
The 18th Century four-minute mile - ColinWright
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27298505
======
hobbyjogger
I'm with Roger Bannister. It's inconceivable.

How could it possibly be true that in the 100 years between 1770 and 1870, the
fastest milers lost a full 30 seconds (25% performance decrease)[1]? How could
it be that men like Thomas Horspool[2] were widely recognized as champions and
world record holders while running so much slower than amateurs from only half
a century before?

Anyone who has trained seriously on the track would know the type of all-
encompassing effort--nutrition, sleep, physical therapy, training--and modern
science--VO2Max, heart rate, running economy [3]--that go into training for a
four-minute mile. The idea that people were doing all of that in Britain in
the 18th century is laughable.

[1]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/d3c109a21...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/d3c109a217b4b9337f48182cca8eace6.png)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Horspool](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Horspool)
[3] [http://sportsscientists.com/2007/12/running-economy-
part-i/](http://sportsscientists.com/2007/12/running-economy-part-i/)

~~~
sireat
There were people in 18th century England whose job was to run alongside
coaches: [http://kongehuset.dk/english/Historical-
Collections/Coaches-...](http://kongehuset.dk/english/Historical-
Collections/Coaches-and-horses/coaches-and-horses)

So one can argue that 4minute mile is not inconceivable with such training.

~~~
cafard
Maybe, if there is evidence of coaches regularly traveling at twelve miles an
hour or better. But Mark Twain, in _Roughing It_ , gives eight or ten miles an
hour as a good pace for a stage coach. I was never more than a decent
recreational runner, but I could sustain six minute miles for an hour, and
seven minute miles for three or four. That is not the sort of running that
trains one to compete at elite (even high school) distances in the mile.

------
WalterBright
Consider that in those times a large fraction of the population engaged in
very hard labor since they could walk, 6 days a week, 12 hours a day. Is it
inconceivable that in such a large group of people, there might be some
athletes comparable to today's? I wouldn't be quick to dismiss it.

~~~
WalterBright
Also consider that people in those days had little choice but to work
physically hard, and so if any were super athletes it would become apparent.

Today, super athletes are drawn from highly motivated people who choose it.
That is a far smaller pool of people, and may not necessarily correlate with
people who have a genetic predisposition to being a super athlete.

For example, someone with the right super athlete genes may never know it
because all he does is sit around writing compilers.

~~~
pedrosorio
"That is a far smaller pool of people"

The population of England in 1801 was ~7.75M people (versus today's 53M).

"For example, someone with the right super athlete genes may never know it
because all he does is sit around writing compilers."

Very unlikely. Most people are exposed to a decent amount of physical activity
as teenagers.

Some "potential top athletes" end up never having a career as an athlete, but
the kind of person who has the predisposition to be a "super athlete" at
something like running a mile, can be spotted very easily among his/her peers
while doing normal "school physical activities".

Also, no one achieves extraordinary results without being highly motivated and
training extremely hard on their speciality. That is something that people "in
those days" certainly didn't do. Working physically hard in general wouldn't
have helped them to achieve extraordinary results at specific events.

~~~
brudgers
The 8 million people of 1801 England is more than double the current
population of Uruguay. Uruguay has won twice as many FIFA World Cups as
England. [1] This may be because its "super athletes" are often found on the
streets rather than in schools and academies. The English sense of sport leads
them to vilify ruthless competitors rather strive for their level of passion.

Training hard is a way for a person to achieve their maximum potential. A
person whose maximum potential is 140% of average and who trains to 80% of it
will outperform someone whose maximum potential is 110% of average who trains
to 100%. If the 110%'ers are winning it's a sign that access to the
competition is limited.

Fletcher was better than his peers and that is why he was given an
opportunity, but that opportunity was reserved for him and his peers. Once
people could make a living from track and field, English gentlemen mostly
ceased winning elite competitions for largely the same reasons that they are
disappearing from the world's top footballing clubs.

[1]: And four fourth place finishes versus England's one. Uruguay's success
has been consistent.

------
fiatmoney
Interestingly, there are datasets suggesting reaction time has actually
increased since the 1800s. They likely suffer from selection biases, but that
still indicates that "modern" physical feats were possible.

[http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.1.0039?u...](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.1.0039?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21106176860691)

~~~
taion
The comparisons to Galton's studies were dominated by selection biases.
They're not indicative of much of anything in particular, except perhaps how
not to do this kind of research.

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/22/the-wisdom-of-the-
ancie...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/22/the-wisdom-of-the-ancients/)

