Relationship between the mile and the 2000 meter run

I've never heard any statement like that, but it's probably true. The average untrained guy can improve performance by 20-25% if he trained to his full potential. 2K is 25% longer than a mile, so it looks reasonable.

just wondering wrote:

If El G didn't train at all, would his mile time be 4:44 (his 2K PR)? If the average untrained 7:00 guy trained to the best of his ability, would he only be able to run a 7:00 2K?

I think El G would be slightly under 5 if he didn't run at all or join any other sports, but 4:44 is quite a stretch. The average 7:00 guy should be able to run a 2K in the mid 6:30s if he trained hard for 3-4 years.

What coach was this? Middle school? Top D1 college coach?

The "formula" looks right, but it's a very unusual statement, to say the least.

There was an article on IAAF.org where El G stated that he has run very few steps since he retired. He said that it took him over 40 minutes to run a 10k i think

boomerang wrote:

What coach was this? Middle school? Top D1 college coach?

A D2 college coach. He's had some success, but nothing spectacular.

just wondering wrote:

A D2 college coach. He's had some success, but nothing spectacular.

He shouldn't be hired then. It looks like he just found a formula that "looks" right, but it really is one that has not be carefully thought through, and it may be a formula that he just pulled out of his ass.

JLC wrote:

There was an article on IAAF.org where El G stated that he has run very few steps since he retired. He said that it took him over 40 minutes to run a 10k i think

Links? this would be bizarre if it were true

I believe the relationship between the mile and the 2K is about....400m or so...

mediocre sprinter wrote:

He shouldn't be hired then. It looks like he just found a formula that "looks" right, but it really is one that has not be carefully thought through, and it may be a formula that he just pulled out of his ass.

I wish I could be that good at "pulling formulas out of my ass". It's pretty accurate, though. A sub 4 is worth what, about a 5:10 2K? I'm pretty sure that if you get a guy that runs 5:10 for the mile with no training, he'll break 4 after a few years of training hard. However, it's unlikely that he'll be able to get down to the 3:50 range and become world class.

Same thing goes with Average Joe who runs a 6:30 mile for the first time. Train him properly, and he should be barely breaking 5 in the mile, which is worth about a 6:20-6:30 2K.

Well my first mile in grade 9 was 5:02 without training.

I am doubtful that I could run a 5:02 2k.

Whoever told you this is a liar. Or I am a 4 minute miler.

Maybe you haven't reached your potential yet and you could have or will become a 4 minute miler?

JayCee:

Jim Ryun ran a 5:38 mile without training in his soph year. I'm willing to bet my house that he would have run a 5:38 2K if he raced that distance quite often.

If you can run a 5:02 mile without any running or other sports training, you should be able to run a 4 minute mile if you work your ass off for a few years.

I don't want to be one of those people who tries to slam a debate just for existing but I wonder about threads like this? I see them all the time and for the life of me I can't understand why they exist.

I honestly don't get what why people are curious about what someone could do if they didn't train at all. Why does anyone want to know this? What does it mean to you?

Are you seriously contemplating not training at all? Does it matter what El G eats when he doesn't train? What if he puts on 100 pounds? Most importantly, if you could actually find out the answer to this question, what would it do for you?

baffled wrote:

Most importantly, if you could actually find out the answer to this question, what would it do for you?

It would give a reasonable expectation of what I would run after taking a few months off due to family matters/major illness/injuries/ etc.

I don't know but generally the World Record Holder for the mile also has the Record for the 2k (as opposed to the 3k World Record holder having the 2k Record)

http://www.winningrunner.com

Are you shittin me, or being serious?

I guess i have a ran a 4:23 mile off of maybe 40 miles a week. So what does that mean?

I guess it wasnt a true mile, it was a 4:43 1500m, and that was in grade 9. I had played some basketball and whatnot, but nothing serious. I just went out and did track in grade 9, started with 400s and 800s, and the coach decided to put me in a 1500 at cities after watching me struggle through a 66 sec 400m every race. I ran 4:50 that race not knowing what the hell I was doing, and then the next race was provs a week later and I ran 4:43.

DOn't know if that makes a difference, but you need to realize that Jim Ryun wasn't just a blue-collar runner. He had massive amounts of talent, and that's why he was able to run a 4 minute mile.

I think natural talent plays into it a lot. The first time I ever raced was my freshman year and this was with almost no training, maybe a week of it. I ran 5:02 in the mile.

I could now run a 2k in prbly 5:15 maybe faster if I actually trained for it. So I'd say that this is close but I think my mile run without any training is faster than my trained 2k.

JayCee wrote:

DOn't know if that makes a difference, but you need to realize that Jim Ryun wasn't just a blue-collar runner. He had massive amounts of talent, and that's why he was able to run a 4 minute mile.

Unless you're really injury prone, you have more talent than he does. I'm completely serious, Ryun's (untrained) mile time was a 5:38 as a sophmore. However, you were untrained and ran half a minute faster than him as a freshman.

If he can do it, why can't you?