What is a more impressive feat for a fit male mid 20's, without much natural talent? Going sub 60 seconds for 400m or going sub 5 minutes for the mile?
What is a more impressive feat for a fit male mid 20's, without much natural talent? Going sub 60 seconds for 400m or going sub 5 minutes for the mile?
I would say sub 5 minute mile
Sub 5.
I'm a distance runner, and I could break 60 before I could break 5:30. So 5 min mile.
McMillan's calculator says a 4:59 mile is equal to a 61.4 400.
I am in my 40s and can easily go sub 60. I have no chance breaking 5 for the mile. Sub 5 is way more impressive.
people have run 26.2 sub 5 minute miles in a row
no one has even run 26.2x4 400m under 60 seconds in a row
ouch my heel wrote:
people have run 26.2 sub 5 minute miles in a row
no one has eveRRR run 26.2x4 400m under 60 seconds in a row
oops correction 'no one has eveR' not 'no one has even'
I'm going to say sub 5. Many people can do sub 60 off of training for other sports, whereas one (okay, maybe there are a few exceptions, but almost anyone) would have to train specifically for running to go under 5 for a mile.
Plus, pacing is easier for the 400. You basically go just short of balls to the wall until the 200, then go balls to the wall. For the mile it takes some experience to be able to pace yourself.
Also, just as something to consider, in most states, a high school girl under 60 in the 400 is fairly common, whereas a girl under 5 in the mile will win the state meet almost every year.
I'm pretty sure if you can run sub 5 that you can run sub 60.
/ ( ^ _ ^ ) / wrote:
I'm pretty sure if you can run sub 5 that you can run sub 60.
That may be true. It is definitely not true the other way around.
/ ( ^ _ ^ ) / wrote:
I'm pretty sure if you can run sub 5 that you can run sub 60.
I think you need to be able to low 60s, but I know a lot of masters runners who have broken 5:00 who could not break 60.
Repeating the 60 second quarter throughout the season might be more of a feat than repeat 5's, due to the higher likelihood of injury at the 400. Otherwise the 5 is more impressive.
Sub 5:00. No doubt.
I know, as a coach, I would rather have a 5 minute miler than a 60 400 runner. I have seen 5 score occasionally in a dual meet. I have never seen anything slower than a 56-57 scoreAlso, this is a dumb comment.
Coach Owl Birdo wrote:
Repeating the 60 second quarter throughout the season might be more of a feat than repeat 5's, due to the higher likelihood of injury at the 400. Otherwise the 5 is more impressive.
Wow, let me stop this thread right here and ask for a bookmark! Everyone agrees, amazing!
The IAAF scoring tables equates a 59:99 400m to a 5:05 mile, so I guess the sub 5 minute mile is SLIGHTLY more impressive, but not by much.
IAAF wrote:
The IAAF scoring tables equates a 59:99 400m to a 5:05 mile, so I guess the sub 5 minute mile is SLIGHTLY more impressive, but not by much.
you and the other guy who looked at the calculator have it right, as in : they are pretty damn equal. The rest of the posters' "logic" is all over the place and doesn't make much sense.
Furthermore, a 1:00 400m is 139% of the men's WR, while a 5:00 mile is 134% of the men's mile wr. However, some feel El G's 1500 wr is slightly better than his mile, and if we used that converted time for comparison, a 5:00 mile would be about 135% of the wr.
In short, the two are VERY similar in terms of quality (as they relate to the best ever done), with the 5:00 mile only slightly better.
As a mid 30s newb, I've done neither sub 5 nor sub 60. That said, I think I can get the sub 5. I've never ran a 400 all out, however sub 60 just seems like it requires more speed than I have. Repeat 400s at 75 are really tough. I don't think I could find 15 more seconds.
I could break 60 way before breaking 5, and I was doing distance training. That said, the younger you are the more natural speed you have, so maybe it's not true for older folks.