See thread title.
See thread title.
60%
27.3%
The beta ones
10% people are slower than you would imagine.
Canova>God wrote:
10% people are slower than you would imagine.
5%
Once people get out of high school very few of them follow a structured exercise program
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Canova>God wrote:10% people are slower than you would imagine.
5%
Once people get out of high school very few of them follow a structured exercise program
That may even be a little high. For 17 year old boys the 90th percentile on the Presidential physical fitness test is 5:57 and I expect most people go downhill after high school.
I saw a study about 10-12 years ago that suggested that up to 65% of the entire population could not run a mile...at all...regardless of time. So I'm talking about just completing a mile without stopping! I would think that for this specific age group the percentage would be slightly lower but then again after another 10-12 years of increasing unhealthy lifestyles who knows! Its pathetic really.
At my public accounting firm, we have probably 120 people in that age range, and I would guess that maybe 8-10 could break 6 in the mile.
we are the X% wrote:
See thread title.
___________________________
2%. 6:00, not 6:59. think of a gym in your town/city. Think of the weekend warrior runners who ramp it up to 10 mph on the treadmill for .1 of a mile before immediately ramping back down. Those are the in shape people too. Good for them and all. But i dont see more people than 2% keeping up at 10 mph on a treadmill for 6:00 at a time.
I'd say around 20% - higher at 18-20, and lower at 30.
I became a "runner" just after turning 19 after I gutted out a 4:48 1600m in tennis shoes one evening at the local track. I ordered track spikes and 2-3 weeks later ran 4:34 with very even pacing. Of course after that point, time came off much slower.
Now at 30, I only go for 20 or so short runs a year, but occasionally still bang out a 6:00 mile on the treadmill just to make sure I can do it...I think if I had to go all-out I could manage low to mid-5:00.
So at both 18 and 30, as a non-runner I've been sub-6 by a comfortable margin. I'm around 190, but lift regularly and definitely haven't "let myself go." I realize that's not the case for everyone...
For a bit more anecdotal evidence from someone who's never been a runner, my brother has never run more than 5 miles in his life, but would always run under 12:00 for his college soccer 3200m, and at 27 recently went 5:20 on an indoor track (he probably weights 180-185 but is pretty "fit"). On his D3 soccer team, I believe that around half of his teammates would crack 12, and even someone who runs a 21-22 minute 5k (think about how that places you in a college race) could likely break 6:00.
I know people here like to pride themselves on being fit and looking at everyone else as super slow, but tons of former HS/college runners, as well as other sport athletes and non-athletes in that age group (cross-fit guys! lol) could manage to dip under 6:00.
By the way, looking at results from local 5k races is a horrible way to judge sub-6:00 ability in the area...there tons of people like myself (probably some of you reading this) who could easily still break 6:00 but have no desire to run a 5k when it would be a struggle to get within 4 minutes of your college PR.
Probably less wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:5%
Once people get out of high school very few of them follow a structured exercise program
That may even be a little high. For 17 year old boys the 90th percentile on the Presidential physical fitness test is 5:57 and I expect most people go downhill after high school.
Just thinking out loud but it may be high. When I was running more road races I was in just under 6 min/mile shape and I was finishing within the top 5% or most of my races (and even better at the longer stuff) and within the top 10% of even my more competitive 5ks. Of course that included a lot of people excluded from this sample but the male 18-30 age group was not particularly competitive.
Bad example, your brother was already a college athlete which puts him in the top percentile of the population as far as fitness, true "runner" or not.
kartelite wrote:
I'd say around 20% - higher at 18-20, and lower at 30.
I became a "runner" just after turning 19 after I gutted out a 4:48 1600m in tennis shoes one evening at the local track. I ordered track spikes and 2-3 weeks later ran 4:34 with very even pacing. Of course after that point, time came off much slower.
Now at 30, I only go for 20 or so short runs a year, but occasionally still bang out a 6:00 mile on the treadmill just to make sure I can do it...I think if I had to go all-out I could manage low to mid-5:00.
So at both 18 and 30, as a non-runner I've been sub-6 by a comfortable margin. I'm around 190, but lift regularly and definitely haven't "let myself go." I realize that's not the case for everyone...
For a bit more anecdotal evidence from someone who's never been a runner, my brother has never run more than 5 miles in his life, but would always run under 12:00 for his college soccer 3200m, and at 27 recently went 5:20 on an indoor track (he probably weights 180-185 but is pretty "fit"). On his D3 soccer team, I believe that around half of his teammates would crack 12, and even someone who runs a 21-22 minute 5k (think about how that places you in a college race) could likely break 6:00.
I know people here like to pride themselves on being fit and looking at everyone else as super slow, but tons of former HS/college runners, as well as other sport athletes and non-athletes in that age group (cross-fit guys! lol) could manage to dip under 6:00.
By the way, looking at results from local 5k races is a horrible way to judge sub-6:00 ability in the area...there tons of people like myself (probably some of you reading this) who could easily still break 6:00 but have no desire to run a 5k when it would be a struggle to get within 4 minutes of your college PR.
First you say you're a non-runner but at age 19 you ran 4:34 after becoming a runner for just 2-3 weeks. Which frankly sounds like bull$hit but it might be in the realm of possibility for someone with a huge amount of talent.So assuming you are such a talent why do you think your experience would be relevant for the rest of the population? As pointed out above in the very large sample of 17 year olds from the Presidential physical fitness test only 10% of them can run a sub 6:00 mile.
kartelite wrote:
I'd say around 20% - higher at 18-20, and lower at 30.
I became a "runner" just after turning 19 after I gutted out a 4:48 1600m in tennis shoes one evening at the local track. I ordered track spikes and 2-3 weeks later ran 4:34 with very even pacing. Of course after that point, time came off much slower.
Now at 30, I only go for 20 or so short runs a year, but occasionally still bang out a 6:00 mile on the treadmill just to make sure I can do it...I think if I had to go all-out I could manage low to mid-5:00.
So at both 18 and 30, as a non-runner I've been sub-6 by a comfortable margin. I'm around 190, but lift regularly and definitely haven't "let myself go." I realize that's not the case for everyone...
For a bit more anecdotal evidence from someone who's never been a runner, my brother has never run more than 5 miles in his life, but would always run under 12:00 for his college soccer 3200m, and at 27 recently went 5:20 on an indoor track (he probably weights 180-185 but is pretty "fit"). On his D3 soccer team, I believe that around half of his teammates would crack 12, and even someone who runs a 21-22 minute 5k (think about how that places you in a college race) could likely break 6:00.
I know people here like to pride themselves on being fit and looking at everyone else as super slow, but tons of former HS/college runners, as well as other sport athletes and non-athletes in that age group (cross-fit guys! lol) could manage to dip under 6:00.
By the way, looking at results from local 5k races is a horrible way to judge sub-6:00 ability in the area...there tons of people like myself (probably some of you reading this) who could easily still break 6:00 but have no desire to run a 5k when it would be a struggle to get within 4 minutes of your college PR.
kartelite wrote:
I'd say around 20% - higher at 18-20, and lower at 30.
I became a "runner" just after turning 19 after I gutted out a 4:48 1600m in tennis shoes one evening at the local track. I ordered track spikes and 2-3 weeks later ran 4:34 with very even pacing. Of course after that point, time came off much slower.
Now at 30, I only go for 20 or so short runs a year, but occasionally still bang out a 6:00 mile on the treadmill just to make sure I can do it...I think if I had to go all-out I could manage low to mid-5:00.
So at both 18 and 30, as a non-runner I've been sub-6 by a comfortable margin. I'm around 190, but lift regularly and definitely haven't "let myself go." I realize that's not the case for everyone...
For a bit more anecdotal evidence from someone who's never been a runner, my brother has never run more than 5 miles in his life, but would always run under 12:00 for his college soccer 3200m, and at 27 recently went 5:20 on an indoor track (he probably weights 180-185 but is pretty "fit"). On his D3 soccer team, I believe that around half of his teammates would crack 12, and even someone who runs a 21-22 minute 5k (think about how that places you in a college race) could likely break 6:00.
I know people here like to pride themselves on being fit and looking at everyone else as super slow, but tons of former HS/college runners, as well as other sport athletes and non-athletes in that age group (cross-fit guys! lol) could manage to dip under 6:00.
By the way, looking at results from local 5k races is a horrible way to judge sub-6:00 ability in the area...there tons of people like myself (probably some of you reading this) who could easily still break 6:00 but have no desire to run a 5k when it would be a struggle to get within 4 minutes of your college PR.
First of all, I am pissed off that I read that whole post. Second of all, what does your lengthy post about how amazing you and your brother are have to do with the OP's question.
My answer is probably about 5% or less.
5% sounds right to me.
I think you are right and sadly 10% is probably too high.
I ran a sub-6 mile when I was 14 and never trained, so probably around 85% of people could do it right now
Less then 5% probably less than 3%
I started running at 29. I wasn't overweight or completely sedentary but I also had no aerobic conditioning. I don't think I could dip much under eight at the time.
My brother ran a road mile last spring at age 28. He's a strong guy with a background in mma but has an extra 20lbs on him. He does mostly weight training and does aprox 1.5-2 miles easy on the treadmill 4-5 times a week.
He ran a 7:14.
I know a bunch of people under 30 that run regularly that can't break 6 on our local road mile race (granted its a hilly course but still).
Running fast over any distance isn't that common anymore.
Maybe 10% if the premise is that they have a year to train. 2 or 3% if you mean today with no additional training.
My only real data point is the President's Challenge mile. In 1985, the 85th percentile for the mile was 6:06 for males aged 17.
Fitness levels have since declined, and I expect they decline very rapidly once many people get into their 20's. Assuming you could get to around 15% of 18 year olds breaking 6 minutes with a year of training, I think 10% is reasonable when you extend the population to 30.