my friend thinks u. bolt could run a sub-4:30 mile

Sprintgeezer wrote:

There is absolutely no way.

Bolt would be really lucky to run 5:30 for a mile.

Just like Rupp would be really lucky to run 13 seconds for a block-start 100m, Bolt would suck at the mile.

I keep forgetting you're a troll who pretends to be a sprint guy and think "WTF" when I read this. My FEMALE distance runners go 13 low FAT from the blocks in dual meets. Rupp could run a sub 4 mile and 10 minutes later break 12 from the blocks. You are a good troll though. A lot of people really believe you. You're like that guy who pretended to be a woman a few years ago.

Your athlete is not Rupp--but like your athlete, if Rupp were to start from blocks right now, he would be lucky to run 13-flat.

Rupp would be laughable at the 100 from blocks, just like Bolt in the mile.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Your athlete is not Rupp--but like your athlete, if Rupp were to start from blocks right now, he would be lucky to run 13-flat.

Rupp would be laughable at the 100 from blocks, just like Bolt in the mile.

Aren't you the guy that bragged about breaking 5 for the mile as a master's sprinter? So you are saying the 20 something WR could not come within 30 seconds of your time? (You claim to be a sprinter, right?)

dre--

That's a lot of supposition right there...

"I would also say that men can sprint even off distance training if full distance composition, within 15% of the fastest elite times for men if they are putting in the effort."

Evidence? Oh, right, there isn't any.

"For 10.00 thats 11.5. Geb, Bekele, Lagat, Rupp all could hit that easily given 1 week of sprint form work and block work and some starts."

Not a chance. I have little doubt that Lagat could, with a week of sprint form and block work, run between 11.5 and 12.0

Bekele would probably run slightly slower than Lagat, Geb might be around Bekele, and Rupp, who cares. There is no chance that Rupp could run 11.5 from the blocks, even with LOTS of sprint training.

"But virtually no 10.00 100m sprinters could even come within 30% of a 3:50 mile. That tells you what the human body was designed to do, run long distances."

This is contradictory, and makes no sense whatsoever. I agree entirely with the first sentence, but the second does not follow logically--in fact, it supports the contrary position--that because the human body was designed to run long distances, it is exceptionally poor at sprinting barring specific training.

But that's neither here nor there--there is no "the human body", physiologically speaking, when it comes to athletics. I don't think that Christian Cantwell was made to run long distances.

Your post is all over the place, and makes no sense.

Rupp was timed at 8.4 for 75 meters during a workout.

Surely Lagat could run 11.xx with no blocks at all. He's closed a 5k in 51 seconds. That puts him at 49.xx at the slowest for 400m.

And what about a guy like Webb? 3:46 and I'd bet he could run at least 10.9. You don't think that a second in the 100m is interchangeable with 45 seconds in the mile with some training?

4:30 is almost MARATHON pace. Anyone should be able to run at least ONE 4:30.

"Anyone should be able to run at least ONE 4:30"

Either you are an elite middle distance runner looking down on the majority of the rest of the population, or you are a half retarded sprinter who has a ridiculous view of what is and what isn't possible. My high school has a guy who ran 2:56 as a 16 year old in the hilly Seattle Marathon, this year as a 17 year old ran a 15:30 5k, and he is yet to break 4:30 for the mile. So I agree with the basis that 4:30 is indeed in reach for great distance runners, a 4:30 mile is no small feat.

I never said I was looking down on anyone. I just don't think a 4:30 is that hard in the big picture. Now that doesnt mean I think it's easy or a "small feat". It just requires some commitment and patience. I think that anyone who does think 4:30 is so hard just needs some perspective and self esteem.

Again, that's almost marathon pace.

Granted though its marathon pace for a minute number of people. honestly my opinion on this is that bolt probably could run sub 5 without much issues but down to 4:30 seems like a bit of a stretch considering his training solely encompasses sprints and explosiveness for sprinting and I just don't see how that alone translates to the mile

Also, about your friend. 15:30 indicates that he should be in the neighborhood of 4:30 during the season he ran 15:30. If he spent his time training for the mile instead of running a marathon then maybe he'd have broken 4:30 by now.

Actually, what was even the point of bringing your friend's times up? I don't see what it had to do with your point at all.

my point is that even very strong, state competitive distance runners sometimes can't break 4:30 or struggle to, so my point is that it is not even close to as easy as you make it sound

Professor X wrote:

The misunderstanding of human physiology as it relates to sprinting and distance running is laughable at best and dangerous at worst in this place.

Please, tell me how it is "dangerous". Am I in danger?

Twitched wrote:

Anyone should be able to run at least ONE 4:30.

Actually that is not realistic for most people. I possess above-average talent and never broke 4:30.

I can't help but laugh how some distance guys on this board think that a 4:30 is easy.

When I did my just-sub-5 in my early 40's, it was after 5k and 10k training on a treadmill, with intervals, for a whole winter season, and after I got sick and lost a bunch of weight.

Plus, I was never an elite sprinter, let alone the most extreme dual-world-record-holder sprinting has ever seen in the modern era, as is Bolt.

Bolt is TOTALLY OPTIMIZED to run the short sprints. If he is 205, he is carrying 20-25 lbs more than I am. I guarantee he does no 5k training, EVER, unless it is a jog to get loose.

I'm not saying that he could NEVER run a 4:30 mile--I'm saying that right now, there is absolutely no way that he could do it. I don't see how that is difficult for some distance guys to believe, since it was distance guys on this board who endlessly contradicted me when I suggested that either Wariner or Spearmon might run sub-4:30 with not too much training.

I suggested that if any sprinters were able to do it, it would be guys like Wariner or Spearmon--Wariner in particular. Bolt is a short-sprint specialist, who hangs on for the 400m.

ANYONE should be able to run a sub-4:30? That is also laughable. OK, let's reduce that to something more realistic: any decent male 20-30yr old varsity athlete in a sport that requires fitness should be able to do it, with some training. That is still wrong, and still ignores physiologic differences and training adaptations. A lot of big guys who play rugby have fairly decent endurance, and certainly require fitness to play at the level they do, but could never come within view of even a 6:00 mile.

Do you know why Bolt doesn't run a mile? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE HARDEST THING HE HAS EVER DONE. It would be punishment of the highest order. He is right now the GOAT of sprinting, and could not run a 4:30 mile.

Who cares? The only way it would be interesting would be if he was in a mile race in which there was good money on the line, against other elite sprinters.

I would totally pay to see that. I wonder why nobody has put together such a race, I think it would attract a large audience as a novelty.

In fact, it could be a dual-event meet--some combination of 100m/1mile times, for money.

amen to you sir^

I agree that Lagat could run 11.xx with no blocks. In fact, he would probably run faster from a 3-point stance than from blocks.

Webb I would put at 11.7-12.0 from the blocks. When he was fast, I might have given him 11.5-11.7, but I must admit that I don't really know Webb's running that well.

You guys are totally underestimating the importance of acceleration from zero velocity in the 100m. Your precious distance runners like Rupp are totally out of their element here--just look at them.

Guys like Lagat and maybe Webb, at least they look sinewy, and seem to have some "pop". Guys like Rupp, OTOH, are just really thin windbags, which is why Rupp would probably do better than either of those guys in a marathon.

I agree that Lagat could run 11.xx with no blocks. In fact, he would pr

And another thing--I train with a guy who actually goes 51 indoors in the 400 from the blocks, 49 outdoors.

He has not broken 11.25 in the 100m, and he does acceleration and block training all the time. He is very much more a 100m specialist than a 400m specialist, as judged from a training perspective.

I agree, there is no doubt that those elite guys could easily run under 12 for the 100m. I'm a high school xc 5k/1600m,800m runner who runs about 16:30,4:39,2:06, and i just ran in a 100m to see where I am at, and I ran 12.15 after running the mile, with a standing start. So there is no doubt that these elites who run a good 20% faster than me would easily run low 11s