If I have the speed to run a 60 shouldn't I be able to break 5?
If I have the speed to run a 60 shouldn't I be able to break 5?
Not necessarily. When I finally broke 5, and ran 4:56, my 400m PR was 58. You're cutting it pretty close with a 60. I had teammates, though, who could run a 60, but not break 5:20 for the mile.
60 would be a hard go for me, but I have broken 5mins, so yes...you have the speed...
I broke 10 for 3200 and had difficulty breaking 60, with a 57 pr (right after a mile), but until the end of senior year my 400 was always 59.8 or something equally slow. You have the speed to go under 5. Good luck.
kids on my team run 58 flat on cinder tracks
cant break 5:10 for the life of em on a real nice track though
I still can't break 60, but i can run under 4:30 for the mile. So....apparently it depends
depends on your endurance makeup. I can't break 56 for 400 but can run 3.57 for 1500 and 14.18 for 5k. I'm just slow over short distances.
400 is unrelated to 1600, it's too hard to tell, some can, some can't.
my PR is 56 high in the 400m and I went 9:52 for 2 mile, and 4:39 for the mile.
with altitude i have run like 5:01-02
A friend runs 4:35 with about 58sec speed, i run 4:45 with 51 speed. so yeah it all depends, but 60 is enough with good endurance
When I was a freshman in high school, I ran a 60 s 1/4 on a relay and a 4:57 1600.
WHAT? You can run a 60 400? Of course, you should be able to run a 5 minute mile!
I've run a 4:56 & at the time I couldn't even break SEVENTY for a 400. Granted, I have NO leg speed at all, but still. I think we did a workout where we did 10 x 400 @ 74-75 & I could do that, but I swear I couldn't go any faster even for just one all out.
Unless you are completely a sprinter with no endurance at all, you definitely should be able to run sub-5, especially if you are male.
I ran a 4:30 mile with a 400 pr of 60.5. The two are completely unrelated; a fast 400 pr is just a nice bonus in a fast finish.
i agree....i've never run faster than 62.7 for 400m and i have run 4:06 for 1500 and 4:22 for the full mile....400 speed is not really important as long as you are strong as hell
Interesting. a 3 second discrepancy between 400m and 1500m PR's. Imagine if world class athletes could pull that off. We'd see El Guerrouj running sub 3:10 for 1500m!
I think some of the posters here have undeveloped sprint speed, or perhaps set their 400m pr's while training for a much longer distance event.
With that said, I do agree that 60 second quarter speed is plenty to break 5:00. Me personally...61.5 and 4:49.
I was running 400's at the beginning of the season with a slow 400 jog recovery. These were intervals and I got going pretty fast for the last couple. I ran 62, 60, 60 for the last three. These were not out of blocks. I broke 5 easily during the season.
I know, I can only run 65 for the 400 but have run 3:50 for the mile...
In HS I was an 800 specialist. I ran a 52 in the 400 but my mile PR was 5:06. Your time in a race like the 400 should be no predictor of your mile time.
It's good to know that there are plenty of slow people here along with me. I've got a question: do any of the Africans just have ridiculously bad leg speed? I have this theory that one of the main reasons that Americans aren't doing as well on the track because so many of us just aren't fast enough (sprintwise). Any opinions?