This is interesting. I live in Oklahoma (which is a weak T&F state). In our state's highest class (6A), the 400m state champ routinely runs low to mid 48. Sometimes a little faster sometimes a little slower.
Meanwhile, our 3200 meter state champions usually average about 9:30 over the last 30 years. A 14:40 5K... is probably about a 9:15 3200 meter.
Bottom line is that we see way more 48 lows than we do 3200 meters that convert to 14:40 5K.
Initially I really thought they were about even, but the more I think about the more I think he might have been better. That sucks, but I need to know!
If he was better, what marathon time would I need to run to be better than he was? I don't even dislike the guy, nice dude, but I can't not be the fastest in the office.
The IC4A qualifying standards are 49.20 for 400, and 14:44 for 5k. I agree that those are about equivalent performances. So 48 low is a level above 14:40, probably more equivalent with a low-14s guy.
IAAF accords 956 points for a 48.4 400 and a 14:19 5K. Elite regionally, sub elite nationally.
871 points is a 14:40 5k and a 49.79 400. Sub elite regionally.
However I do think some people are exaggerating the distinction. As you go up in distances, fewer and fewer people run "equivalent" performances. For example, Daniels VDOT charts say a 14:40 equals a 2:20:45 marathon - few manage that.
So if more people run 14:40 than 48.low it's partly because more people race middle distances after college than they race 400s. There are more lifelong distance runners than lifelong sprinters.
Initially I really thought they were about even, but the more I think about the more I think he might have been better. That sucks, but I need to know!
If he was better, what marathon time would I need to run to be better than he was? I don't even dislike the guy, nice dude, but I can't not be the fastest in the office.
I hate to break it to you but you're not the fastest in the office you're a 5,000m runner, he is a sprinter he is faster! I ran a 5,000m in 14:17 and a 10,000m in 29:05 the top runner on my college team ran 13:34 and 28:25 however if we raced under a mile, I would dust him because I could run a 4:00 mile and also had 48 second 400m speed easily put I was much faster he could just hold a pace longer.
If you told a person in the street that you run 48 for 400m they wouldn't have a clue what that means
If you told them you run a 14 minute parkrun they would think you are a professional athlete
While I generally agree the you, a random person on the street who sees a 48sec 400m runner will think something along the lines of "dammmmn", while a random person on the street who sees part of a 14:40 5km runner go by will think "wow they are fast".
Initially I really thought they were about even, but the more I think about the more I think he might have been better. That sucks, but I need to know!
If he was better, what marathon time would I need to run to be better than he was? I don't even dislike the guy, nice dude, but I can't not be the fastest in the office.
Your coworker was better. Your 14:40.00 5,000m is worth 871 or so points. His 48 (Low) is worth over 960 and closer to 1,000 points.
Initially I really thought they were about even, but the more I think about the more I think he might have been better. That sucks, but I need to know!
If he was better, what marathon time would I need to run to be better than he was? I don't even dislike the guy, nice dude, but I can't not be the fastest in the office.
I see the same thing in North Dakota. I have watched many 48 quarter milers in HS, we have 1 on average any year, maybe 2 (last year we had a low 47 kid). We have had maybe 1 kid in my 15 years of coaching that could even sniff 14:40 for 5k. From my personal observations here, 48 is far easier then 14:40.
His time is a couple seconds off of what you might see in a televized meet. In your event, people faster than you get lapped.
A "couple of seconds" for each quarter mile in a 5k gets you lapped!
No no no guys he's right. I'm also only a couple seconds off of Usain Bolt's 100m world record with my 12.xx 100m, which must mean a 12.xx 100m is superior to 14:40 as well
Does saying "48 low" mean the guy doesn't remember his actual time? The timers were lazy that day and wrote down "around 48"? He ran so many stellar quarters that he just gal-darn lost track of his actual best time?
Or is it supposed to sound cool to say "such-and-such time low"? If that's the case, why? Does it imply a certain casualness..."I'm so into track that I don't need to use precise language like one of the masses, just throw around general numbers for those in the know"? Are you are so in tune with running that there is a significantly measurable difference between "low" and "high" to mark the general memory of one's talent, but it is not worth your energy to state the actual tenths of a second?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.