Is running relative? All-out 3:57 mile vs All-out 4:20 mile

I'd say they would feel the same. All my PR efforts feel the same (painful) and the times are much faster. 15:10 for the 5000m felt the same as as when I first broke 16. Thats just me though.

Think about how you felt at different stages in your career when you were capable of different times.

Over a 3 year period, I dropped from being a 4:43 miler to being a 4:14 miler. Both were maxed out efforts, but they felt completely different.

The main difference for me was mental. When I was slower, I would "hope" that I would run fast that day, even during the race. When I was faster, I "knew" that I could, and just had to prove it to myself.

Of Course. All out is all out. There is no way around it. This is why you need to train. I've run races when I was out of shape that have been every bit as painful as my fastest times if not more. But the time I got for the amount of effort just sucked.

I think most elite athletes will tell you that the days that they ran their fastest times came after periods when they had just completed a good period of intense training, and went into a race expecting to have to really push themselves to the edge. However at some early point in the race when they were expecting things to start getting really difficult, due to their fitness level it was not all that uncomfortable. So they were able to bear down a little harder to try to get to the uncomfortable spot that they had become familiar with because they have purposefully put themself there many times in recent training sessions. The next thing they knew they are going faster than they expected, on their way to a PR. The fitter you are the faster you run and the longer you can go before that discomfort comes along.

i find the good races where i run great times are the ones that feel the easiest, and im like..oh i could have gone so much faster! the ones that hurt are the slow ones. not really answering the question but just to put that in.

guys who only run 4:20 just aren't trying very hard, that's why a 3:57 is so much tougher.

based on my personal experience a faster time all out was much easier than an earlier PR. Even thought they are both all out, the 3:57 you would be more aware of your form for example. Since it takes a much better effort, you are working on a higher plane. Your all out 3:57 probably doesn't come from a previous PR of say 4:15, you advance in smaller increments as you are working on things besides fitness. An all out 4:20, heck you could have dropped from 4:40 to a 4:20 in a matter of weeks. I had a teammate in 10th grade who was playing basketball switched to track dropped from an initial time of just under 5 to gradual progression to about 4:40 by league finals between city prelims & fiuals he dropped almost 20 seconds.

You don't normally see a guy break 4 minutes and puke in a trash can, but High school is filled with guys running

4 20, 4 30 blowing chunks afterwards. Watch a high school x country race & there are guys puking in the chute, you never see that in college.

not trying hard?

what about if the 4:20 is a 13 year old?

I GUARANTEE he is hurting worse than the 3:57 guy

You got it backwards faster feels easier because its about pacing, form, being efficient

4 20 is fitness & guts

They're not exactly the same; there's a slight difference in energy systems between a 3min57sec effort vs. A 4min20sec effort. Part of the reason that this may not be obvious is because we set (almost all) races in terms of distance instead of time. That is to say a 1hr LT effort should "feel" the same and use the same energy system regardless of ability/how far you go, whereas a half-marathon will vary with ability. Gebrselassie's 58:55 uses a very different system than a 1:15 HM runner.

As far as hurt goes, it depends on the day. Bernard Lagat has said that there were some days that he broke 3:30 and felt great afterwards, ready to party all night long, but other times he couldn't run better than 3:34, was exhausted and went straight to bed.

It happens to everyone at all levels.

It seems that all of the arguments against running being relative compare some average joe out-of-shape high schooler to an elite runner. What if both runners are running to their very highest potential. 3:57 is the fastest the one person is physically and mentally able to go, and the same for the guy running 4:20. Both have been conditioned by the best coach, and both know they are prepared to run that fast.

My argument is that they will both feel the same sensation because neither individual has ever run this fast before. They are both breaking their own boundary into new territory, and both have to realize that they can push just a little bit more because they have been conditioned to do so.

But they are both still running a different amount of time for the same distance.

The problem with your question is that no one ever knows if they are running to their full potential and everyone can only have one ultimate time. So no single person can make this comparison.

I know that the way a 4:20 and 3:57 miler look during their races is completely different.

Shabonzha wrote:

What if both runners are running to their very highest potential.

With that premise, then yes, there would be a lot of similarities. (Though there is still the time difference -- a better comparison might be between a 3:57 miler and a 3:57 1,500-meter runner.)

But in real life, your premise is seldom met. Yes, there are a lot of people who are passionate runners who don't have the wheels to run 3:57 miles. But the truth is, life generally intervenes. They may train hard, but it is very, very rare that the 4:20 miler is able to devote the time and energy necessary to training as hard as the 3:57 miler. They may think they're training as hard because they're doing the same amount of mileage and the same number of intervals, but the level of dedication is often different.

I know this isn't a very popular (or populist) take on it, and I admit that it's a generalization.

haha!!

im going to take into consideration and assume that you are the 420miler in this regime.

does 420 feel any faster than when you were running 5:00?

which one is actually moving at a faster rate? 420.

i know when i am doing repeats at under 5:00, they dont "feel" near as fast as when im running under 4:30. because they're not.

yes, the 357 guy is moving much more faster and should be feeling even more adrenaline; maybe this accounts for hicham el g's strong love for the sport.

cooptastic wrote:

But they are both still running a different amount of time for the same distance.

The problem with your question is that no one ever knows if they are running to their full potential and everyone can only have one ultimate time. So no single person can make this comparison.

I know that the way a 4:20 and 3:57 miler look during their races is completely different.

Compare a 3:57 miler and 4:20 female miler. How different do they "look"?

The fact is the your body doesn't know shit about meters or miles; it know duration and intensity, and running all out for 3:57 is going to be a little different than all out for 4:20.

This question is the exact reason why runners are so well connected. Whether someone is running a 6:00 minute mile or 4:00 minute mile, the sensation of completing the task and the process of achieving it is relatively similar. Anybody who puts forth the effort the accomplish a goal in running is well respected in my book, regardless of their finishing result.

Joy of Running wrote:

This question is the exact reason why runners are so well connected. Whether someone is running a 6:00 minute mile or 4:00 minute mile, the sensation of completing the task and the process of achieving it is relatively similar. Anybody who puts forth the effort the accomplish a goal in running is well respected in my book, regardless of their finishing result.

What I am saying is that a 4min effort is going to use different systems than 6min effort.

Again, your body doesn't no a thing about miles or kilometers; only duration and intensity.

My instinct says that all-out is all-out and should feel the same. I just wonder why when some people run a race all out they just about collapse at the end and need a couple minutes to regain their breath while Haile G and the other great elites can run world record times and within 10 seconds they are giving an interview, not even breathing hard. I know their bodies should be able to recover faster than us mere mortals but if they were going all-out shouldn't they be just as winded at the end?

The reason why elite runners dont look winded after hard races is because, well, they arent. Haile's aerobic system is so well developed that his breathing capacity is not the limiting factor in his performance.

the 4:20 all out is harder, because you're running all out for longer 23 seconds longer.

No, your not. You don't run "all out" from the gun to the finish line in a mile.

Also, I acknowledge the duration as being the key to this argument. Then someone told me to compare a 3:57 miler to a female 4:20 miler.

Think about this comparison...has a female ever broken 4:00? No. So you are asking me to compare a male and a female and point out differences? Come on. If you don't see differences in efficiency, running form, strength, and other areas between world class men and women, then you need to get your eyes checked.

It doesn't feel or look the same for a 3:57 and 4:20 miler because there are huge phsyiological differences between the two. End of story.