If running a sub 16 minute 5K earned you $100,000 per year, 85% of American males 20 - 40 years old would do it.

There are way easier ways to make 100k per year.

No Way wrote:

There are way easier ways to make 100k per year.

Yes. And 10% of population would do just exactly that.

No Way wrote:

There are way easier ways to make 100k per year.

At age 16, I was able to break 16 minutes in a 5K. That's on 30 minutes of training per day.

Hmmm...$100,000 for a 4 hour work week at age 16? That seems like pretty damn easy money to me. But please tell me the EASY ways to earn $100K per year.

It's uncouth, but I actually agree with the sentiment.

80% +/- 5% seems like a reasonable guess.

I doubt that even 30% of the male population age 20-40 could run a sub 16 minute 5k. At least half the population is just too big boned and naturally carry to much weight (even when totally fit and lean) to ever get that fast. Of the remainder of the population that has the right body type, some just won't have the talent. There are about a dozen guys in my training group and only two can run a sub 16 5k. Everyone trains pretty hard and can run a marathon in 2:50-3:10.

Ah, no.

What do you think the % of males 20-40 who can break 16 for 5K is right now? Maybe .005?

Anyone who actually agrees with the OP is probably currently on a college XC team and has a very warped view of the running potential of the general population.

Go sit outside Wal-Mart for a day and then get back to us. The huge majority of men in that age group are not running sub 16 even if you gave them 10 million dollars.

I am Irish and comparing results of the past to today makes interesting reading. I picked a pretty historical race in Ireland for the comparison,The Ballycotton 10 miler. Here are the results from 2014, the race was won by Sergiu Ciobanu who is a Moldovan runner based in Ireland (2.15 marathon runner and WC runner in 2013. Not one Irish runner broke 50.

https://sites.google.com/site/runninginireland/results-of-the-ballycotton-10-sun-9th-mar-2014

Here are the results from 1988. The field was a quarter of the size of 2014. Notice that only of the top 20 was from outside Ireland and just look at the times. It's a bunch of guys from down the street running seriously fast.

http://www.ballycottonrunning.com/10%20Results/10%20Results%201988.htm

It really gets me thinking.

Intimidated UL runner wrote:

I am Irish and comparing results of the past to today makes interesting reading. I picked a pretty historical race in Ireland for the comparison,The Ballycotton 10 miler. Here are the results from 2014, the race was won by Sergiu Ciobanu who is a Moldovan runner based in Ireland (2.15 marathon runner and WC runner in 2013. Not one Irish runner broke 50.

https://sites.google.com/site/runninginireland/results-of-the-ballycotton-10-sun-9th-mar-2014

Here are the results from 1988. The field was a quarter of the size of 2014. Notice that only of the top 20 was from outside Ireland and just look at the times. It's a bunch of guys from down the street running seriously fast.

http://www.ballycottonrunning.com/10%20Results/10%20Results%201988.htm

It really gets me thinking.

*notice that only one runner out of the top 20 is from outside Ireland.

"If running a sub 16 minute 5K earned you $100,000 per year, .85% of American males 20 - 40 years old would do it." Fixed, although I think 85 out of 10,000 is still a high estimate. If you think even one in a hundred--much less eighty-five in a hundred--would be capable of it, you need to think again.

And the same is true if you think as many as 10% would even *attempt* it. It's running: that's a difficult sport that involves work, is not intrinsically fun for most people, and (unless you're *already* making 100k from it) will almost never get you laid.

Grasshopper, it appears that you have much to learn about American males.

Ceaser, Little wrote:

Go sit outside Wal-Mart for a day and then get back to us. The huge majority of men in that age group are not running sub 16 even if you gave them 10 million dollars.

Let it be known at an early age that they would get 10 million for cracking 16 minutes and I'm pretty sure they would train hard for many years to reach that goal...even the Walmart people.

Ceaser, Little wrote:

Go sit outside Wal-Mart for a day and then get back to us. The huge majority of men in that age group are not running sub 16 even if you gave them 10 million dollars.

You don't even need to go that far! Just sit in the bleachers at your college track and watch the students come down to workout.

I.e. Run one set of 20m suicides that lasts for 1.5min. Then run 400m slow jog. Pack up and leave.

the truth is in the pudding wrote:

Out of the 15% who wouldn't.

5% would be cripples.

10% would be people who had other talents that would enable them to make more money in other occupations.

I think running a sub-2:05 marathon would earn you a seven figure if you are an American. Surely, that should be enough incentive for you, right?

Intimidated UL runner wrote:

I am Irish and comparing results of the past to today makes interesting reading. I picked a pretty historical race in Ireland for the comparison,The Ballycotton 10 miler. Here are the results from 2014, the race was won by Sergiu Ciobanu who is a Moldovan runner based in Ireland (2.15 marathon runner and WC runner in 2013. Not one Irish runner broke 50.

https://sites.google.com/site/runninginireland/results-of-the-ballycotton-10-sun-9th-mar-2014

Here are the results from 1988. The field was a quarter of the size of 2014. Notice that only of the top 20 was from outside Ireland and just look at the times. It's a bunch of guys from down the street running seriously fast.

http://www.ballycottonrunning.com/10%20Results/10%20Results%201988.htm

It really gets me thinking.

Thats a fun little data set. Thanks for sharing it.

I find it interesting how many more people are now willing to sign up for a race like that and run incredibly slow. If we choose an arbitrary marker of 10 minute miles as "incredibly slow," the percentage of people running that time went from 1.7% to 12% between the two results sheets you shared.

I also want to address the OP's statement, which is an interesting thought experiment. If you somehow came up with that amount of money and you made the announcement, the initial group of people that could make the 100k would definitely be less than 1%. However, if you kept the award in place for 10+ years, you would incentivize some massive behavioral changes. I think 85% is too aggressive, but I would not be surprised to see 30%-40% of people that could get sub-16 with real dedication. Many of these people that we seem to think are "big-boned" have simply made the decision early in life that is OK to be a large person, because our society says that is OK. If we changed that, we would see massive changes.

Intimidated UL runner wrote:

Intimidated UL runner wrote:

I am Irish and comparing results of the past to today makes interesting reading. I picked a pretty historical race in Ireland for the comparison,The Ballycotton 10 miler. Here are the results from 2014, the race was won by Sergiu Ciobanu who is a Moldovan runner based in Ireland (2.15 marathon runner and WC runner in 2013. Not one Irish runner broke 50.

https://sites.google.com/site/runninginireland/results-of-the-ballycotton-10-sun-9th-mar-2014

Here are the results from 1988. The field was a quarter of the size of 2014. Notice that only of the top 20 was from outside Ireland and just look at the times. It's a bunch of guys from down the street running seriously fast.

http://www.ballycottonrunning.com/10%20Results/10%20Results%201988.htm

It really gets me thinking.

*notice that only one runner out of the top 20 is from outside Ireland.

Says it all really. The average genetic potential is probably a lot faster than we think. Ireland is a tiny country but look at the club runner depth back then.

Offer whatever you want and it is not even close to 85%. I would say 15% is way too much. I know many competitive runners who can't run sub 16. I have run 1:14 for the half and only 16:20 for the 5K. Granted I could maybe break it if I only trained for the 5K.

This is ridiculous. I would consider myself somewhat talented. Ran :52/2:00/4:35 in hs off of 20 mpw and was pretty good in cross country (made states).

I went to college and ran 1:57, 8:40 and 15:12 training relatively hard (40-60mpw)

I was always one of the faster kids I knew without training (playing soccer growing up, tag, etc), so I think I have decent genetics for running... probably better then 95% of Americans (I am of the belief running genetics is like Richter scale. The difference between the 90% most talented and the 95% most talented is probably not that big. But the difference between the 95% and the 99% is HUGE).

I ran 15:50 in the 5k during my sophomore year. That was a big effort.

No way could can 85% run 16 flat no matter the training. 25:00 maybe (that is still pretty aggressive... 8:00 pace is moving for most people), but I would say is possible.

Would be an interesting study, though. Take a random sampling of America and train them for 2 years and see how fast they can run a 5k. Surely there must be some study out there that has done something similar?

Agree with the OP's general idea. Obviously the numbers are approximations, but it's reasonable to assume a majority of mature males under the age of 40 could run quite fast if their life revolved around it.

16:00 for 5K takes about 20% less energy (strength:weight) than what it takes to run with the best half dozen women in the world.

Another HS Coach wrote:

Agree with the OP's general idea. Obviously the numbers are approximations, but it's reasonable to assume a majority of mature males under the age of 40 could run quite fast if their life revolved around it.

16:00 for 5K takes about 20% less energy (strength:weight) than what it takes to run with the best half dozen women in the world.

The numbers are approximations? The OP basically said every single male 20-40 could potentially break 16 minutes for 5K save for the 5% that he thinks are "crippled".

It's a pretty obvious trolling attempt which has gone on too long already. Go to a local road race and count the number of males 20-40 that break 16 minutes. For the vast number of races, that number will be 0. And this is a sample that is training and trying to run fast already. $100,000 is not going to get all but a few of those people across the finish line in 15:59 or faster and it sure as hell isn't going to do anything for the blimps that shop at Wal-Mart that were mentioned above.

eeewwwwhhhhh, don't get your delicates in a tangle, sweetie!!!