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?)
Faster 800 runner types: Those who can run ~60 seconds in the 400 have enough speed to break a 5 min mile that all they need is a sub 19 min 5k to signal they have enough endurance to do it. There are plenty of 58 - 62 / 18:XX runners who can dip under 5.
Fit 10k runner types: Those who can run ~17:00 for a 5k, have enough endurance for a sub 5 that they only need a 67 for 400 to signal they have enough speed to break a 5 min mile. There are plenty of 65 - 67 / 17-low runners that can break 5.
I'm more of an 800/1500 type. I can run a 62 second 400m in trainers. In highschool I was 5:09 for the mile and mid 19s for the 5k. At age 36 I finally dipped under 5 by increasing my mileage. Got the 5k down to 18:20 (could still run a 62, but was much fitter)
Of course there are extreme cases: masters marathon runners doing 69s for the 400 and untrained kids/sprinters with a 20+ min 5k, but these won't be helpful benchmarks for most people.
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.
Agreed with the above.
At age 15 I ran a 4:59 1600m (so not really a sub 5 mile, but...) 2 weeks before hitting low 18s in a flat road 5k off of 25 mpw. Never ran a 400 during this time but likely would have been hard pressed to do better than 64, I didn't even break 2:20 in the 800 the few times I raced it.
Even someone who isn't highly trained or an endurance freak - I certainly wasn't - can break 5 without approaching sub 60 in the 400.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I ran 17:04 a few months before my first sub-5 but I was more of a pure distance guy at the time. I don't know what my 400 was at the time but it was probably around 65. Even now (after a few more years of speed development) I barely broke 60. If you're mostly slow-twitch you definitely don't need 62-63 to break 5.
The last time I broke 5 in the mile, running 4:58 as an old master athlete, I was running ~17:50 for the 5K and 68 for the 400. I think this is on the slow side, so I'd go off a limb and say that breaking 17:45 probably guarantees being able to break 5. (but for people with a faster 400m, it is possible to break 5 while running much slower in the 5K). I also think that 68-69 is probably the slowest one could run on the 400m to have a chance to break 5.
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.
you're getting at my point. the OP was asking what "bracket" (400, 5k) times "should" you be able to do to get a 5 minute mile done.
my point is you have to be able to run some increment under 75 to get the mile time.
some people are then saying, well, they could in theory run a 17-something off that mile, but that's the exception, not the rule. like diligent good HS varsity or college. my point is you take some kid out of the box capable of an ok 400 and the mile time here, and i think they'd have a potential range of several minutes on the 5k.
in terms of the OP's post, there is a definite "should" on the 400. or you don't make the cutoff. i think we're generally saying most guys down near 60 but some know a guy who was mid 60s who could do it. but that's cutting it close when you need 75 split average as you tire and can't run it all out without blowing up.
there is not as definite a "should" on the backend. we can discuss the possibilities of a 5 minute miler, but it's not required to even break 20 to get the 5 minute part. it might be possible to run that 17 but i also knew folks under 430 who might run around 17 so you're starting to ask a lot of someone. and you can then get into if i had a 430 i'd be running 15 or so but that's the point.
Now how about for a sub 4 mile? I am thinking 51 and 14:30 as a minimum
Agree that everyone in history who's broken 4 has been capable of either 51 or 14:30 or both. I think a typical sub-4 college guy can do both 51 and 14:00.
Slow twitch types 53/1:53/4:00/13:35, fast twitch types 46/1:45/4:00/15:00. Just some guesses.
This is a timely thread. Recently ran 18:18 on a faster 5k road course and just raced my first track mile, 5:16. Sub 5 in the next few months is the goal!
The last time I broke 5 in the mile, running 4:58 as an old master athlete, I was running ~17:50 for the 5K and 68 for the 400. I think this is on the slow side, so I'd go off a limb and say that breaking 17:45 probably guarantees being able to break 5. (but for people with a faster 400m, it is possible to break 5 while running much slower in the 5K). I also think that 68-69 is probably the slowest one could run on the 400m to have a chance to break 5.
68 is very slow to manage a 5-minute mile, considering you'd need to run slightly quicker than 75 pace for just over quadruple the distance. I'd question whether the 68 the same race conditions.
17:45 would not guarantee a 5-minute mile (unless you're talking about specifically for you), and would be indicative of someone who is much better at the mile than over a longer distance. A 5-minute mile is better than a 17:45 5k.
68 / 4:58 /17:50 also makes very little sense as a progression up the distances. The 4:58 is easily the best of them. 68 / 4:58 suggests obscenely good levels of endurance for your sprint pace, followed by an insane lack-of-endurance drop-off for the 17:50 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 ran around 57 in the 400m when I was in my early fifties and 4:29 in the 1500m which converts to around 4:50.5 in the mile. I didn´t run longer than 1500m on the track but I split about 18 for 5k in a 7.5k road race so I would possibly have run well under 18 in a 5000m under good conditions.
So I will say 58-59 in the 400m and high 17 in the 5000m.
Knew a guy who would beat me constantly my sophomore year because he could run a 54 400m and 2:02 800. But when it came to the mile he would sit and kick on me and run 4:50 every time, not very impressive for a guy that can run 53-54. By the time I could run that 400m time I was able to break 2 and run 4:25. He ran a 2 mile that same year and man was he suffering I think he ran like 12:20, dude was all red suffering. I think he ran a 5k it would've been 19:00-20:00. It's fascinating how good a 400m can carry you to a great mile, even if your endurance isn't the best.