Almost all men in their prime can run sub 20 5k, sub 60 400m, and sub 5 min mile

If you have any doubts, be sure to check out this thread.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8823626

Most people are at their prime in high school because after that they stop training and start focusing on a career and studying. I remember the times of the most talented students in my high school. 100m around 12.7 seconds. 400m wasn’t run but I remember the most talented running 600 around 1:30. So 400m would probably be around 57 seconds. The best 2k time there which was the longest distance ran was 6:08, so a mile would probably be around 4:45-4:50 , those were the times of the most talented in my high school who did train. The average student there would run 100m in 15.5, 400m in 1:20, 600m around 2:10. 2k around 8:40

So the claim of the OP is complete nonsense. He’s a troll

lmao letsrun wrote:

These times are not fast at all. Humans evolved to run. If there are elite athletes running sub 5 for 26.2 miles, then it would be fair to say most males' quickest mile would be one measly sub 5. I find it difficult to believe somebody can be so genetically inferior as not manage that. Sub 60 is not that fast either. Talent doesn't start playing a part until the low 50s.

I know 90% of you are about to type "I'm in my late 40s and have not managed a sub 5 or sub 60 min 5k after 10 years of hobby jogging!"

Yeah.

I guess by saying men in their prime would be between the ages of 18-26. Maybe 1% of the men between these ages might be able to complete all three distances in the time quoted.

lmao letsrun wrote:

These times are not fast at all. Humans evolved to run. If there are elite athletes running sub 5 for 26.2 miles, then it would be fair to say most males' quickest mile would be one measly sub 5. I find it difficult to believe somebody can be so genetically inferior as not manage that. Sub 60 is not that fast either. Talent doesn't start playing a part until the low 50s.

I know 90% of you are about to type "I'm in my late 40s and have not managed a sub 5 or sub 60 min 5k after 10 years of hobby jogging!"

Yeah.

I am fit enough to run sub 20, and I did for the first time running 20 mpw a few years back. I had been running on a regular basis for years, and was involved in athletics since a kid. I never ran more than 20 mpw though when I first cracked the sub 20 mark, and am in no way an elite runner. Competitive at local regional races at best, but fit and blessed to do so. I've worked in a handful of work environments, traveled a lot, met a lot of people, and we here at LRC easily forget, not everybody runs and the lifestyle we know as normal and almost a given, is for sure not the same for people who don't run. I know guys who are pretty fit and work out regularly. Running a sub 20 is by far not as easy as we think for most. I am sure some of my friends who are fit, if they directed time towards running for a couple years and did some specific work, they probably could hit those times, but once again, not as easy as we'd all think. Sure, the guy who's 26 and has been running since Middle School XC could run a 19ish 5k stoned and hung over, but that's also accounting for over a decade of developing running strength. Sub 60 for 10 miles? That's a farrr stretch my friend. Totally different convo vs a sub 20 5k.

I started running at 25 years old and peaked out around 45-50 mpw. Had a lot of injury problems.

Lifetime pr of 68 seconds for the 400, 5:15 mile, and 18:3x for the 5k. All by age 29.

JackHills wrote:

And you think that a sub-20 5km is comparable to a sub-5 mile and a sub-60 400m?

not even close

Average American Male wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/getaroundroundround_0.jpg

I bet one of them scooters could do a purdy good 5k

That's a severe case of dickdo.

D2sprinter wrote:

Just wrote:

The 400m time probably the most difficult. Some individuals will never break 29 for 200m which makes sub-60 400m nearly impossible.

A 60s 400m is a good, not even great, time for a HS girl. If a male can't run that then he's pathetic

That means that even males who could do that at some point will be pathetic for most of their lives. Including you.

Not me though.

D2sprinter wrote:

Just wrote:

The 400m time probably the most difficult. Some individuals will never break 29 for 200m which makes sub-60 400m nearly impossible.

A 60s 400m is a good, not even great, time for a HS girl. If a male can't run that then he's pathetic

For reference, our track club had a mini-meet a few years ago. We were to run the mile, 800, and 400. After running the mile and 800, not a single man or woman could crack 62 seconds. These are fit people in their 20's, 30's and 40's.

The guy who ran the 62 runs a 19:30 5K. The guy who won our mile race that day runs a 16:15 5K and ran 65. Would you call this 16:15 5K runner pathetic?

I think it's more pathetic when a 54 second 400m runner can't break 21 for the 5K. What a wimp!

Bowling Green wrote:

I think it's more pathetic when a 54 second 400m runner can't break 21 for the 5K. What a wimp!

Be nice. There are 5'6" or 5"7 170 lbs. or 180 lbs. Houston McTear-types whom begin showing muscle failure signs past 80m.

Not so fast bro wrote:

I started running at 25 years old and peaked out around 45-50 mpw. Had a lot of injury problems.

Lifetime pr of 68 seconds for the 400, 5:15 mile, and 18:3x for the 5k. All by age 29.

I'm the opposite. Much faster in the 400 (56), near exact mile PR (5:15 1600), and much slower in the 5K (20:47).

Also set those PRs by age 29.

He said CAN not will. I also believe that most men have the capacity to hit those times. The fact is most never will because they are weak, lack the desire, and have to many excuses.

I think most men COULD run EITHER 20min 5k or 65 400 (not 60) if they trained for a few years. Doing both is much harder, and 5 min mile is entirely another league.

Most men don't train so they never know what their potential might be.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

I think most men COULD run EITHER 20min 5k or 65 400 (not 60) if they trained for a few years. Doing both is much harder, and 5 min mile is entirely another league.

Most men don't train so they never know what their potential might be.

THIS.

65 sec and 19:30 5k is exactly where I ended up with 3 years of consistant training. 24 y/o male.

My fastest mile was 5:25.

For me.. the 60 second 400 would be the hardest now at age 43. I think to run a fast 400 you have to have some sprinter fast twitch muscle fibers which I don’t think I have enough of. I have gone sub-5 (4:57) in the mile, sub-20 (16:35) in the 5K, and sub-60 (58:27) in the 10 Mile on the track within the last 4 months while training for Boston. I did the mile and 5K as part of interval workouts so probably could go a little faster in a race.

Most high school kids, even many who "train" are lazy and unhealthy and are not very active unless that activity is planned ahead. If humans actually lived active, healthy lifestyles the average human could run these times easily without much effort.

Not so fast bro wrote:

I started running at 25 years old and peaked out around 45-50 mpw. Had a lot of injury problems.

Lifetime pr of 68 seconds for the 400, 5:15 mile, and 18:3x for the 5k. All by age 29.

I've seen comments like this by lots of guys who can run decent mid-distance or long-distance but cannot do a 60s 400m. You just need to build the right muscles for it. If you worked on speed you could easily go under 60.

Based on this thread I think distance/middle-distance runners often neglect speed work and building their fast-twitch fibres, which is a shame because I think they would get faster times in their chosen distances if they built their speed more.

intenserunner wrote:

Based on this thread I think distance/middle-distance runners often neglect speed work and building their fast-twitch fibres, which is a shame because I think they would get faster times in their chosen distances if they built their speed more.

Can you do it as you get older? (please say yes!) 17:50 / 67 sec / 5:21