400m and 5000m time required for a sub-5min mile

I might add that I ran a mile during Covid, and got 5:39

I've also done 10:12 in the 3000m in the past, and 1:28:50 in the half-marathon.

(And a 8:38 beer mile, lol)

Roughly guessing:

62" 400 and 17:30.

The quicker you are, the slower the 5k can be.

Based on athletes I've coached, minimum 64-65 and 18 flat sounds about right.

Bad question. You need to frame it better. Do you want to know how slow you can be at either distance and do it?

An older runner may break 5 with only a 70 second 400. A very young untrained runner may break 5 minutes while only being able to run 22 minutes for 5k.

If you're good at the 5,00m you don't need as fast of a 400m. If you're really fast at 400m you don't need as good of a 5000m. If you honestly think the mile is your best event, you probably need to be able to run 65ish in a 400, and are probably 18:15-18:30ish on an average 5k cross country course.

Your basic point is valid, but no way 70 second guy or a 22 minute guy runs sub 5. #hyperbole

This is also a goal of mine for 6 months or so! I think being able to crack 60 for 400 and 18:00 for 5k simultaneously is a pretty standard profile for a sub 5 miler.

When I personally broke 5 for the first time, I could run 55 and 18 flat, likely more speed based than most, but this was before I was putting in a lot of miles.

I expected this. Both exist in my house. I ran 4:57 2 years ago at a time when I could barely break 70. I am now at about 70 and 5:05. My 12 year old ran 5:09 last spring and also ran 21:17 this summer for a 5k.

I ran 5:01 (twice) off of a 18:19 XC 5K my my sophomore year in HS. I ran a 17:45 XC 5K the next year and in the spring I finally broke 5 in the 1600 and finished the season with a 4:40 PR. I'm not sure how helpful these numbers are as I grew considerably between those years. In my sophomore year (where I ran 5:01) I'm pretty sure I could not have run a 400m faster than 65 seconds. I ran one 4x400 my junior year where our time was 3:59.9. I definitely didn't have the best speed on that relay squad so I think it's safe to say I couldn't break 60 (especially without a moving start).

My teammate ran a 4:44 off of an 18:05 XC 5K his freshman year. Every individual is different.

5k and the mile are far enough apart that you can break 5 while not being able to run a 19 minute 5K if you are aerobically undertrained. The same principle applies in the other direction as well. A 17 minute 5k runner might not be able to break 60 in a 400m.

I ran 4:59 and then 17:32 this past summer as a mid 30s male. Never ran an all out 400 but my 12 × 400 workouts are done at 5:15 - 5:25 pace

false equivalence. you need a decent 400 time to get the mile done. to get on pace, and then to have some cushion to fade a little on splits. my experience many of the folks who can't break 5 are the ones with no foot speed. which shows up in quarter and 800 times. i assume some bright HS/college coach could tell us precisely where that crossover is, how fast some kid needs to be at the intermediate distances to then make a 5 minute mile.

but the second half is intellectual rubbish. i was a sprinter/hurdler who dabbled in XC. i could run you a mile well sub 5. i was the top few milers at my school, even though i raced shorter. i could go with the lead XC pack for a mile if i wanted. what i struggled with was extending it out to 5k. i think the best distance runners, the endurance to keep going might matter, but to get a single mile under 5, no, bull, i think you don't need more than 20-22 type 5k speed. one lap in 5, two jogging laps in 8 or so. that's about what my first distance running looked like when i was already under 5.

put differently, we routinely criticize kids on here who say i do x 800 y mile z 5k -- "dude, your shorter races imply you should be a minute faster 5k." to me that's the difference between fit and having endurance. you have to be capable of going with the pack at a speed to do the mile. but whether that continues out to 3.1 is different talent and more work.

63-65 and sub-18

lemme put it this way, i think a 5 minute mile capability could result in anything from about 17-22 for 5k.

62 is definitely not needed. I could only run like a 64 when I ran sub 5. In fact, even now I've never broken 61, and have still run 4:31.

Bouncing on the comments "If you're good at the 5,00m you don't need as fast of a 400m. If you're really fast at 400m you don't need as good of a 5000m."

There are multiple routes to a sub-5 minute mile. In high school, I approached it from the speed side. I was a 400 meter runner moving up to the 800 meters. I could run 51 seconds 400, 1:58 800, 4:50 minute mile. I tried XC / 5K but didn't go sub-20 minutes.

Now at 40, I've approached it from the endurance side. No idea what I could run for a 400 or 800, but can go sub-5 with 16:35 5K.

Agree, it’s probably more like 65/20:00

Actually I changed my mind immediately, 65/19:00