"no way" a 20-22 runner breaks 5 is hyperbole. i had soccer teammates come out for XC briefly, athletic but lazy guys, lively legs, no pacing concept, who would loaf through practices then quit after 1-2 meets, who would produce roughly that.
i also knew a dude who could barely break 5 training like heck but was a serviceable 28-29 8k guy at d3 because he could run you a 5-6 min mile over and over. and he was about 17 for 5k. which i think is what the distance-focused folks on here are thinking of. you take someone already not just fit and some talent -- like my soccer buddies -- but who is truly committed and "putting in the work."
i just think the thesis is off because my soccer buddies and i would do sub-5 when taken out of the box week 1 of practice, off soccer fitness and athleticism, but you don't do your good 5k time without doing the work.
as such i think the 400/800 times are telling whether you can do it easily, and the 5k times are more indicative of whether you will get it done as a plowhorse who works at it for years. i agree with how the one poster put it that there's a speed way to a mile time and a distance way. eg you could get decathletes under 5 without the lungs and legs to do that good a 5k.
I'm aiming for a sub-5 minute mile in 2025. As the distance requiers both speed and endurance, what kind of times should you be able to do in the 400m and 5000m?
(If I had to take a wild guess, then I'm guessing 57-58 seconds in the 400m, and 17:30ish in the 5000m?)
I've seen some pretty crazy combos. I went 4:56 off of 55/18:15, but i've seen 57/18:20, 60/18:30, and 62/18:25.
I'm aiming for a sub-5 minute mile in 2025. As the distance requiers both speed and endurance, what kind of times should you be able to do in the 400m and 5000m?
(If I had to take a wild guess, then I'm guessing 57-58 seconds in the 400m, and 17:30ish in the 5000m?)
I don't think I would currently run much faster than 65 seconds for an all-out 400m, but I can run low-16 for 5k, and I estimate that I could currently run 4:38-ish for the mile (I went through 1600m in 4:51 in a recent 3k).
To echo the sentiment of Lydiard, I'm guessing you already have enough speed to run sub 5, you just need to develop your aerobic system so that you can sustain a much higher portion of that speed for much longer.
A little bit of specific training should be the icing on the cake.
I'm aiming for a sub-5 minute mile in 2025. As the distance requiers both speed and endurance, what kind of times should you be able to do in the 400m and 5000m?
(If I had to take a wild guess, then I'm guessing 57-58 seconds in the 400m, and 17:30ish in the 5000m?)
IMO being able to do 58 and 17:30 should indicate more like 4:45-4:50 but it's been a while.
As others have said, both are far from the minimum separately. I agree with joe goes that a true slow twitcher could break 5 off 68 or maybe even 70 second speed. On the other end of the spectrum, there's no limit. A 200-400 guy might run 46 for the quarter, break 5 really painfully, and struggle to finish a 5k below like 24 minutes.
I'm aiming for a sub-5 minute mile in 2025. As the distance requiers both speed and endurance, what kind of times should you be able to do in the 400m and 5000m?
(If I had to take a wild guess, then I'm guessing 57-58 seconds in the 400m, and 17:30ish in the 5000m?)
Roughly guessing:
62" 400 and 17:30.
The quicker you are, the slower the 5k can be.
This is basically right. The calculators will say ~17-flat but most people have a little more speed & can do it off of 17-mid. I think the 5k is a better indicator than 400 speed. You could have a 62 & be able to run 16-flat. You definitely don't need sub-60 400 speed OP.
I broke 5 for the first time at 36, running a 4:57. My 5k PR (on a fast road course in very good conditions) was 18:12. My 400 PR (hand-timed in a tiny all-comers meet) was about 61.8. And that 400 time was a couple years old; it was before I broke a toe playing soccer and my all-out sprint speed has never really recovered. So I was probably more like a 62-63 guy when I ran 4:57.
About 5 months after the 4:57, I ran 17:41.
As others have said, there are obviously tradeoffs in either direction. I think someone with a 60 probably needs about an 18:30; someone with a 65 probably needs about 17:40.
I'm an endurance runner with little speed in my mid 40s, and can do a 400m in about 68 seconds. I can do about 18 minutes for 5k on a good day, extending out to a little over 1:21 over a half marathon. I also could not get anywhere near a 5-minute mile. This year I did a 1500m race in 4:59.5, so for a mile that would be over 5:20.
So given that I am endurance-oriented, and can do a 68s 400m and >5:20 for the mile, I would be very surprised if many people could run a 5-minute mile slower than about 64 in the 400m looking at the ratios.
I don't think that simply "being older" makes you that much better at endurance relative to your pace. It might make you more endurance-focused, but some younger runners are that anyway.
I also wonder if people saying that they can do a 5-minute mile off a 70-second 400m did that 70-second 400 in the middle of a session rather than all-out while fresh. My 68 wasn't in a race and it's possible I could go faster, but I was fresh and it was all out and I got someone faster than me to pace me to a quick time.
Coming from the other direction, I think it's a different and less meaningful question. Some people have much bigger drop-offs than others over a longer distance. It's a more meaningful question to ask what time you need over a shorter distance than the target race than over a longer distance. Taking it to the extremes, it makes no sense to ask what marathon time you need for a 5-minute mile, but you could ask what 100 metre time you need.
The first time I broke 5, I ran a 4:53 wire to wire. This was after an XC season where I had run 17:23 and had a 57 sec 400, en route for a 2:06 800m from the previous track season.
A week later I ran a 4:43 after doing a miler workout, and having our top XC guy run that mile TT with me.
Everyone is different, and it all depends on your ratio of fast-twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers, amongst other physiological and psychological factors.
I find that it’s usually about 56 over 400m and 18:00 for 5k for me. I’m a bit more speed based though. My first time breaking 5:00 back in highschool with a 4:56, my most recent performances had been 11:20something over 2 miles and 54.x in the 400m.
I remember we had a 200/400m guy who ran XC with us and and generally ran 19:00-19:30 and 51.x over 400m, and he ran somewhere in the 4:50s during the track season and it was the one mile he raced. On the other hand, one of our top XC guys raced in the 15:50-16:20 range but could only split 58 or so in a 4x4 and couldn’t break 4:50, so it’s really not a one size fits all.