What minimum mile time indicates sub 40min 10k time no matter the milage and training ?

That is interesting, but probably not relevant to how the Jack Daniels calculator arrives at race time equivalent values, which are based on evaluating hundreds of runners, over various race distances, and boiling that data down to some mathematical equations. Daniels did the lab measurements, and physicist Jimmy Gilbert boiled it down to the equations.

the thing is, it doesn't take a lot of aerobic talent to run 6:00, so that 54 makes sense. 4:25 takes aerobic talent, so you are gonna be way faster 40. Im still thinking somewhere 4:40 to 4:50.

I actually had aerobic talent though. And I certainly didn't have anaerobic or sprint talent at all. I was an excellent cyclist for my age (never beaten or dropped in climbs on group rides as a kid up and including a year of college cycling). And that ~6:02 was easily the tops in PE, so best among people who weren't doing a school sport (I only started the following school year). Once I started training, my first cross country race was the equivalent of about 17:00 5K (we weren't racing 5Ks then) and my very first official mile that I ran in high school track was 4:57. What I didn't have when I was running 6:02 or 54:xx was legs trained to run. So I could do a decent mile for a non-runner, but couldn't hold on.

Seems like half the responses here are answering the opposite question of maximum mile time that could do a 40:00 10K. To answer the question keeping clearly in mind the "no matter the mileage and training" part of the OP question, you really have to look at guys like me who ran both the mile and the 10K on no running training at all because those people will have the poorest 10K relative to mile time. The aerobic/non-aerobic/Daniels charts discussion is off the mark because all that assumes some running training. The non-runner's slowness in the 10K isn't related to overall aerobic/anaerobic fitness, it's legs that haven't been developed at all to run distances and handle the forces involved in running.

data hack wrote:

I think a lot of people aren't understanding the question. I'm pretty sure the OP is asking what current mile time guarantees the ability to break 40 minutes at that moment without any consideration for their current or future training.

Obviously all 4:00 milers could break 40 minutes in the 10k with ease any day of the week. On the other hand, some but certainly not all 6:00 milers could break 40.

I think the answer to the OP's question is somewhere in the 4:40 range.

I agree with data hack. Obviously you can look at equivalent performance charts, but that's not especially helpful. You have to consider the youngsters, who are likely to have mile times that don't correspond with 10K "equivalent times".

Just to add to the anecdotal stories: I was a very unremarkable runner (and still am). When I started running for the track team in 11th grade, I ran a 10K road race after a week or two of training in 44:30. Then the actual track season started. I ran a best mile of about 5:12. Obviously the difficulty with assessing that type of thing is that at that age, you are improving on an almost daily basis, so by the time I ran a 5:12 mile (2 months or so after the 44:30), I might have improved enough to be close to sub-40. But it's not like you go out and run 10K's every week.

Now I'm in my 50s. I recently ran a mile TT in 5:50. I would guess I could do a 10K in 40-41 minutes these days, based on some other TT's. So clearly, for old guys, you can be relatively slow at the mile and still break 40. And for young guys, you can be relatively fast at the mile and still NOT break 40.

So yeah, 4:40 to 4:50 sounds about right for an outlier of a young kid who can't break 40 for 10K.

Not just youngers. I was pointing out non-runners, since I came from cycling, but a bigger pool of non-runner guys who would have fast miles and poor 10Ks are soccer players. One soccer guy at my school (back in the '80s) ran around 4:30 on soccer training, but I think he would have been hard pressed to go 40 in the 10K.

zzzzz, i appreciate the angle you are coming from with the percentages, but I just don't think something like this is linear. I can't imagine a 4:25 runner not being able to blow away 40. 4:25 is just such a different talent level compared to 6:00.

Here's to questions we will probably never know the answer to!

high school xc coach wrote:

zzzzz, i appreciate the angle you are coming from with the percentages, but I just don't think something like this is linear. I can't imagine a 4:25 runner not being able to blow away 40. 4:25 is just such a different talent level compared to 6:00.

Here's to questions we will probably never know the answer to!

That's because you are thinking of a 4:25 runner instead of a 4:25 soccer player.

zzzz wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

zzzzz, i appreciate the angle you are coming from with the percentages, but I just don't think something like this is linear. I can't imagine a 4:25 runner not being able to blow away 40. 4:25 is just such a different talent level compared to 6:00.

Here's to questions we will probably never know the answer to!

That's because you are thinking of a 4:25 runner instead of a 4:25 soccer player.

okay. you win.

just kidding

i've been out there with cross training swimmers. a number of all americanswimmers. but we didnt run far. 2 to three miles 3 days a week. the 3 miles was a long day, not an average day. honestly we were working out more than 5 hours a day so im not embarassed. when the cross country coach/ step aerobics coach told me that if i wanted to get better at running i should throw in a longer day, like 5 miles, i told her i thought she was insane. i'd never run 5 miles straight. never jog walked 5 miles except that one half marathon i did all cocky, without really training. my first half marathon. it was a long jog walk. after getting second in the swim... anyway it is very common for pretty decent swimmers not only not to be able to break 6 min in the mile. but not to break 8 min pace in the 5k. i would guess the cardio might work against us to some degree since we might do for example 20 x 200 frestyle with 20 seconds rest. but the cardio is better than our ability to withstand the impact forces of running. all the landings. so you cant just go by cardio feel. you still have to work into the ability to handle all the landing impact. so for example when i was rehabing this last injury. there was a time where i was only at a 2 mile jog-walk range. i just had to deal with that for a while. now im back to 6 miles. but you have to work within the parameters you are able to deal with. ... read for example bowermans book on jogging. tell me his 10k time after he wrote that book. look how easy his plans are. i had to make an easier plan to climb up from this injury. i have no doubt that plenty of people can do sub 6;20 in a mile and have no business whatsoever trying a 10k. until they gradually work up to the impact forces of the landings. and i can tell you only a handful of swimmers were sub 5;30 on my team very few could break 40 in 10k.... i did on my first 10k. and i also got a groin injury that lasted for a week. no doubt this season will be much better. already is really.

zzzz wrote:

That's because you are thinking of a 4:25 runner instead of a 4:25 soccer player.

Ridiculous, since some soccer positions can run almost as much as a 10k during a match, effective endurance training.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

zzzz wrote:

That's because you are thinking of a 4:25 runner instead of a 4:25 soccer player.

Ridiculous, since some soccer positions can run almost as much as a 10k during a match, effective endurance training.

not ridiculous... look at the local womens college soccer team. i can beat 100 percent of their womens team at the 10k. i doubt i can beat any of them at the 200. and most of them can not pace reasonably for even an 800.

FireUp wrote:

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Ridiculous, since some soccer positions can run almost as much as a 10k during a match, effective endurance training.

not ridiculous... look at the local womens college soccer team. i can beat 100 percent of their womens team at the 10k. i doubt i can beat any of them at the 200. and most of them can not pace reasonably for even an 800.

well, we are actually not talking about a girl who can't run an 800. we are talking about a specimen of a man who runs a 4:25 mile.

you have a point. likely id say some wise ass thing like- well 50 bucks says he cant even do 25 pull ups, so he's not much of a specimen. and a local high school record holder who was sub 4;25 before the record was demolished with a 4;04, did his sub 4;24 his second season of running so ... yeah, put him behind a rabbit i'd bet he makes it with ease, and admits that soccer wasnt the greatest training plan before mile 5

i'd propose this experiment. which i have done. go down to the local track. and pace the straightaway 100s or 110s. ( for 4 to 6 miles etc turn around and get started on the next 100 within less than 4 seconds. then do it again and allow yourself up to 8 seconds to turn around and get started. then do the same distance off the track at the same pace. then tell me if there was any noticeable difference in the 2 types of 100s. and which is more like soccer. where you might run for 10k i hear. but how much rest between each burst of speed. and anyway was it tennis or badmiton for snell. and isnt it terribly important to include that in the circuit training some how... cheers.

ok... sorry about the pull up comment sort of. but i did laugh at ryan hall and nick symmonds on their army test. and thank them for the 6;20 pace two mile example..... im just a bit bitter. that if sham is a real person. somehow living in the dorms and in high school. i can probably beat him at everything in the weight room, but will never catch his mile time.... but the obvious thought to bring in... what about nick symmonds. i cant tell what is real in his videos. i know he came up with about the stupidest possible way to maybe get to 100 straight push ups in a month. i know he can run 1 mile in 6;07 in cowboy boots. and that him and ryan didnt break 6;27 for three miles their army test day , and made it look like they wouldnt break that pace for a 10k....im guessing nick is way faster than he seems in some of his videos. but, can he currently break a 40 in the 10k. because some of his videos it looks like he could not. which seems completely unbeleavable.... so hey nick... can you answer this riddle for us.... is it possible for example to do a 5;20 mile and still have no real hope to break a 40 in the 10 k. and do it the real way. no rabbit. no watch. no pace clues. just by feel. and what is your real 800 time these days? alright im out...cheers

zzzz wrote:

Not just youngers. I was pointing out non-runners, since I came from cycling, but a bigger pool of non-runner guys who would have fast miles and poor 10Ks are soccer players. One soccer guy at my school (back in the '80s) ran around 4:30 on soccer training, but I think he would have been hard pressed to go 40 in the 10K.

For high schoolers, a 5:00 SHOULD be enough to get to 40:00, but it isn’t. One poster pointed out how plenty of HS kids suck at fun runs. For a while, I’d have some of my kids go run a 10k in Davis just prior to the start of track season to assess their fitness and just do something different. I’d have kids who I thought were decent (high 4:30s to high 4:50s )go anywhere from 33 high to not breaking 40.

On the other hand. My freshman year, I ran a 5:42 in my last track race then 1 month later ran 39:45, so it’s really a crap shoot