Run a 6 min mile
Options
Replies
-
beemerphile1 wrote: »I am not sure you can necessarily attribute those superstar's performance to genetics alone. Sure, that can play a part, but a large portion of that comes from training.
I hate to sound elitist but being capable of running 6:00 for a single mile isn't that fast. Admittedly I am basing that on the OP's profile picture, and his username that includes 1989, and concluding that he is probably a 26yr old male in reasonable shape.
I started endurance sports from absolutely NOTHING when I was 29. My parents are not at all gifted athletically. Their idea of sport is to walk around the block. Yet I was able to start from being barely able to crack a 12 minute mile, to recently (at 35yrs old) posting a 5k in the high 17s (5:40 pace), 10k in the 37s and a 3:04 marathon as well as a <10hr Ironman. I started from scratch 6 years ago and built all of that ability myself. I doubt my genetics played a part. Genetics might be the difference between me and the truly elite, but genetics isn't going to limit someone to being slow.
Genetics absolutely plays a role. But it is only part of the story. Hard work is the rest. If you don't have the genetics, you don't have the genetics. But that should not stop you from reaching your particular athletic potential.
I guess all I am trying to say is you can't necessarily blame "the genetics" because you have no idea what your genetics really are. As I said my parents are not at all athletic, nor is ANYONE in my family. Never has been. If I had used that as an excuse to not do endurance sports I would never get anywhere. But I got there because I wanted it bad enough. Turns out my genetics were pretty good after all. Just hiding under a layer of fat that I needed to drop.
One of the things your "genetics" apparently gives you is a high VO2max and although trainable to an extent, you inherit your top-end ability. A while back I actually thanked my parents for gifting me with a ridiculously high VO2max - they didn't understand but that's OK
Where your parents smokers? I read an article once that said that many elite runners had smoked at some point but none of the top runners had parents that smoked.
Living in a household of smokers while in the formative years stunts children's lung development. Those lungs stunted as a child will never have the same potential as if they were raised in a smoke-free environment.
And now I have something to blame my slowness on.I hate to sound elitist but being capable of running 6:00 for a single mile isn't that fast. Admittedly I am basing that on the OP's profile picture, and his username that includes 1989, and concluding that he is probably a 26yr old male in reasonable shape.
I do agree with this. Even for me I think a 6 minute single mile is achieveable and I do not consider myself a gifted athlete. I do have some room for improvement with training but I do not forsee me running a sub 20 minute 5k though, cerrtainly not holding a 6 m/m pace for longer races.0 -
I personally don't even buy the smoker or kids of a smoker theory. If a person is reasonably thin and not carrying too much excess, applies themselves, most people could run 6 minute miles in their younger years at least. It might be a struggle for really short people, some with short legs, and people who would rather find a reason to say it's genetic.
I'd bet most people 40 or below could knock out at least a couple 6 minute miles in a row if they applied themselves. It takes some training, some pace discipline, and understanding of your cardio limits as they apply to pace. But it surely doesn't take elitist type gene pools, or lack of exposure to things unhealthy.0 -
beemerphile1 wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »Choose your parents carefully.
You may never run a 6 minute mile. Genetics play a huge role in athletic performance.Disagree with this statement. When I started running, I was doing 10k runs in a hour, then got it down to 52 minutes and now run it consistently at about 43 minutes. Same with my half marathons. Started at about anywhere from 1:49:00 to 1:53:00 and now run a half in about 1:35:00. If you work hard and train you can do what your mind tells you to do. Going from 8:58 pace per mile to 6 is really tough though. It would take a lot of training to cut it down that much. That's almost 3 minutes a mile. Good luck to you.
You disagree that genetics plays a huge role in athletic performance?
No matter how hard I work, I could never have a build like Arnold.
No matter how hard I work, I could never compete at the level of Bill Rogers.
No matter how hard I work, I could never ride like Lance Armstrong.
I could go on and on but suffice it to say that some people will never achieve their athletic goals because of genetics.
Six minutes per mile is an extremely fast pace. In my prime, I could do a sub seven minute 5K but six minutes was out of reach. I did run an occasional split at/near six minutes but that was extremely rare. I've got the age group trophies to show for it.
He never said he wanted to be Lance Armstrong or Arnold, just wants to get faster. If he trains hard enough, he may be able to improve and get better. Cardio improves with hard work and training. Genetics could have a slight role but anybody who trains hard will improve no matter what your genetics are. My Mother smoked her whole life and my dad for 20 years. Then why did I get faster over time? Hard work and trained my butt off, that's how.0 -
Well this 38 year old guy ran a 5:31 mile just yesterday after a lifting session. It was on a treadmill though. I am not much of a runner either so yea, it's not that difficult. Maintaining that over a stretch would be the hard part.0
-
I am not sure you can necessarily attribute those superstar's performance to genetics alone. Sure, that can play a part, but a large portion of that comes from training.
I hate to sound elitist but being capable of running 6:00 for a single mile isn't that fast. Admittedly I am basing that on the OP's profile picture, and his username that includes 1989, and concluding that he is probably a 26yr old male in reasonable shape.
I started endurance sports from absolutely NOTHING when I was 29. My parents are not at all gifted athletically. Their idea of sport is to walk around the block. Yet I was able to start from being barely able to crack a 12 minute mile, to recently (at 35yrs old) posting a 5k in the high 17s (5:40 pace), 10k in the 37s and a 3:04 marathon as well as a <10hr Ironman. I started from scratch 6 years ago and built all of that ability myself. I doubt my genetics played a part. Genetics might be the difference between me and the truly elite, but genetics isn't going to limit someone to being slow.
Wow.... that is amazing. Do you have a "success" thread anywhere that talks about how you did all that?0 -
deluxmary2000 wrote: »I am not sure you can necessarily attribute those superstar's performance to genetics alone. Sure, that can play a part, but a large portion of that comes from training.
I hate to sound elitist but being capable of running 6:00 for a single mile isn't that fast. Admittedly I am basing that on the OP's profile picture, and his username that includes 1989, and concluding that he is probably a 26yr old male in reasonable shape.
I started endurance sports from absolutely NOTHING when I was 29. My parents are not at all gifted athletically. Their idea of sport is to walk around the block. Yet I was able to start from being barely able to crack a 12 minute mile, to recently (at 35yrs old) posting a 5k in the high 17s (5:40 pace), 10k in the 37s and a 3:04 marathon as well as a <10hr Ironman. I started from scratch 6 years ago and built all of that ability myself. I doubt my genetics played a part. Genetics might be the difference between me and the truly elite, but genetics isn't going to limit someone to being slow.
Wow.... that is amazing. Do you have a "success" thread anywhere that talks about how you did all that?
No. But very briefly I realized I was a bit fat and out of shape a few years ago. Nothing terrible but at 5'7" I was definitely too large at 185lbs. I decided to fix it and started running and eating better. Quickly got down to 165 without trying all that hard. At that point my runs were probably 5 days a week, 3 miles at a time and probably at a 11-12 minute pace.
My wife randomly signed up for a women's-only triathlon. We never even heard of triathlon, but she saw a flier at the local REI and thought it would be cool to train for something like that. So she does, completes the sprint tri, has fun, and asks me to do one with her the next year. I was always a reasonably decent swimmer and I had recently started riding my bike again so it seemed a natural thing to try. I complete that race and get hooked.
Since then I dropped my weight down to 145 and body fat to around 10-12% by simply being careful about what I am eating during training. I built my endurance and speed up to the point I now can race (as opposed to just complete) Ironman. Honestly it didn't even seem like a "big deal". I won't ever say it wasn't hard work because it absolutely was hard work. But I wanted it bad enough that I did all the hard work, and the hard work paid off. It took 6 years to get there from scratch. It didn't happen overnight.0 -
deluxmary2000 wrote: »I am not sure you can necessarily attribute those superstar's performance to genetics alone. Sure, that can play a part, but a large portion of that comes from training.
I hate to sound elitist but being capable of running 6:00 for a single mile isn't that fast. Admittedly I am basing that on the OP's profile picture, and his username that includes 1989, and concluding that he is probably a 26yr old male in reasonable shape.
I started endurance sports from absolutely NOTHING when I was 29. My parents are not at all gifted athletically. Their idea of sport is to walk around the block. Yet I was able to start from being barely able to crack a 12 minute mile, to recently (at 35yrs old) posting a 5k in the high 17s (5:40 pace), 10k in the 37s and a 3:04 marathon as well as a <10hr Ironman. I started from scratch 6 years ago and built all of that ability myself. I doubt my genetics played a part. Genetics might be the difference between me and the truly elite, but genetics isn't going to limit someone to being slow.
Wow.... that is amazing. Do you have a "success" thread anywhere that talks about how you did all that?
No. But very briefly I realized I was a bit fat and out of shape a few years ago. Nothing terrible but at 5'7" I was definitely too large at 185lbs. I decided to fix it and started running and eating better. Quickly got down to 165 without trying all that hard. At that point my runs were probably 5 days a week, 3 miles at a time and probably at a 11-12 minute pace.
My wife randomly signed up for a women's-only triathlon. We never even heard of triathlon, but she saw a flier at the local REI and thought it would be cool to train for something like that. So she does, completes the sprint tri, has fun, and asks me to do one with her the next year. I was always a reasonably decent swimmer and I had recently started riding my bike again so it seemed a natural thing to try. I complete that race and get hooked.
Since then I dropped my weight down to 145 and body fat to around 10-12% by simply being careful about what I am eating during training. I built my endurance and speed up to the point I now can race (as opposed to just complete) Ironman. Honestly it didn't even seem like a "big deal". I won't ever say it wasn't hard work because it absolutely was hard work. But I wanted it bad enough that I did all the hard work, and the hard work paid off. It took 6 years to get there from scratch. It didn't happen overnight.
Thanks for sharing this!
0 -
scorpio516 wrote: »As others have said - a 6:00 mile, or a 6:00 pace?
I don't think either are doable in your time frame though.
6:00 mile will be easier. You could probably do it in a year if you are under 35. 200-400-800-400-200 repeats at race pace.
6:00 pace is difficult. If you are young and a decent athlete with good genes, 20 mpw for a number of months will get you into the 7's, maybe even 6:59. Then months of speedwork on top of the 20+ mpw.
I think he needs more than 20 miles per week to get to 6:00. I am now at 60-65 mpw and at my last HM I was only able to hold 7:20 for 8 miles. Then I fell apart.
Probably. I'd say it's a minimum though.
In my n=1 study, 15 mpw gets consistent 20 min 5k. And frustratingly weight independent, I'll bust out 20 min 5k at 150lbs and at 175 lbs (6'-0")
0 -
I am not sure you can necessarily attribute those superstar's performance to genetics alone. Sure, that can play a part, but a large portion of that comes from training.
I hate to sound elitist but being capable of running 6:00 for a single mile isn't that fast. Admittedly I am basing that on the OP's profile picture, and his username that includes 1989, and concluding that he is probably a 26yr old male in reasonable shape.
I started endurance sports from absolutely NOTHING when I was 29. My parents are not at all gifted athletically. Their idea of sport is to walk around the block. Yet I was able to start from being barely able to crack a 12 minute mile, to recently (at 35yrs old) posting a 5k in the high 17s (5:40 pace), 10k in the 37s and a 3:04 marathon as well as a <10hr Ironman. I started from scratch 6 years ago and built all of that ability myself. I doubt my genetics played a part. Genetics might be the difference between me and the truly elite, but genetics isn't going to limit someone to being slow.
Genetics absolutely plays a role. But it is only part of the story. Hard work is the rest. If you don't have the genetics, you don't have the genetics. But that should not stop you from reaching your particular athletic potential.
I guess all I am trying to say is you can't necessarily blame "the genetics" because you have no idea what your genetics really are. As I said my parents are not at all athletic, nor is ANYONE in my family. Never has been. If I had used that as an excuse to not do endurance sports I would never get anywhere. But I got there because I wanted it bad enough. Turns out my genetics were pretty good after all. Just hiding under a layer of fat that I needed to drop.
One of the things your "genetics" apparently gives you is a high VO2max and although trainable to an extent, you inherit your top-end ability. A while back I actually thanked my parents for gifting me with a ridiculously high VO2max - they didn't understand but that's OK
OK, genetics.
About 40-50% of your VO2Max potential is "heritable". i.e. genetic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9502354
Which also means 50-60% of your VO2Max potential is trainable.
In layman's terms, genetics might be the difference between a 14:30 5k and a 13:59 5k.
Genetics are not at all the difference between a 20:00 5k and a 25:00 5k.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I personally don't even buy the smoker or kids of a smoker theory. If a person is reasonably thin and not carrying too much excess, applies themselves, most people could run 6 minute miles in their younger years at least. It might be a struggle for really short people, some with short legs, and people who would rather find a reason to say it's genetic.
Son of a heavy smoker here. So much so, my dad died of throat cancer when I was 25. In High school, I could run a sub minute 400m, a 2:10 800m, and a 18:00 5k. Although it probably is the cause of my current issue with EIB. So I agree with you.
But your last point, height doesn't matter, and at the pointy end, height is a disadvantage. Mo Farah, the reigning olympic 5000m champ, is 5'-5". Meb is 5'-7". Kiprotich, won the olympic marathon in 2012, is 5'-8".
Sprinters usually are tall though, Bolt is 6'-5".0 -
Another vote for your parent's smoking having nothing to do with it - my whole family chain smoked. I haven't done a mile test in a while, but can regularly knock out 400m intervals at a sub 6 pace. 5k would probably be somewhere in the 18-20 range, depending on how much I cared about it (though ick, 5ks. I'd rather run 50k)- and I don't even sniff 'elite'.
Though I know some people who will never crack 20 for a 5k. Or 5:00 for a marathon. They've been running for years, but seem resistant to change (even with a coach and 50+ miles a week).
I wonder if OP will ever come back and clarify what he wants to do.
eta: the person I know who was 'resistant to getting faster' was able to clock a single mile in the 7s, so yeah, that whole 'one 6 minute mile' vs. '6 min mile pace' are totally different things.0 -
Wow didn't expect that many thanks for all you're comments... To summarise I'm looking at running a mile and a half in 9 minutes which I need to be performing in few months time
and longer term goal to run a 5k in 18 minutes... I've just got back from a two miler and done it in 14 minutes so that's 7 min a mile so that's 10.5 for a mile and half so I need to loss 90 seconds..... So wants the best work out I can do to get me my short term and long term goals
Right now I'm doing this
Monday- short run 2-3 miles at fast pace Wednesday- long run 6-8 slow pace
Friday- short run 2-3 miles fast pace
And also weight train four times a week also any tips on how to recover quicker as well be helpful
Also many thanks again have a ton of inform in front of me so probably have the answers I'm looking for0 -
scorpio516 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »I personally don't even buy the smoker or kids of a smoker theory. If a person is reasonably thin and not carrying too much excess, applies themselves, most people could run 6 minute miles in their younger years at least. It might be a struggle for really short people, some with short legs, and people who would rather find a reason to say it's genetic.
Son of a heavy smoker here. So much so, my dad died of throat cancer when I was 25. In High school, I could run a sub minute 400m, a 2:10 800m, and a 18:00 5k. Although it probably is the cause of my current issue with EIB. So I agree with you.
But your last point, height doesn't matter, and at the pointy end, height is a disadvantage. Mo Farah, the reigning olympic 5000m champ, is 5'-5". Meb is 5'-7". Kiprotich, won the olympic marathon in 2012, is 5'-8".
Sprinters usually are tall though, Bolt is 6'-5".
Interesting that the height doesn't play into the picture, but I might be assuming something I shouldn't. If I take myself and make the scaled up me 20% larger, I would assume my pace would increase. But then again, human design doesn't always work that way.
Not sure of my shorter times, but I was fairly quick in the 400 and 800 back in the day. And knocked out 18 minute 3 milers for the military testing. As the son of heavy smokers and a smoker myself.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Interesting that the height doesn't play into the picture, but I might be assuming something I shouldn't. If I take myself and make the scaled up me 20% larger, I would assume my pace would increase. But then again, human design doesn't always work that way.
Heat dissipation is the key on marathon distance, and people with more mass generate more heat. So bigger people have a net disadvantage. Not the case for sprinting/shorter stuff.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions