The 4-minute mile fallacy

 It is Impossible

We accepted that Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile, but he didn't, nore has anyone else, and nobody will, why?

First of all, man is incapable of attaining the speed beeded for the task; to run a 4-minute mile you need to run at over 16 MPH, not many professional cyclists can keep that pace with all the modern equipment.

The main thing to get used to is that Roger Bannister was not at the front running into the wind for most of the race, so he was fresh for the run-in, like most of the athletes who beat the record; they run as a group, switvhing runners who take the wind to keep the agreed winner fresh,

To give you a thought, if we could run this fast for this long, we could outrun both the cheetah (the fastest land animal), and the bulls at Pamplona.

This brings me to a funny incident in the Munich (?) Olymic games; as I said, most of the races have a pattern, you have three grades of runners. Front runners, usually athketes who are there to keep the  pace for a lap or two, possible winners, and those who are likely to win. 

Things went well in the 10K race form the start, the runners set off and led, before falling into the peloton (main body); after about 8 laps, the leaders jad a runner, but he wasn't dropping back as was the rule; he had set himself up for the win. Two laps from the end, the main bunch decided to "kick" to try and catch him, but they found they had ran so long at the steady pace it was impossible to up thier pace, what is more, not only was he extending his lead, but he seemed to be not tiring.