Would rather go sub 3:30 in the 1500m, or sub 13 min in the 5k?
Would rather go sub 3:30 in the 1500m, or sub 13 min in the 5k?
13.
sub 9.58 100m
I want to have speed and since muscles = speed, I’ll go with sub 330
I do not want the arms of Kipchoge or Rupp ?
?????
Nick Symmonds was a sub 330 150 runner or close to that, I don’t focus on his events other than 800 but he is a fuccin HOTTIE!
???
sub 12 @5k
sub-13 5000. That's the best distance
sub 3:30 for 1500 is VASTLY FASTER than sub 13. WHAT EVEN ARE YALL ON??
Fat dude wrote:
I want to have speed and since muscles = speed, I’ll go with sub 330
I do not want the arms of Kipchoge or Rupp ?
?????
Nick Symmonds was a sub 330 150 runner or close to that, I don’t focus on his events other than 800 but he is a fuccin HOTTIE!
???
Nick Symmonds was not close to sub-3:30. He ran 3:34ish, which is a long, long way away from 3:30.
Winning wrote:
Would rather go sub 3:30 in the 1500m, or sub 13 min in the 5k?
I prefer the 5000, but running sub-3:30 is more elite.
Referencing
http://www.alltime-athletics.com-- sub-3:30 puts one in the top 100 times, and a sub-13:00 puts one in a group of almost 340!
If your'e sub 3:30 you're also sub 3:50 in the mile- people think that's cool.
You'd be walking around in your Nike or New balance gear and everyone would think you're cool.
The real question is how many of each have been done without drugs.
Although the 3:30 is a bit more impressive, I’d go with the 5k. For one, the 5k is tight but also sub 13 would put me as possibly the top American at the next trials
These days I’m just happy with a sub 7 mile ?????
sub 3:30 may be better now, but it was ran before sub 13 was. Even when Aouita got to 12:58, it was still not 3 times as far under 13 as 3:29 was under 3:30.
Didn't you start a "no clean sub 13" thread?