Do you think a woman will ever run a sub 4 mile? Let's hear your thoughts

See 800m wrote:

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

Those rules of thumbs don't apply to genetic freaks. A woman who can't run sub 1:53 may still be capable of running 1:59, 2:00 if she has the endurance requisites.

List sub-4:15 one mile women who fit your narrative. If a woman were capable of sub-4 one mile without an official sub-1:53 800m, it would be because said woman ceased racing 800m while in peak 1500m/one mile fitness.

You clearly have no idea how running biomechanics work. By your logic, someone who can walk 3 miles in 45 minutes should be able to walk 1 mile in 14 minutes...but there are clearly limits to how fast someone can walk before the mere effort of moving faster and striding longer takes a toll. So yes it is possible for someone to run a max effort 1:55 800 and still run a sub 4:00 mile. They may not be completely fatigued after the 1:55 max but that's the limit of their speed ability. Just as a WR 800 meter or 10K or 5K performance have runners that still have a lot of juice in the tank. The WR holders are running at their max speed endurance pace (which factors in cadence, stride length, etc).

Instead of insulting me and telling me I don't know running, do what I asked. Give me your list of sub-4:15 one mile women who fit your example.

I've been a running coach for HS XC and T&F for 11 years. I don't say what I heard. I say what I know

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

See 800m wrote:

Instead of insulting me and telling me I don't know running, do what I asked. Give me your list of sub-4:15 one mile women who fit your example.

I've been a running coach for HS XC and T&F for 11 years. I don't say what I heard. I say what I know

Good coach. Now give us a list of sub-4:15 one mile women who fit your theory.

If they eat enough burritos, they can do anything!

krispy kremlin._._._. wrote:

People are throwing around "8 seconds" like it's a rounding error. Has anyone here run under 4:10 for the mile? 8 seconds is huuuuge. I wish I could just erase of my mile time as though it was just an inevitability.

.

Well, my college 1500 m best was 3:52.

I ran 3:42 one year later.

The main reason for my jump was switching my focus from the 800 to the 1500.

As far as the 1500 and 10,000 comparisons:

At the beginning of 1993 the women’s 1500 record was 3:52 and the 10,000 record was 30:13.

The records dropped to 3:50 and 29:31 that year.

That 10k record was considered insane.

Now the 10,000 record is 29:01 while the 1500 is stuck at 3:50.

Scoring tables aren’t really a science.

Empirical evidence shows different distances make jumps in different years. We really don’t know the equivalent of a 1500 time to a 10,000 time.

You figure the current records are usually the best indicator of equivalents. But they change.

I could see a woman running 3:47 any year and that’s a 4:05 mile.

I surely didn’t see 29:01 happening this year or the college men’s 1500 times requiring 3:37 to qualify for NCAA’s.

There’s a chance that 3:50 will be broken tomorrow. That’s what lead me to start this thread.

The best talents can probably run close to 3:45 if the stars align, now. Only 3 seconds off.

Someone can do it one day.

3:47, yes. Neither 3:50 was done with supershoes or wave lights. Technology improvements come in steps; including drugs and drug tests. I expect a sub-4 before 2050, enabled by some of the following:

- supersupershoes

- faster track surface

- improved artificial pacing (e.g. holograms)

- new drugs, undetectable for a while

- undetectable gen doping

lookism wrote:

The best talents can probably run close to 3:45 if the stars align, now. Only 3 seconds off.

Someone can do it one day.

So a ridiculous assumption less 3 seconds is proof of a woman's ability to run 4:00?

What was your 800 time during this time? I'd guess it pointed towards the time you ultimately ran and your college 1500 pr was a one-off race. I'm guessing here, let me know.

There is no female 800m runner at this time who has a time that points towards a 4:00 mile.

I just looked up recent top 800m times (because I wasn't sure if I was missing something) and these women are 1:56-1:58... who among this group is going to shift focus to the 1500/mile and be anywhere near 3:42/4:00??

10k records are finally catching up with 100m-5000m times of the 80s. The women's 10k was especially soft.

Star wrote:

krispy kremlin._._._. wrote:

People are throwing around "8 seconds" like it's a rounding error. Has anyone here run under 4:10 for the mile? 8 seconds is huuuuge. I wish I could just erase of my mile time as though it was just an inevitability.

.

Well, my college 1500 m best was 3:52.

I ran 3:42 one year later.

The main reason for my jump was switching my focus from the 800 to the 1500.

Do you think any woman is running 3:52 by focusing on the 800m? I think if they were they would have broken the 800m record.

To the people who think sub 4:00 might be possible for women, do you also think a 3:32 or even 3:35 mile is possible for men?

Do you think women can run somewhere around 10.2, 20.7, 46.2, 1:49.8 for 100-800?

Somewhere around 4:05-4:06 seems like a stretch, but maybe within reach.

I do think it's strange there seems to be much less interest in mile races for women than for men. I've seen a lot mile races, but I don't think any of them have been women's races. I wonder why. If it's partly because running sub 4 is a significant but achievable goal, I think 4:10 should be possible and I think that would be a nice barrier to aim for which could generate interest.

Another piece of info: the 2 mile record is 8:58.58 by Meseret Defar. Have any other women broken 9? Does sub 9 for 2 miles suggest a sub 4 is just around the corner?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

What about Raisin? wrote:

I don't know. Betting against this kind of barrier-breaking is a fool's game. But if it ever happens, I hope it at least takes place in legal racing conditions. Pacing is fair game, within the currently accepted rules, but I don't want to see it happen in some kind of travesty akin to the Sub-2 "Marathon" project. I hope we don't see a woman surrounded by a phalanx of male pacers on a 1-mile stretch of straight track that has been specially constructed to given maximum energy return - or anything of that nature.

The scenario you describe would not be a 4:00 mile and the men's marathon WR is not 1:59:40.

Exactly! I agree. But how many people out there think the sub-2 marathon has already been done? A lot, I would guess. I mean, the Brojos are even selling T-shirts with 1:59:40 GOAT on them. B.S. if you ask me. I could see Nike doing the same thing with the women's mile, especially if a woman got the "legitimate" WR for the mile down to like 4:05 or so.

Star wrote:

krispy kremlin._._._. wrote:

People are throwing around "8 seconds" like it's a rounding error. Has anyone here run under 4:10 for the mile? 8 seconds is huuuuge. I wish I could just erase of my mile time as though it was just an inevitability.

.

Well, my college 1500 m best was 3:52.

I ran 3:42 one year later.

The main reason for my jump was switching my focus from the 800 to the 1500.

As far as the 1500 and 10,000 comparisons:

At the beginning of 1993 the women’s 1500 record was 3:52 and the 10,000 record was 30:13.

The records dropped to 3:50 and 29:31 that year.

That 10k record was considered insane.

Now the 10,000 record is 29:01 while the 1500 is stuck at 3:50.

Maybe the history of women's long distance running is a factor.

In the 1968 Olympics the longest even was the 800m and in 1980 the longest event was the 1500m.

1984 was the first Olympics in which the 3000m and marathon were contested.

In the 1983 world championships the longest track race was 3000m. In 87-93 they introduced the 10000m, but still didn't run the 5000m!

The women's world record was ridiculous in the 70s: 35:30 in 1970, 31:45 in 1978. By the mid 1980s some women were taking it seriously despite it still not being a championship race. But presumably women thought of the 10,000m the same way high school boys do. You might realise your potential is at long distances - 10,000m, half, marathon - but high schoolers don't race those distances, so you continue to focus on 1500m/mile, or maybe 2 mile. Is it surprising if women's long distance records were weak, considering the focus on middle distance, making 29:31 seem better than it was?

It will require a few generations of improvement on the super shoes, faster tracks and some more effective PEDs than are currently available, but yes, it will happen in time.

Such self righteous deeebs on their forum.

It will NEVER happen!

Women are slow and lack the mental toughness.

Truths.

Signed,

Coach for 20+ years

( women are getting fatter too)

Walmart Superstore wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

A 3:50 1500 is equivalent to about 28:40, so the 10000 WR is still a little soft.

What? A 3:50 1500m is equivalent to more like a 30 minute 10k. Think about what college men do. Women tend to be better than men comparatively for longer distances.

They are not really comparably better at longer distances. Its a surprisingly consistent ~11% difference between men's and women's records at practically every distance. There are a few 12% and 13% ones if I recall but it's generally right around 11% slower for the women.

Drugs, shoes, and an INEOS-type event on the Stanford track and it could totally happen.