one can brag without being arrogant). It was point making.

kaitainen wrote:

5) you could really stand to ramp down the arrogance. why is it relevant that you won a 1600 race in high school while running 15-20 miles a week? i don't need to list my athletic accomplishments to post my opinion on this topic.

Also, let's be more clear. It wasn't just that I won races on 15-20 miles a week. I set records that still stand today, and with a 15:48 as a high school senior, I was one of the best high school cross country runners in the state of Ohio in 1984. Easy to win races. High school boys 1600 races are sometimes won in over 6 minutes. Why do I remind you of all this? For clarity. Also, it reinforces the point of talent over training. If only I knew in high school what more mileage would make me tons better, BUT low mileage and "resting" was the order of the day, so we ran 15-20 miles a week in just 5 days a week of training, I never ran on the weekend unless we had a weekend meet, and I hardly ran at all in the summer. Oh well. Those days are over.

Whether or not it is more arrogant to assess that more or less could do it is somewhat secondary to the topic.

kaitainen has run well under 5... I think he alluded to 5K under 5pace earlier.

Of course, you have to have some certain level of talent to break 5. Isn't that what the discussion is? What % likely has the required talent?

Let's say someone has a ceiling to reach 4:50. To me, that's not very talented. Now, why would such a person fight for and persevere and train zealously to reach this mark? I mean, train like a TOTAL pro... livelihood depending on it? Just about no one does. In fact, their livelihood can't depend on it because no one pays to see what a modestly-talented person can do. So, it is only in the very highest echelon that we can really see someone pushing themselves hard. Everyone else, even when they train pretty hard/well really is only 75% there in terms of effort.

I think there are very few colllegiate types who come all that close to reaching their best, but at least in those situations, you have the incentives of scholarships, team, etc.

Here's another hypothetical way to look at it. If Bill Gates selected a random sampling of 10,000 male babies and wrote a contract that stated that he would give $10mil per child that breaks 5min in the mile in the next 30 years... what percentage of these guys would eventually do it? I think it would be a good amount.

i know guys in college (who ran for their teams) that could barely break/not break 5 minutes. And these guys trained! Dont ask me how that is possible, but apparenlty you need some talent as well as training.

100 wejo, please send a black shirt this time with a smaller logo over the breast pocket.

not many, yes, we are saying that somewhere between 30-50% would NOT be able to do it.