What's the male equivalent to a female 5:00 mile?

sub 3:50 = sub 4:28

3:51-4:00= 4:29-4:38

4:01-4:10= 4:39-4:45

4:11-4:20= 4:46-4:55

4:21-4:30= 4:56-5:05

4:31-4:40= 5:06-5:16

it may just be anecdotal, but to me a 5 min female mile is definitely the competitive equivalent of about a 4:20. I think this thread got seriously carried away by the legion of male 4:30 milers on the board who want to believe that they are as "good" as their 5 min female counterparts. If you look at high school records, state records and standards for national competition, 4:20 is far closer to womens' 5:00 than a 4:30, much less a 4:40, which seems absurd to me. I don't think we can speak to unproved physiological equivalencies or speculate about how "hard" female runners work. All we have is the evidence of what happens in races. And by the way, I see just as many women collapse at the line as men as well as just as many women running balls out during practice.

Finally, one of the best posts on this thread. Especially agree with that 2nd sentence.

Assume that the male and female WRs are both very solid. This is reasonable given that the women's 1500 WR has improved just 6 seconds in 33 years, and it has been 16 yrs since it has improved at all. It is the same for men, in the 1500 it has improved 6.2 seconds (3:32.16 to 3:26.00) in 34 yrs. In the Mile it is 6.2 (3:49.4 to 3:43.16) in 33 yrs.

If you use these as a ratio ...

3:26.00/3:50.46 = 206.00/230.46 = .8939

If you want the male equiv. to a 5:00 ...

(male equiv)/5:00 = .8939

(male equiv) = 4:28.17

This works for the 1500, 1600 or Mile.

Why would High School women have to be so much slower relative to older runners?

A 4:20.00 is "equal" to a 4:50.86 for a woman.

Dan Wilson is a legend

the real answer is there is NO equivilent.

the only real equivilent is for a mens 4:00 or mens 5:00 is a womens 4:00 or 5:00.

4:00 is 4:00, and 5:00 is 5:00. times dont lie.

im sicc and tired of women using the sole fact that they have a vag!na as an excuse for why they cant run as fast as me.

but most of all, im sicc of male scrubs getting on letsrun and bragging about how there time is better than a females, solely because they have a p3nis.

lets leave gender out of it. yes, historicallly men have run faster times than women; but theres no scientific proof or reasoning that says women are the weaker, slower, or less athletic secks. arguing the physiological capabilities of one gender over another is getting us no where, and is absolutely no different than arguing whos the better runner between beg and Tergat.

these physiological issues arent debatable, and if there werent certain women who didnt sit around and blame there potential on their gender, then we wouldnt have runners like paula radcliff or tegla laroupe or marion jones, etc.... if all women had the same mentallity as these women, then the entire womens list of records would be equal to, if not faster, than all of the male world records.

mentallity > physicallity.

bump

Someone once said that you were a persona created by Kevin Beck. If you are, well played Kevin, well played.

Also, who is bragging about their times because they have a penis? Seems like you would just brag about your times?

I don't know ... sicc ... secks ... no where ... beg ... mentallity ... Ohhh there's just so much here.

what a post! the marion jones reference is like a cherry on top of an already delicious icecream sundae.

to the430miler:

Why would the Women's list be faster than the Men's list? Is it because they are lighter because they don't have to lug around a penis? (while running at least)

Also, are there really women who can't run as fast as you because of their vagina? Do they get close, like say 4:35 for a mile and their vagina starts holding them back from their true potential?

How do the women who ARE FASTER than you do it? Do they have to sew it shut? Or is there some medicine they take? Fill us in, how DO THEY actually run a 4:20 mile?

for the same reasoning that im better than all of the 440 guys. its not a physiological issue. its a psychological issue.

the 420 women are just more mentallistically inclined than the +5:00 and non-elite women. they have a stronger mentallity, along with a stronger labia.

mentallity > physicallity

overall male mentallity > overall female mentallity

this b reasoning 4 male physicallity > female physicallity

Not really wrote:

The competitive equivalent would be around 4:16, the physiological equivalent would be around 4:25.

This is the most accurate answer on this thread.

This could be one of your best posts I think. Not only do you include the trifecta of greater than/less than equations, you utilize the word (though I would hardly call it that) "mentallistically". Bravo 430, bravo.

A problem in using men/women's WR marks as a ratio is that doping helps women over their undoped competition significantly more than with men.

My feeling is that the "clean" records for 1500 are about 3:28 for men and 3:56-7 for women, the ratio of which gives about 4:22-4 for a men's "5:00 equivalent". Add in the lack of competitive depth for women generally and 4:16-4:20 seems pretty accurate as a functional equivalent, rather than a theoretical one. This corresponds well to M/W 1500m ratios such as the Olympic Trials qualifying standards, NCAA autos, etc..

Yes, you are right. I thought about this before I even posted the first time. Without getting into what the "clean" records are, I will say that all the drugs out there probably help a woman 2-4 secs per 1600 MORE than they help a man.

If you use that ratio 3:26.00/3:54.50 it yields a 4:23.5 for a female 1600/mile in 5:00.

A 4:40 is Equiv. to a 4:05.97

A 4:35 is equiv to a 4:01.58

A 4:30 is equiv to a 3:57.19

A 4:30 1600 converts to 4:31.6y and 4:11.5 1500m. So this seems more plausible when you use the same ratio but don't compare it to a 5:00 1600m.