For the sake of argument, lets assume that none of the people in the sample are physically disabled. They do, however, represent the average distribution of fitness and talent across the world.
The men will have 5 years to train to break 10 minutes. They have access to the best facilities and coaching in the world and are not in school or working any jobs. Their only purpose in life is to train to break 10 minutes.
What percentage of them do it?
The limiting factor, in my estimation, is body weight. Most guys don't have a body frame that goes well with a competitive distance runner's BMI, or they don't want to get that skinny for cosmetic reasons.
I would say almost all of them, if there's such a strong support.
5%
5%, are you kidding?
Even as an average Joe, I did it off just three years of running and I worked full-time.
Good for you, but you're delusional if you think almost everyone could. There are so many guys that wouldn't respond well to training, or would just break, or would need more than 5 years to get into that kind of shape even if they could do it.
5-10% seems right. I barely broke 10 after 4 years of training in HS. That same year I was in the top 100 in a competitive state in cross country. I was the 7th best guy in my team/school and we had a nationally ranked team. My school had 250 senior males, meaning I was in the top 5% of that population. Given that we're given 5 years with optimal training then I'll say that at least 10% could do it. Maybe higher if training and motivation is truly optimal. I know I was fairly lazy and had no focus on diet. Hardly ran for 2.5 months per year during winter.
I think about 8-10%, realistically.
But let's not forget the OP said it's "healthy males with 5 years of optimal training". They already aren't the "everyone guys", are they?
A very high percentage; maybe 80%? The other posters here are ridiculous. The men have their ENTIRE LIFE to dedicate to run fast. I assume it's life or death for them if it's their only purpose. With that kind of incentive, people will lose the requisite weight and do the requisite training. Underwater treadmills, alter-g, all the weightlifting and ancillary work and mental training, all while having a nutritionist and sleeping 9-10 hours a night? How would the preponderance not break 10? Think of long-distance runners--we're the failed athletes in other sports. Our pool of talent can still mostly break 10--the average distance runner who focuses on it for a few years in high school and college can get there, at least 50%, and we're not even all that athletic. That's to say nothing about all the people who never try running because they don't have a high baseline of talent, but are very trainable, especially with the conditions of the question. With the terms, you could have these people running 120 mile weeks, doing all the other work, and staying healthy, all with world class coaching. Of course they get there.
AT LEAST 50%, more likely close to 100%.
No dog in this fight wrote:
A very high percentage; maybe 80%? The other posters here are ridiculous. The men have their ENTIRE LIFE to dedicate to run fast. I assume it's life or death for them if it's their only purpose. With that kind of incentive, people will lose the requisite weight and do the requisite training. Underwater treadmills, alter-g, all the weightlifting and ancillary work and mental training, all while having a nutritionist and sleeping 9-10 hours a night? How would the preponderance not break 10? Think of long-distance runners--we're the failed athletes in other sports. Our pool of talent can still mostly break 10--the average distance runner who focuses on it for a few years in high school and college can get there, at least 50%, and we're not even all that athletic. That's to say nothing about all the people who never try running because they don't have a high baseline of talent, but are very trainable, especially with the conditions of the question. With the terms, you could have these people running 120 mile weeks, doing all the other work, and staying healthy, all with world class coaching. Of course they get there.
AT LEAST 50%, more likely close to 100%.
They have 5 years, not their entire life.
I would say less than 2 percent could do it, and I'm being generous.
The problem with guys on a team with a few sub 10 guys is that they think that represents the average male. It doesn't. It represents 2%.
Most men can't run more than 20-30 miles a week without breaking down. Most would have to lose a lot of mass to get light enough to run this fast.
Alan
Amdbejebaj wrote:
5-10% seems right. I barely broke 10 after 4 years of training in HS. That same year I was in the top 100 in a competitive state in cross country. I was the 7th best guy in my team/school and we had a nationally ranked team. My school had 250 senior males, meaning I was in the top 5% of that population. Given that we're given 5 years with optimal training then I'll say that at least 10% could do it. Maybe higher if training and motivation is truly optimal. I know I was fairly lazy and had no focus on diet. Hardly ran for 2.5 months per year during winter.
But as a 17/18 year old you are a far way from your prime. And I seriously doubt your training was remotely optimal. There were 250 senior males in your class. How many of them put in 4 years of training? 5? 10? We have no clue on what the other 240 would have done.
Honestly I have no clue what would happen if there was like a 5 million dollar reward for running sub 10 and access to good training support. I know some people will not come close (i.e. that 6'8 guy that weights 270 is going to struggle no matter what. You can cross off most of the smokers. ...) but I would be shocked to see 30%+ of the people in the 20-30 year range being able to do it. 10' is also toward the top of my range. When you start talking something like 9:30, I expect to see really sharp drop off (30%->5%)
Runningart2004 wrote:
Most men can't run more than 20-30 miles a week without breaking down. Most would have to lose a lot of mass to get light enough to run this fast.
Alan
But the men have FIVE YEARS to get fit and handle the training. 9th graders generally can't handle much more than 20-30 miles a week either, but by senior year, most are running 60 miles a week, and by college, many are running close to 100 miles a week. And that's without all the amenities. A strict diet with motivated dieters will take care of the weight, and then you can build the training underwater and on the alter g, using other methods until the men are more able to handle hard training. That burns maybe a year. Then you have four years to get the men running fast. You're forgetting all the advantages and intangibles afforded to these men. I say 75%.
More than 1/2 would break 10. Most high school coaching is pretty shiyt and makes kids worse.
I've seen guys run 40-60miles a week for four years not break 10:00.
More guys will become chronically injured than will break 10:00. Most men can't run three days in a row without developing overuse injuries. You are underestimating the athleticism of most men and underestimating the athleticism needed to train enough to break 10:00.
This is the 1000th thread that hints of running being so easy that anyone can do it. It's not.
Alan
But Alan, we're talking about guys with 5 years of optimal training, which is more likely to be 100+ miles per week, rather than 40-60 MPW.
And I think you underestimate the adaptability we humans have.
I couldn't, like you said, run three days in a row without hurting myself, but after two year of training, I bumped up my mileage to 60-70 MPW without any big problem.
Mary Cain had access to all that and look what it's done to her. 2% could do it. Tops.
If so many guys could do it then we'd also see way more modestly talented guys becoming elite through hard work. Doesn't happen.
That's why Sell created such amazement by developing.
pancaker wrote:
But Alan, we're talking about guys with 5 years of optimal training, which is more likely to be 100+ miles per week, rather than 40-60 MPW.
And I think you underestimate the adaptability we humans have.
I couldn't, like you said, run three days in a row without hurting myself, but after two year of training, I bumped up my mileage to 60-70 MPW without any big problem.
Again, you are using a common assumption. Just because you can do something doesn't mean 5'9" 180lb Billy Bob could.
Most would be chronically injured.
Let's flip it. Could a typical Kenyan runner, given enough time, train to bench 315lb. Its not that much weight in top level strength circles. No, they couldn't.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
pancaker wrote:But Alan, we're talking about guys with 5 years of optimal training, which is more likely to be 100+ miles per week, rather than 40-60 MPW.
And I think you underestimate the adaptability we humans have.
I couldn't, like you said, run three days in a row without hurting myself, but after two year of training, I bumped up my mileage to 60-70 MPW without any big problem.
Again, you are using a common assumption. Just because you can do something doesn't mean 5'9" 180lb Billy Bob could.
Most would be chronically injured.
Let's flip it. Could a typical Kenyan runner, given enough time, train to bench 315lb. Its not that much weight in top level strength circles. No, they couldn't.
Alan
But will billy bob be 180lbs after running for 4 years.
I also bet you would be surprised at how many kenyans would bench 315 if given access to the same tools (i.e. food, drugs, and weights) AND had a reason (i.e. enough money to change your life). I was a scrawny kid who could barely lift 140 in HS. I worked up to sets of 8x225 (granted that is a long way from 315 but then again I weight 140lbs (up from 125 in HS)) in under 1 year. Throw in some drugs and real motivation (i.e. I was doing it for fun. Add in a million dollars and I am not skipping workouts and I would also watch my eating a ton more) and I like my chances of 315 given 4 more years to train.