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

uk runner wrote:

Cant be botherd to read the whole thread, but i would say 95-98% of able bodied people could run under 5.00 for the mile if properly trained.

By 'people' you are including 'girl' people and you really should read the entire thread. On what basis can you say this when it has been proven that in a subset of people who do chose to train hard and at an optimal age the results are nowhere near that?

The simplest way to look at this hypothetical question is this simple; assuming your grade 9 boys phys ed class (random population sample; exluding females, handicapped etc.) were chosen as part of an experiment with an extravagant reward (to cover motivation) and were put in an enviroment to train the next eight years (peak physical age, 14 to 22 assuming), what percentage of those would break a 5 min mile?

W Mitty put forth some good statistical thoughts. Flagpole sent some in a tizzy by quoting his own times but it is realistically a good starting point. When I think of my own gym class and how I ran in high school and how they ran compared to me I am very inclined to agree with flagpole and say much less than 5% could do it. Obviously much less actually do. I would bet money that even with training to get 50% achievment you are talking a mile in 2:30, maybe.

Mandingo wrote:

I would bet money that even with training to get 50% achievment you are talking a mile in 2:30, maybe.

what's the typo here, mandingo? did you mean to write 5:30?

otherwise, thanks for hopping back into the discussion. good thoughts.

Sorry, my typo was 1/2 mile in 2:30. I was going over the earlier posts and it's kind of going in circles a bit! I do really think you did the best job of clarifying the issue and that W Mitty did the best of giving support for a low number. I was about to go over times guys ran in my high school but now I realize its frowned upon and doesn't help! THere certainly was a lack of motivation in gym class duing our running portion and since I was on track/ cross country these mostly untrained guys were gunning for me in our one mile runs. THe weirdest thing was torquing out a mile with no warm up!

You could offer people all the money in the world and if they are not born with a sufficiently high VO2max, they will be unable to break 5 minutes in the mile. So that exapmple is irrelevent.

The real question that needs to be answered is how many people are born with the physiological charactersitics that it takes to be capable of breaking 5 minutes in the mile. All of you here who claim that it is a matter of will and desire clearly do not understand human physiology. A person must have a VO2max above a certain number because anaerobic glycolosis will not be enough to get some one through an event lasting longer than 2-3 minutes.

Since training will only improve VO2 max 15-20% on average than that requires that someone be born with a high enough number so that training will get him the rest if he is not already born with that physiological trait.

If you want to have 5 of 10 male babies break 5 minutes by the time they're 27 you better pick them appropriately because all the money and will in the world will not get a person with a 30 VO2 max to break a 5 minute mile, nor will training, because a 20% increase is still below 40.

Why would I be joking?

DenverRunner wrote:

Since training will only improve VO2 max 15-20% on average than that requires that someone be born with a high enough number so that training will get him the rest if he is not already born with that physiological trait.

How exactly do you know that VO2 max can on average only be improved 15-20%? I don't recall that test where they measured the young childrens' VO2, trained them exceedingly well (and they all loved it) for several years and then remeasured the VO2s at their peak to find that 15-20% (on average) improvement. I can't believe I overlooked that one cause that's wayyy better than most of the tests they do that span weeks/months.

As for the "Are you serious?" part, I dunno... I guess the parts I am struggling reconciling are:

1) You say your first 1600m in HS was a 5:05 off of no training.

2) You consider yourself "moderately talented"

3) You say you "train like a pro (80 to 100 miles a week, three hard track workouts)"

4) You believe that perhaps your best time of 4:57 (2yrs ago) is perhaps your maximal performance.

Maybe I'm the dolt.

Benson St. Wales wrote:

"Back in '82, I used to be able to throw a pigskin a quarter mile. "

Thanks Uncle Rico.

I say atleast 50% could break 5 if they trained for it. My high school team has about 70% of all its male distance runners break 5:00 in any given year, and if they stick with it about 90% of them break 5:00 by their senior year.

You are correct if you believe that such early intervention is required. This is in part where "ideal conditions" becomes an issue, because it isn't clearly defined. Personally, I think runners could start at age 12 or so and still be able to hit their potential, so that it's not necessary to do some other thing to make it ideal. I say there are enough doing the ideal right now to get an idea. Under more rigid training requirements, more than now would be able to break 5 minutes, but not a lot more, and to get to 50%, it would have to be a hell of a lot more.

This thread should have been over many pages ago. You are correct, it was a theoretical question. In any case, I think it would be well under 50%, given the natural talent alone required to run fast.

I will agree with kaitainen and agree that this is a good post. I am also assuming you meant 5:30 for the 50% to hit. Now that I could entertain though even there I think 50% is a bit high -- I'd guess 33%-40% could run 5:30 given ideal conditions and proper motivation.When I think back to my own high school gym classes (like you did Mandingo) and comparing them to me, the difference is just light years. We're talking supposed athletic guys who run the mile in 10+ minutes and are gasping for air at the end, and this is the norm. Many can't even run the whole mile without stopping. Many take 15+ minutes to complete. Yes, I know that they weren't trained, but I never had to struggle like that ever, and it's not like I was a sub 4 miler. I ran 4:32 in high school and was fit enough to run low 4:20s in college (based on other performances) though I never ran a mile or 1500 after high school while fit. I think maybe too many of you think that most people are like you. If you even ran a mile ever under 6 minutes, then among all men, you're the cream of the crop brother. Sounds odd to say that, but it is true.

Apparently you know little to nothing about exercise physiology. Not surprising with your condenscending attitude. Go look up any peer reviewed study and it will show that on average, VO2 max can be improved by about 15 to 20% through training. There are outliers who will show a much greater improvement and some who will show no improvement no matter what they do. VO2max is a genetically inherited trait, so no will in the world is going to change that.

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.

DenverRunner wrote:

Apparently you know little to nothing about exercise physiology. Not surprising with your condenscending attitude. Go look up any peer reviewed study and it will show that on average, VO2 max can be improved by about 15 to 20% through training. There are outliers who will show a much greater improvement and some who will show no improvement no matter what they do. VO2max is a genetically inherited trait, so no will in the world is going to change that.

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.

#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."

As with all things, the disparity between those who have and those who can is large.

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.

I should've just said what you've said and been done with this.

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.

That said, it takes both a bit of talent and training (or a combination of both) to break a 5 minute mile. Less than one or two percent could run a mile under five with no training.

For examples sake, however, take your average pool of 16-18 yr old cross country runners in any given conference or state. By self selection this pool will be more talented than the average; but by mid or late season (say after 2 or more months of training), what proportion could break 5 minutes? Maybe 50%, but that might even be a stretch--probably more like 30 to <50%.

Now you take other sports. An equivalent cohort of soccer players would be in the same range, but probably somewhat lower. Football players would be way down, and only a few of the the more lithe ones would make it (maybe 20% to 30%, even if they trained for the mile). Mix in the remaining pud-pulling highschool populace and you'd get well below 10 or 15% being able to make that cut, even with a couple months of conditioning.

I'd guess somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of healthy North American males in their late teens or 20s could train to run a sub-5 with training (obviously the numbers would go up if you trained them for a year or more).

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.

Just to point it out, I may provide drivel, but name calling isn't my thing. Except that I do call people "brother", but that is done affectionately. Know what I mean my brother?

Yeah bro' you're not a name caller--meant some of others (See Denver Runner, tho).

BTW, how are Coolio and Zipperman? Remember those guys?