Genetic potential in the mile for the average person?

Chazley wrote:

Men 5:30

Women 6:05

Discuss.

I might give the men a 5:20, women about the same. Cue the Letsrunners saying that a sub 6:00 mile would be near impossible for most men even with good training...

Niles wrote:

Chazley wrote:

Men 5:30

Women 6:05

Discuss.

I might give the men a 5:20, women about the same. Cue the Letsrunners saying that a sub 6:00 mile would be near impossible for most men even with good training...

It would be. If you are in high school or college runner you have no clue about the weight gain and running-related back pain experienced by most men. Most adults' potential for fast running is pretty much gone by the age of 21, 22.

Check with many HS XC coaches who can’t find 5 guys who can run that fast. Some High Schools don’t have one girl for that fast. I think most gym teachers will agree that the times are probably more like 7 minutes and 8 minutes.

Niles wrote:

Chazley wrote:

Men 5:30

Women 6:05

Discuss.

I might give the men a 5:20, women about the same. Cue the Letsrunners saying that a sub 6:00 mile would be near impossible for most men even with good training...

Note that this question is not about 'The Average American' in the prime age for athletic performance; if that were the case, then these times would definitely be too fast.

"Genetic potential" signals that the OP is concerned with how fast the average person could go under ideal conditions, such as regular, year-round training for the mile and also excellent diet. Under that interpretation, I think these are too slow.

Assuming each person is given a full 18+ week training cycle.

average person: 5:40/7:00

average fit person: 5:10/6:20

fit person with some running back ground: 4:45/5:35

Now let's say you took your average newborn baby, regardless of genetics, had them live at altitude, train from an early age, live a healthy life, and gave them all the resources possible (excluding illegal substances, of course) to help them develop as a runner, and wait 20-25 years

I think they'd be able to break 4 (or the equivalent of 4 min for women).

So, in context, with years upon years of dedication and consistency, I think an everyday healthy male would at least be able to reach a sub-elite level. But combining this with genetics is what makes you the best, no doubt.

Male: 4:41 to 5:17 (fast end to slow end)

Female: 5:17 to 5:58 (fast end to slow end)

Any faster and you have above average running talent

Any slower and you have below average running ability

Sub-5 for males. Most random band geeks who join track because they are bored end up running 5:30. With more serious training they would be in the 5:00 range.

Assuming you start training seriously at about age 18 until say the age of 24-25 and you have a MEDIUM amount of talent (meaning you aren’t a genetic freak but you aren’t a donkey either) then I would say the following.

If you had an active childhood and no history of obesity and were healthy during development:

4:40-5:00 for males

5:30-6:00 for females

If you had just been a general slob through your physical development or smoked cigarettes or developed any major illness:

5:45-6:30 for males

6:50-7:20 for females

And yes, this actually matters a lot because if you were unhealthy during puberty you were doing yourself the biggest injustice of your life because this decreases your lifetime potential by quite a bit because of the heart, lungs and muscle fibres not reaching the biggest size they could during the only time in your life you were going to get a natural boost of hormones and growth - puberty itself has a similar affect as EPO that you will never be able to replicate again in your life even with the hardest of work, discipline and consistency. Also, if you don’t activate your speed while you are young then you will never reach what you could have - 70% of speed is activated before age 16. Puberty hardwires the speed you build as a kid into your physiology, you will never get another chance at that again in this lifetime. If you ran 12s in a 100 with later life training after being a slob as a kid then guarenteed you’d be running 10s had you been active as a youth.

Overall net average:

5:35 for males

6:25 for females

potentials wrote:

"Genetic potential" signals that the OP is concerned with how fast the average person could go under ideal conditions, such as regular, year-round training for the mile and also excellent diet. Under that interpretation, I think these are too slow.

By "excellent diet," are you referring to ugali and white bread washed down with copious amounts of heavily sugared tea?

Interesting thread wrote:

If you had just been a general slob through your physical development or smoked cigarettes or developed any major illness:

5:45-6:30 for males

6:50-7:20 for females

1) It doesn't matter if you are sedentary or a heavy smoker. You can't "smoke" or "sit" your talent away.

Two examples - Steve Way. 80 hour a week IT office job, 230 pounds, 20 cigs a day. Ran a 2:35 with 7 months of training (at age 35). Few years ago, he ran OVERWEIGHT a 3:07 off couple weeks of jogging (that was his base level). Most runners will never reach a 3:07 even with consistent 70 mpw, I read about some people who quit running when they read about this fat guy showing up at London and being 1 hour ahead of them despite being trained for few years. He got down to the 2:15 range with training.

Priscilla Welch. Smoked 40 a day at age 35. Started training, one year later 2:59, with minimal effort. Ended going to Olympics and running 2:26.

If you think they would have been much faster if they didn't sit in front of a PC for vast majority of life and smoke 20-40 cigs a day, you are wrong. They both still reached their genetic limits, and didn't have outstanding talent as kids.

2) I think 4:40 for males, and 5:30 for females is possible with the right training and dedication to the sport. Even if they start in the 30s, as long as they reach the goal before 38/39 with some good years of training.

If you took the 100 average people and ran them in the mile.....it woudl be way slower then you think

Men- 6:50's

women- 8:00

We are talking no training. Just 100 visually fit people. You could take the fatties and make those times more like 10 and 12 minutes

Genetic potential is way higher than that. I would say any person who trains like a pro for a good decade from 18-28 (plus does high school xc and track) will be able to run sub-5:00, maybe more like 4:40. Girls maybe sub-5:50, possibly more like 5:30. Even without talent you just accumulate so much fitness. Keep in mind this is a thread for the average person, NOT the least talented. That means roughly half of the world won't be able achieve this.

Bob Schul Country wrote:

If you took the 100 average people and ran them in the mile.....it woudl be way slower then you think

Men- 6:50's

women- 8:00

We are talking no training. Just 100 visually fit people. You could take the fatties and make those times more like 10 and 12 minutes

The thread is "genetic potential" with the key word being POTENTIAL. Not what they can do right now, legitimately the maximum potential assuming training like a pro for 10+ years.

Average is a math term. You have to include all of the people whose potential is only 15 minutes or even 20 minutes. There are many who only have the potential for 10 minutes. Check with some high school coaches who have kids training for a few years and only a few guys break 5 minutes and many only run 7 minutes. These are the the kids who have the most potential in the school. Sure there are a few other athletes who could go faster but there will be hundreds of kids who have zero talent.

I knew I’d get a reply like this. You are referring to outliers, their ability to spring back is in itself talent. I also know people who treated their bodies like crap for the first 20 years of life and then got fast but for every one of those, there are ten more who will need a few years of hard conditioning just to be mediocre.

However, I do agree with you that most people could go sub 6 if they start early but they would have a hell of a difficult time getting there.

Ineteresting thread wrote:

I knew I’d get a reply like this. You are referring to outliers, their ability to spring back is in itself talent. I also know people who treated their bodies like crap for the first 20 years of life and then got fast but for every one of those, there are ten more who will need a few years of hard conditioning just to be mediocre.

However, I do agree with you that most people could go sub 6 if they start early but they would have a hell of a difficult time getting there.

Makes sense. I treated my body like crap for 15 years (fully sedentary, just playing video games and IT job) and it took me a while to get back. I was also plagued by injuries for many years.

But maybe I would have had the same problems even if I would have started running when I was 14 and not 23. So it's hard to know what the true effect of being sedentary/smoking etc is on the body and at what rate, if at all, it would limit potential running performance.

Talent is what matters the most of course - some people run a 5 min mile with no training/effort, whereas others need many years of high mileage, but I think almost any guy could get there with the right dedication and training.

Personally, I think 5 minute mile is a bit too high of a standard for somebody truly average in talent. I do think getting to the mid (bordering on low) 5s might be realistic but a 5 flat mile does require quite an outstanding aerobic capacity, I think it equates to about 60 VDOT or something. Looking at some of the times that level of fitness produces, I am very skeptical of 50% being capable. I think 25-30% might be closer to the truth, not everybody ends up with exceptional aerobic capacity even with a lot of training.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

some people run a 5 min mile with no training/effort, whereas others need many years of high mileage, but I think almost any guy could get there with the right dedication and training.

Nope, there are people out there who are way too fast twitch and/or bulky to get there. I know quite a few sub 12 100m guys who couldn't break 5:30 after endurance training, let alone 5:00. You'd have a problem on the other end of the scale as well. Sub 5 does require a bit of natural speed, and while most people do have that speed, there's a significant portion of the population that couldn't be trained to break 70 in the 400 in their prime even if their lives depended on it.

If you said 5:00 equivalent, I'd agree with you. That way, the heavier fast twitch dudes can focus on the sprints, and the light slow twitch guys with zero speed can focus on the 5K/10K.

If you want to pick only one event that fits the average person, choose the 800. The mile is too long for the fast twitch guys, and the 400 requires too much natural speed that can't be easily improved upon.

With that said, the median male would probably top out at a 2:12-2:15 if everyone trained optimally since birth. The median female would probably be around 2:35-2:40.