Which is Easier? 4:10 or 14:10

TrackCoach wrote:

beentheredonethat wrote:

What??

Rupp 13.37

Lindgren 13.44

Ritz 13.44

Derrick 13.55

Virgin 13.5xish

Salazar 13somthing I think or 14.0something

and that is just off the top of my head right now.

In a specific year.

What I was saying. You run 14:10 in hs and you are top 3 in the country. You run 4:10 and you are top 15 at best these days.

break it up wrote:

What I was saying. You run 14:10 in hs and you are top 3 in the country. You run 4:10 and you are top 15 at best these days.

That just might have something to do with the number of high-level competitions in the mile. There are a lot fewer at 5k and virtually nobody trains for it for that reason.

That said, 4:10 is a "softer" standard; the D3 yearly lists confirm this.

High schoolers run 4:10 all the time (1600 and mile) but its somewhat rare to see a 14:10

From the IAAF tables:

4:10.05 - 955 pts

14:13.67 - 955 pts

14:10.00 - 967 pts

4:09.01 - 967 pts

Yeah its 4:10

I would say you can look at any naia, d3 or d2 lists and see it is easier to run 4:10 than it is 14:10 you bump that to 14:20 and you start to have a conversation.

More relevant would be a question like:

4:05 or 14:00

roadiee wrote:

word to your marmot wrote:

I say definitely 4:10. I ran 4:12 (converted) a week or so after going sub 14:20, and I am much stronger in the 5k than the mile.

So you did not run 4:10, or 14:10. Thanks for the completely irrelevant opinion.

apparently tonight's idiot.

2011 IAAF tables.

5000 @ 14:10 = 967 points

mile @ 4:10 = 955 points

look em up yourself.

The High School example is dumb. 5k isn't a high school track event in any state. It's restricted to national level competition and is as competitive as the steeplechase at the national events. The best runners, aside for 1 or 2, don't run it. The longest event high schoolers train for is the 2 mile and that isn't good enough training to run a real solid 5k.

beentheredonethat wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

These days, a 4:10 mile will barely get you in into H.S. top-10 list, but a 14:10 5k will put you in the top-3...you get the point.

What??

Rupp 13.37

Lindgren 13.44

Ritz 13.44

Derrick 13.55

Virgin 13.5xish

Salazar 13somthing I think or 14.0something

and that is just off the top of my head right now.

beenthere gets my vote for idiot of the night

Intrinsically they are pretty similar performances (evidenced by the IAAF scoring tables. However, most people (in North America) are aerobically underdeveloped and have a better shot at the mile than the 5km. I've run 4:07 and am barely breaking 15:10, let alone 14:10.

As somebody who has never run anywhere near either one, I the 14:10 5K seems slightly less unattainable to me. I suspect that most people who ever choose to commit to the training required [for them] for a 14:10 can already run a 4:10 mile or close to it without seriously attempting 5K training, which might bias our perspective a bit. I think the proportion of people who could ever run 14:10 5,000 with years of optimal training is probably slightly larger than the proportion of people who could run ever run a 4:10 mile after years of optimal training.

Having said that, the McMillan Running Calculator does not agree, and I'm happy to defer to McMillan on this type of question. If you input a 14:10 mile into the McMillan Running Calculator, it suggests you should be able to run a 4:05.4 mile. If you input a 4:10 mile, it gives you a 14:26 5K.

BCT wrote:

Having said that, the McMillan Running Calculator does not agree, and I'm happy to defer to McMillan on this type of question. If you input a 14:10 mile into the McMillan Running Calculator, it suggests you should be able to run a 4:05.4 mile. If you input a 4:10 mile, it gives you a 14:26 5K.

Agree. Looking back to college years, we had 5 guys who could run 4:08-4:12 on any given weekend. For 5K, same group of 5 guys could maybe manage ~14:25-14:30. 3 of these guys were total mid-distance guys, but the other two were coming from the long distance side.

14:10 is WAYYYYYY harder.

I ran 4:09 in college and I couldn't of went 14:10.

14:10 for most D1 programs, you're Top 3 runner on the XC team, on a really good team. Top dawg in most conferences....but 4:10, you're a walk-on on the same team.

Seyta wrote:

Lets just take a look at this year's runners...

High School Runners who went below 4:10 in the Mile-

-Lukas Verzbicas

-Austin Mudd

-Edward Cheserek

-Jantzen Oshier

-Joe Rosa

-Jim Rosa

-Elias Gedyon

-Matt Carpowich

-Jacob Burcham

-Ammar Moussa

-Daniel Everett

-Omar Kaddurah

High School Runners who went below 14:10 in the 5k-

-Lukas Verzbicas

-Edward Cheserek

You tell me which one's harder...

How often do high school runners do the 5000 on the track? I'm assuming the mile list includes 1600s or 1600 conversions. High school kids tend to have better speed compared to their endurance since there aren't any long races on the track.

That said, I agree that the 14:10 is more difficult. It's also more useful. A 14:10 5k can get you into some elite groups, but most want a 4-flat mile.

It is interesting to look at the women's world records which are right around both of those marks. (I think 4:12 and 14:11 or 14:12?)

The IAAF tables aren't much help here, because there's a hole in the equivalent times that don't allow a comparison between a mile and a 5K. (The 5K and the Mile don't share a single event on these tables that could then be compared.)

Nevertheless:

5K; 14:10.0 = 3K; 8:15.54 = Two Mile; 8:53.9

Mile; 4:10.09 = 1500; 3:51.74 = 800; 1:52.68

Maybe somebody can use this and figure this out? Because obviously there is a quantitative answer to this interesting question. As Al Franken said on the Senate floor not so long ago: "We're all entitled to our own opinions; we're not entitled to our own facts!"