Im pretty sure that the super-fit guy in the picture is sort of a jab against how guys see there level of physical fitness, versus what the statistics say. What a guy sees differs from the statistical reality on the page? That reflects real life.
This is interesting. I consider myself as once being fit, but definitely on a downswing in my overall fitness, and much better in Aerobics when compared to abysmal strength, especially upper body strength. But even now, I appear to be able to beat the average mile by over 4 minutes and conservatively I could do at least a dozen pull-ups.
I can't help but wonder at the statistics though. I mean, what do you do with the guy who is really sick, and finished the mile in several hours while everyone else does it in 7 minutes? What sort of standard deviations do we have here? What was the population sample? Was there significance? True rigor may be unrealistic here, but I wonder how they got this data.