What is more impressive. Sub 60 for 400m or Sub 5 Mile?

Youth and a little bit of talent will get you a 60 second 400 but a 5 minute mile requires some training for the majority of us. More natural talent is needed for a 5 minute mile.

I'm with other people here, I could run sub-60 in say the last repeat of 400 repeats before I could run sub-5. And this was when I was training for the 1600 and 3200 in high school. Don't know what it is, maybe being young means more speed, so when we all broke that barrier, the speed was easier.

For me, breaking 60 seconds for the 400 was impossible, but breaking 5 minutes for the mile was a joke. My H.S. PRs were 9:47 for 3200, 4:32 for 1600, 2:08 for 800, and 61 for 400.

They seem to be pretty similar on a talent scale. Reaching your maximum ability or capacity at a given distance simply requires more training as the distance goes up. Thus, the sub 5 seems harder. I was 57, 4:33 (1600).

I think that our lifestyles train us to be more ready to run sub60 than sub5. It's not 'youth and talent', it's little kids running around chasing each other all the time for short distances. That is training too, unofficial, but its still training.

slowfella wrote:

For me, breaking 60 seconds for the 400 was impossible, but breaking 5 minutes for the mile was a joke. My H.S. PRs were 9:47 for 3200, 4:32 for 1600, 2:08 for 800, and 61 for 400.

Are you serious? So you could run four consecutive 68s, but you couldn't break 61 for a single lap?

If that's true, you're worse than me, and my lack of pure foot speed was legendary in HS. I could run the 1600 in 4:50, but couldn't break 63 in the 400m. I was even worse as the distances got shorter. My 40 yard dash time was 5.05 -- those fat offensive linemen could outrun me.

LVD wrote:

slowfella wrote:

For me, breaking 60 seconds for the 400 was impossible, but breaking 5 minutes for the mile was a joke. My H.S. PRs were 9:47 for 3200, 4:32 for 1600, 2:08 for 800, and 61 for 400.

Are you serious? So you could run four consecutive 68s, but you couldn't break 61 for a single lap?

If that's true, you're worse than me, and my lack of pure foot speed was legendary in HS. I could run the 1600 in 4:50, but couldn't break 63 in the 400m. I was even worse as the distances got shorter. My 40 yard dash time was 5.05 -- those fat offensive linemen could outrun me.

In fairness, I never "raced" the 400 (that would have been embarassing), but 61 was still the best I ever could muster in all my workouts (my best flat out interval time for the 200 was 28.). I may have been able to break 60 in a race, but I wouldn't have bet on it. Incidentally, one of the guys on my team ran a slightly better PR in the 3200(around 9:40) but also couldn't break 60 in the 400.

Sub 5 and this is coming from a 100m sprinter. You don't have to be that natural fast to run a 60s but need a decent work ethic and plan to go sub 5

5.05 is actually a decent 40 yard dash time. You were probably closer to 5.5-5.8+ if you couldn't break 63.

To be honest I think they’re equal achievements or at least they would be for me. I am a girl with bests of 1:04.3 seconds at 5:21 and I think knocking 4.4 seconds off my 400m would require about the same amount of effort as knocking 22 seconds off my mile.

/ ( ^ _ ^ ) / wrote:

I'm pretty sure if you can run sub 5 that you can run sub 60.

Definitely not always the case. I can easily run under 4:40, but I have never broken 60. One of my teammates can run in the mid-4:40s, but he can only hit 62.

In U.S.A. going back to first Modern Olympics, 1896, U.S.A. historically produces best 400m athletes in the world, at least for men. Every high school usually has a dozen sub-60 400m runners plus another dozen or so in high school capable of sub-60 400m. Except for Wayzata High School in MN, most U.S. high schools do not have an equal number capable of sub-5 one mile. What are the results in Finland, Japan, Norway and Sweden? Do they produce an equal number of sub-5 one mile runners as sub-60 400m athletes in listed nations?

A sub 60 400 is way easier than a sub 5 mile. In most HS races, a 59.99 means that you'll be part of the slower half, while a 4:59 means that you'll be in the top 10-20%.

A sub 5 is probably equal to a 56. My very average school had 4 sub 5 milers, and you needed a 56.2 to make the varsity 4x4 team.

Not equal wrote:

A sub 60 400 is way easier than a sub 5 mile. In most HS races, a 59.99 means that you'll be part of the slower half, while a 4:59 means that you'll be in the top 10-20%.

A sub 5 is probably equal to a 56. My very average school had 4 sub 5 milers, and you needed a 56.2 to make the varsity 4x4 team.

Some U.S. h.s., one has to be able to race sub-53 FAT 400m to make varsity 4x400m relay. What are teenagers saying in Finland, Japan, Norway and Sweden?