What percentage of males in their prime could break 10 minutes in the the 2-mile after 5 years of training?

Sorry to be jumping on the 2% bandwagon, but that seems by far the most reasonable high end guess. If we were to poll those runners who are most experienced (aka 'older'), you'd find them agreeing, while the young'uns are the ones with the delusional numbers of 25% or higher.

The vast majority of high school teams do not have any runners under 10 for 2 miles. These teams will not have perfectly optimized diets/training schedules, but they WILL have four-year seniors who train very seriously, really care about the sport, and routinely do 60+ MPW. The majority of these guys do not break 10.

Different body types are geared towards very different things, and it's pretty damn hard to fight what your body wants you to be good at. If this thread had been titled, "how many people, given 5 years perfect training, could break 11.5 in the 100m" the comments would be very different, but you have to realize that, performance-wise, 11.5 is roughly equivalent--maybe slightly worse--than 9:59.

My high school team would have 10-12 guys under 10 in a given year. That was about 1% of the gups at the school. We had decent coaching but weren't doing crazy amounts of training. If you factor in that a small percentage of the school was doing other sports/extra curricular or nothing and we were before our prime of the mid 20s anyone who thinks only 2-5% could go sub 10 is kidding themselves about how difficult our sport is.

We're assuming people areally going to do everything possible to go sub 10. People are going to lose weight and train hard. It's not going to be like you're current population where more than halikely of Americans in their prime are fat. Given 5 years a lot of people would be able to accomplish this.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

My high school team would have 10-12 guys under 10 in a given year. That was about 1% of the gups at the school. We had decent coaching but weren't doing crazy amounts of training. If you factor in that a small percentage of the school was doing other sports/extra curricular or nothing and we were before our prime of the mid 20s anyone who thinks only 2-5% could go sub 10 is kidding themselves about how difficult our sport is.

We're assuming people areally going to do everything possible to go sub 10. People are going to lose weight and train hard. It's not going to be like you're current population where more than halikely of Americans in their prime are fat. Given 5 years a lot of people would be able to accomplish this.

Agreed.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

My high school team would have 10-12 guys under 10 in a given year. That was about 1% of the guys at the school. We had decent coaching but weren't doing crazy amounts of training. .

Awesome. Good for you.

We had about 80 guys in cross country at a school of 3,300. Only two broke 10, the rest all hovered right above. We were doing 30-50 mpw in season.

I still think 8-10% with optimal training.

It takes an above average level of genetic ability even to crack 5:00. Many of the people on this board are well above average, surround themselves with people who are also above average, and have a warped perspective on what the norm is. I doubt that more than about 10% of men could break 10:00 with any amount of training.

I did it training two times a day on top of working a heavy labor job...12 hours a day...loading fish boxes onto trucks and filling his fishing boats with ice.

Boss was decent...gave me two lunch break for coming in at 6:00 an hour earlier than the rest of the crew...so I could run at lunch and then did another after work.

At very best 2%.

I bet most people claiming these high percentages have never done it themselves. Just like some of my friends who say they could have been professional athletes (NFL, NBA etc) had they wanted it bad enough, or had the right training conditions, or, "if only I knew then what I know now" . Most people are delusional.

I would also guess 95% of most 5k road races, aren't even run at sub 5 pace. And of those that are run at sub 5 pace, a very low percent of male runners in that race, are running that fast

So again, 2% at best

These people who are claiming that 50 percent or even 80 percent could do it are bonkers.

For starters, think back to your HS gym class (or if you're still in hS, don't think back). Think of what ill-equipped blockheads so many of thsoe people are. They're never going to run 10:00 for two miles.

No one with a linebacker type build is ever going to do it, no mater how many people they can tackle.

I might saw the oft-cited 2 percent here is a little low, but it's 6 or 7 percent, tops.

5 YEARS of training with full motivation and good coaching, assuming no injuries:

80%. At least.

Without full motivation or accounting for injuries it's probably like 40%.

Stringing together a couple 5 minute miles is something most anyone is capable of regardless of athleticism, a lot of it is work ethic, upper body atrophy, mileage, etc.

This biggest factor for most guys would be the weight (fat) but that drops off with a steady diet of 60-70 mile weeks (easily doable after 1 year) and not eating like the average American.

Okay, all of you guys saying it's easy because you managed, can you do three of them in a row?

Flagpole wrote:

5 year old 'splainer wrote:

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.

CORRECT! Those of you who have broken 10:00 (and I am in that group of course) feel that you did so based on hard work, and while that might have been needed for some of you, mostly you were lucky that you had the genes to allow it to happen. We already have a pretty good testing ground of high school athletes. 2% max is the best answer in this thread for this question, and it's probably even a little lower.

I agree. I look around my town and I assure you there is no way more than 2% could do it. Heck, it's closer to .2% here as it is. Running a sub-5 minute mile is a dream for many people who run consistently. Stringing 2 of them together requires the ability to run significantly faster.

Look at the following results for some insight. There are guys on college teams (Read: Guys that train their arse's off every day) today that cannot break 5 minutes for the mile. These are the guys we see in the 32+, heck just look at the 34+ minute range in 8k XC races. We see it all the time.

XC -

Track -

We are lucky. Be proud. Just try to not be so pretentious, people.

Echidna wrote:

No one with a linebacker type build is ever going to do it, no mater how many people they can tackle.

Part of their training which would span years would involve losing their linebacker build.

I can't believe so many people in this thread are using the "Look at the general population" argument.

I completely agree with this, and you may be right that it's closer to .2% than 2%.

pancaker wrote:

5%, are you kidding?

Even as an average Joe, I did it off just three years of running and I worked full-time.

Working full time is totally irrelevant.

However the fact that you made an effort, and was interested in this milestone separates y9ou from the average joe.

Most physical achievement is mentally driven rather than physical. The number of 'talented' runners is much greater than many believe, but its the head that separates the fast from the slow, when of equal physical ability

I ran 9:57 and was 9th man on my team/couldn't even make my team for state. I had a nationally respected coach and ran up to 90 mpw. When people ask me about my HS running career I have to tell them I never made a varsity team in cross. That would seem to make me thoroughly mediocre. Don't get the 0.2% or even 2% arguments.

"5 YEARS of training with full motivation and good coaching, assuming no injuries: 80%"

This guy doesn't understand motivation. If we assume success results in a $10 million dollar prize and failure means you have to kill your mother with your bare hands, more than 90% of the guys will commit suicide in less than a year rather than continue running for the other four years.

There really is no way to motivate most people to run. They think of running like you would think of dropping 1 pound weights on your feet from waist height over and over again for an hour or two each day.

Let's assume that this was a real thing, and there was some kind of massive incentive to accomplish the feat. All of this training wouldn't happen in a bubble. There would be all kinds of economic incentives to help people achieve their goal. Hell, just look at how much cash the diet industry rakes in.

All of the cash floating around would lead to a lot more lab testing and more coaching, which would lead to a lot more trial and error, which would translate into more knowledge about running. The top coaches would attract more people to their methods so injuries would go down and times would improve. Our knowledge of diet and nutrition would improve as well as the PEDs.

People respond to incentives. Even the fast food industry would change to cater to the masses of men trying to break 10:00. Cities would alter sidewalks and trails to make them more conducive to training, and more parks and cross courses would pop into existence. Training grounds would be as numerous as golf courses...you get the point.

Not to mention you would fundamentally alter the mindset of society; it would turn the world into a modern day Sparta. Most people don't like being outliers, so there would be great social pressure to break 10:00. Ostracism and peer pressure are powerful motivators.

So, if there was a perfect world for training and the only limitation was genetics, I would say the number is well over half.

jamin wrote:

Echidna wrote:

No one with a linebacker type build is ever going to do it, no mater how many people they can tackle.

Part of their training which would span years would involve losing their linebacker build.

I can't believe so many people in this thread are using the "Look at the general population" argument.

You're right; that's not a good argument. What is a good argument, and it has been made in this thread, is 'look at the population of high school distance runners.' My son dipped under 10 only in his senior year. He was only the third person at his high school to do it since the year 2000. His high school is small, but usually attracts 10-15 guys for XC and track. Most of them run most of the year and are to some degree pretty serious. They've had different coaches, most of whom are of average knowledge and experience. So, that's less than 5% of high school distance runners in this particular sample. Even if it is somehow biased when compared to the population of all high school distance runners, it's not biased much. There's two other main factors, one weighing in favor of a higher figure, one weighing against. On one hand, one might argue that high school seniors are pretty far from their peak physically. I'm not so sure that's true, but I'll stipulate to that. That's balanced by the fact, however, that these are kids, for the most part, who are more gifted, or more motivated to be distance runners than their peers. Usually far more gifted. So, you put all that together and I think it's N - U- T _S, nuts to argue that 50% or even 20% of the population could break 10 minutes for 2 miles. I doubt that that many could even break 5 minutes for 1.

My estimate is that the figure is 3%. Certainly no higher. I am myself pretty talented (relatively....) and it took me 6 years of concentrated distance running to break 10. - I was 22 when I did it and it was after lots of 100 mile weeks. So, no, 50% can not do it.