I think a sub 15:00 5k is more difficult.
I think a sub 15:00 5k is more difficult.
Sub 15 is definitely more difficult.
SoSerious wrote:
I think a sub 15:00 5k is more difficult.
Depends on the athlete. An 800m guy with great endurance might be able to break 15, but, would struggle to get under 33. Whereas a marathoner might die trying to break 15, but, turn around and run 30:45. What kind of runner are you talking about?
A college cross country runner. Someone who can consistently run a cross country 8k in 26 minutes give or take 30 seconds.
If a sub 15 guy cannot break 32 his weakness is his aerobic fitness.
Someone capable of breaking 15 should be under 31:30.
sub 15
SoSerious wrote:
8k in 26 minutes give or take 30 seconds.
That's quite a range. 25:30-26:30 are pretty different abilities. Regardless, I'd say sub 32 is way easier.
I fit your question pretty well. I've broken 32(31:50) on the road on a somewhat challenging course running solo for at 4 miles of it, yet just barely (14:58) dipped under 15 on a track in perfect conditions with perfect competition.
I'd consider myself better at 5k than 10k.
I'd say 15:00 is more equivalent to low 31 in same conditions.
SoSerious wrote:
A college cross country runner. Someone who can consistently run a cross country 8k in 26 minutes give or take 30 seconds.
This still doesn't say if he's a speed or endurance guy^^
Well what do you dictate as speed/endurance? For this situation, a runner that thinks racing the mile is too fast for him and the 3k is pushing the limit of being too quick of a race. Someone who would get completely dusted if they raced anything shorter than a mile. So I consider this an endurance guy.
I've run 32:00 and not even close to 15 (15:30). It's not even a speed thing, they're just not equivalent times.
SoSerious wrote:
Well what do you dictate as speed/endurance? For this situation, a runner that thinks racing the mile is too fast for him and the 3k is pushing the limit of being too quick of a race. Someone who would get completely dusted if they raced anything shorter than a mile. So I consider this an endurance guy.
Off the top of my head, I really don't know because guys like Webb, Manzano, and Wheating I think all ran in the 23:XXs for 8k. So it's tricky to say what a speed or an endurance guy is based off of xc times. That's all I meant to say.
My equivalency chart shows 15:00 to be equal to 31:14. You seriously didn't know that the 15 minute 5K was much better? Its really not close. You won't find many 15 minute guys that can't beat that 10k time. The distances are relatively close. Its not like comparing a mile time with the marathon.
SoSerious wrote:
I think a sub 15:00 5k is more difficult.
Nope I seriously wasn't positive jacknut. You had to look it up on a fancy dancy equivalency chart so you must not have known either. I could have done that too, but the running community has better insight than some chart. Oh, I thought it was EXACTLY like comparing a mile time with a marathon time, thanks for clearing that up. :)
SoSerious wrote:
Nope I seriously wasn't positive jacknut. You had to look it up on a fancy dancy equivalency chart so you must not have known either. I could have done that too, but the running community has better insight than some chart. Oh, I thought it was EXACTLY like comparing a mile time with a marathon time, thanks for clearing that up. :)
Looks like someone has been training on pure hate.
kinda sounds like he put that douche in his spot actually
i dunno, i think he overeacted
32:00 is roughly worth a 15:20 5k.
Purely based off of my experience, I broke 32:00 for the 10k but was short of breaking 15:00 for the 5k. All in all, I do think breaking 15 for 5k is more difficult. However, it is relative. I was a 5k/10k runner with a terrible 1500.
The standard formula is double your 5000 time + add one minute to find your 10,000 time. So 5000 in '15' is equal to '31' for 10,000.
You see this with sub elite and elite athletes. Your 'typical' 14" runner is worth 29", and your 'typical' elite runner at 13.30" is worth 28.00" or just under or over.
Examples - Bekele 12.37/26.17 (double + 1.03)
Bob Holt (Wimbledon) 13.48/28.39 (double + 1.03)
Mike Fuller (Wimbledon) 14.17/29.22 (double + 48 seconds)
Dave Clarke (Wimbledon) 13.22/27.56 (double + 1.12)
Bernie Ford (Aldershot) 13.26/27.43 (double + 51 secs)
Ron Clarke (Australia) 13.16/27.39 (double + 1.07)
So - the normal forumula of double 5k + 1' is accurate, more or less, a little.
Ghost in Saudi,
, apply today