Personal opinion is that 2:10 is better, but they are very very close. 2:15 and 5:00 would be equivalent to me. It also depends on who you are as a runner. Are you in high school/young? Then you can probably consider them equivalent. Older person with better endurance would definitely consider the 2:10 superior.
When I ran 2:10 I ran 4:39 in the 1500. I think they're pretty much equivalent for me who is more of an 800 runner, but endurance runners would have harder hitting the 2:10 than 5:00.
Looking at 2022 high school girl lists, a 2:10 is vastly superior.
Yeah but this forum is mostly made up from 20+ year old males who have some speed in them. A 2:10 is achievable easily for anyone who is not overweight and runs 2-3 times a week.
The 5 minute mile is also pretty achievable, but for it you need to be a hobby jogger who runs 4-5 times a week or you need to be very lightweight and run 2-3 times a week.
Looking at 2022 high school girl lists, a 2:10 is vastly superior.
Yeah but this forum is mostly made up from 20+ year old males who have some speed in them. A 2:10 is achievable easily for anyone who is not overweight and runs 2-3 times a week.
The 5 minute mile is also pretty achievable, but for it you need to be a hobby jogger who runs 4-5 times a week or you need to be very lightweight and run 2-3 times a week.
In high school, do you think that more people can run a 2:14 800m more from their natural ability, whereas a 5 min mile (assuming that's equivalent to a 2:14 800m) requires more training?
Yeah but this forum is mostly made up from 20+ year old males who have some speed in them. A 2:10 is achievable easily for anyone who is not overweight and runs 2-3 times a week.
The 5 minute mile is also pretty achievable, but for it you need to be a hobby jogger who runs 4-5 times a week or you need to be very lightweight and run 2-3 times a week.
In high school, do you think that more people can run a 2:14 800m more from their natural ability, whereas a 5 min mile (assuming that's equivalent to a 2:14 800m) requires more training?
I would say it depends on their stature, if the person is 6'2 male who likes playing basketball with his friends and is fit, i would expect him to be able to run very close to 2:14 800m the first time he tries it. I can see how that same athlete would struggle with running 1600m in under 5 minutes as he would get winded and he just doesnt see the point in going hard for 4 laps.
On the other hand if the person is a 5'4 female who weighs 115 pounds, i could see her struggling less with 5 minute 1600m as for 2:10-2:14 she would need that manly kick which she naturally doesnt have, but boys do.
When I ran 5:00 I had never even broken 2:20. I was at 4:39 before I ran faster than 2:14. Granted, I am probably one of the slowest twitch runner there ever has been.
In 7th grade I ran a 2:11.5 in the 800 but had only run I think a 5:15ish 1600. The next year I ran a 2:09something 800 ("solo") but still only ran a 5:05ish 1600 in a race I was pushed (and beat) in. But I ran a 54 flat open 400 that year
The 2:10 has been to be considered superior, but of course who has an "easier" time getting to one or the other is heavily reliant on the type of runner you are.
as a girl, 2:10 is far, far stronger. IAAF tables equate it to a 4:47 mile. 2:15 is closer.
Like they said 210 for women is wayyyyyy better than 5 flat… for men I’m not sure one is “better” or worse but I think there are a lot more men who can run 210 than can run 5 flat… I would wager most talented athletic men in sports like basketball, skill positions in football, soccer players and rugby plays can run 210 with no outside training at all but many of those men would need some type of running specific training to run 5 flat. I was a decent athlete in many sports and could easily run 210 and I have never gotten close to 5 flat in a mile and I actually run like 20 miles per week (obviously not elite or anything).
I have had 4 high school age females break 5 minutes but the fastest one to run 800 only managed 2:11. Just had a 13 year old boy run 4:32 1500 and 2:12 800m so I guess that is your answer.
2:10 is far superior. Good luck with your running!
In high school, do you think that more people can run a 2:14 800m more from their natural ability, whereas a 5 min mile (assuming that's equivalent to a 2:14 800m) requires more training?
I would say it depends on their stature, if the person is 6'2 male who likes playing basketball with his friends and is fit, i would expect him to be able to run very close to 2:14 800m the first time he tries it. I can see how that same athlete would struggle with running 1600m in under 5 minutes as he would get winded and he just doesnt see the point in going hard for 4 laps.
On the other hand if the person is a 5'4 female who weighs 115 pounds, i could see her struggling less with 5 minute 1600m as for 2:10-2:14 she would need that manly kick which she naturally doesnt have, but boys do.
I think you're forgetting that hobby jogger cucks more closely resemble women than they do men. 2:10 is nearly full sprint for many of them, while for normal athletes it's a pretty solid run that just requires a little pick up basketball to get that last bit of necessary aerobic fitness.
For reference my best 800m is 1:49 and my best 1600m is 3:54.
I still can replicate similar 800m times despite specializing in 400m for few weeks now.
I however cannot replicate my 1600m anymore.
Your best 1600m is not 3:54 and you previously claimed your 800m improved to 1:48.
I really can’t imagine that someone posting multiple times a day under an anonymous handle and pretending to be something they aren’t is in any way fulfilling. There has to be some kind of mental illness going on to do such a thing so consistently.
You should really try to do something productive with your life dude.
OP, 2:10 is better. A 2:10 guy should be able to run in the high 4:40s if he’s in really good aerobic shape. That being said, if your 800m-1600m is 2:10/5:00 better aerobic conditioning should make you better at both.