Yes, absolutely. If you're a real aerobic monster you can probably even get away with 1:52.xx. 1:50 is probably about average for a 3:59 miler, neither strength nor speed. If you require sub 1:50 to go sub-4 you're on the speedier side of things and likely run closer to 14:10-14:15 for 5000.
Lots of people have done it. I don't think John Landy was any faster than that over 800. Brendan Foster said he couldn't break 1:50 and he was in the 1972 Olympic 1500 final.
1000% and you dont need to be any where near 14min 5k... buddy of me goes 1:51 / 2:24 / 3:46 / 4:03 / 8:17 / 14:55 road but never actually raced and prepped for 5 he will easily drop the 3s if he gets in a good race
1000% and you dont need to be any where near 14min 5k... buddy of me goes 1:51 / 2:24 / 3:46 / 4:03 / 8:17 / 14:55 road but never actually raced and prepped for 5 he will easily drop the 3s if he gets in a good race
Totally agree - the 3000m is a far better indicator in terms of requisite threshold power/endurance and that 8.17 (the equiv of a 14.12) is more than enough to mesh with 1.51 speed and break 4 - especially with todays philosophy of running these distances (slight negative splits the whole way).
There was a thread a while ago about basic 800m speed to break 4. I knew a guy who was 7.56 3000m runner but would have been lucky to break 1.54 (like he was really tapping out in the low 1.54's) - and he ran 4.01.5 and this was back in the late 90's
As long as they can comfortably do a 5k in under 15 minutes, ANY 1:50 800m runner can break the 4 minute mile.
I bet there are some older 4 minute milers out there who can't even break 1:55 in the 800m.
i doubt this is true. any sub-4 miler who can't break 14 is probably too weak-minded to break 4, or they've got johnny gray 800 speed. otherwise, i'd bet that the minimum is close to 1:50-1:52 and 14:00 on the strength end.
for my part, i could never figure out the 3k (too weak-minded i guess), but my marks generally track what others have replied: 1:49/3:55/8:09/13:52.
1:51 netted me 4:11. I was really aerobically challenged though; I had never broken 15 at the time and was running around 26 mid for 8k. I ran the 4:11 indoors and the 1:51 outdoors that spring. I think when I was in 1:51 shape in the right race I probably could've gone around 4:08. There are a lot of people who go sub 4 with 1:50-51 speed, but those people are at least running low 8s and 14 low or even sub 14 for 5k and 3k respectively. I have now run 14:54 in the 5k but probably don't have the 800 speed I had when I was in my early 20s. Sometimes I wonder what my mile would've been if I had the 1:51 800 and 14:54 5k at the same time, but I don't lose too much sleep over it since I still think I would've needed at least 14:10 to probably think about a sub 4.
Absolutely. I would go so far as to argue that a 14:00 guy with 1:51 speed is the perfect candidate to run 3:57-3:59. Aerobically well-developed but with enough speed for 59s to feel comfortable. I trained with a few sub-4:00 milers in college and afterwards and the first season they did it almost always involved running an 800m in around 1:50 and a 5k in around 14:00 (or for some, a 3k in under 8:00).
If someone can run any combination of the over/under distances in these times, they can break 4:00:
If they're under those on one side of the spectrum, but not the other (like a 1:51/14:30 guy or 1:53/14:00 guy) they probably can't break 4:00, unless they're way under (like a 1:42/14:30 guy). For a miler pursuing sub-4:00, these are great benchmarks to keep in mind, to diagnose where you might be deficient and need to improve. Of course, a 1:53/14:30 guy is definitely not breaking 4:00, but at least they know their times are well-balanced and they just need to keep doing what they're doing. It also keeps expectations realistic when going far away from the race distance in question: a 29:50 guy with 51-second open 400m speed (or 50.x on a relay) has an excellent shot at sub-4:00, even if neither of those times in a vacuum indicate sub-4:00 ability.
All I know is that a 3:59 miler I know told me that the general rule of thumb is 50/1:50/4:00.
I've run 38.5*, 52.2, 1:54, 3:40, 4:00.
I'd like to think that I shudda been able to run ai least 1:51 and have beaten a 1:46 guy or two, but shuddas don't count. I never trained those energy systems.
I dont think that 3000/5000 really matters in the mile.
* with Craig Virgin at the end of a long workout, which surprised me
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
People here like to state opinions rather than looking at data. I clicked through the first 20 guys sub 4 in college this year. They fall into 2 groups. They either ran 1:48 or 13:40. The question is regarding sub 4, not hitting 4 minutes/4:01 of which there are some 1:51/14:00 types. So if looking for a combo as some are trying to do, it seems to take 1:50/13:55 to break 4 or 1:49/14:00.
People here like to state opinions rather than looking at data. I clicked through the first 20 guys sub 4 in college this year. They fall into 2 groups. They either ran 1:48 or 13:40. The question is regarding sub 4, not hitting 4 minutes/4:01 of which there are some 1:51/14:00 types. So if looking for a combo as some are trying to do, it seems to take 1:50/13:55 to break 4 or 1:49/14:00.
Agreed. I remember in college most of the 3:59.x guys could run 49/50 and 1:49/1:50. The ones who ran the 5000 all broke 14 fairly easily.
The old rule of thumb is you have to have at least 1:52-3 speed to get it done. The weaker you are aerobically, the closer to 1:50 or sub 1:50 ability youd need