I say it's about even.
I say it's about even.
Payday wrote:
I say it's about even.
I could routinely run a 54-56 Quarter when broke 5:00 and ran 4:55 for the first time my freshman year in HS
However, some people have told me that I was more speed-oriented at that time, since I finished the season with a 54.6, 2:08, and 4:55 PRs
In this sense, I'd say that it'd be different for different people.
I think it's a sub 5 mile. Requires more training anyways.
My prs are 60 and 4:58
Depends on the person.
I never broke 60 in high school but could break five with ease.
It is by far sub 5 mile.
I'd say a 60 is ~ 5:10-5:15... It'll be different for everyone, of course, but in general I think sub-5 is harder.
casual commentary wrote:
Depends on the person.
I never broke 60 in high school but could break five with ease.
Yeah, I can break 5 but can't go under 65.
Iaaf points tables say-
401 points for sub-60 400m
465 points for sub-5 MILE (recall in hs you probably ran 1600m, so 450 points for 5:01.7)
871 for sub-60 for women
914 for sub-5
A five minute mile is harder.
yup, never did race the 400 but very likely coulda been under 60 when i broke 5
58 and 4:56
I was okay in HS but not very good. Our top 440 (not 400) guy ran 47.0. Out top miler ran 4:07.
I was, of course, far, far behind the top guys. There were more 440 guys (8) than milers (5) who were faster than I was.
Sub 60 is sometimes just raw speed and requires little training, talent or discipline. That is why so many high school boys can do it, but sub 5:00 requires training, foucs and preparation.
Quick story, friend over 70, who ran a 2:36 marathon in his prime (sub six minute miles) admitted he never could break 5:00 in the mile, but he could run six minute miles forever.
nothing to sneeze at wrote:
58 and 4:56
I was okay in HS but not very good. Our top 440 (not 400) guy ran 47.0. Out top miler ran 4:07.
I was, of course, far, far behind the top guys. There were more 440 guys (8) than milers (5) who were faster than I was.
Did you do similar training to the miler? (miles, intervals, tempos (obviously not pace)) Programs with quality like that usually seem to have a lot of state quality runners, suggesting that the coach and system are the key.
The older you get, it is much harder to run a sub-60 quarter. I would venture a guess that masters runners than can run 4:55-4:59 for the mile would have a very difficult time running under 65 for a single quarter.
It really depends on the runner. More speed-oriented runners will have an easier time breaking 60 than 5:00.
I'm in my mid 30s, but I'm more speed-oriented and have a sprinters background. Even if I'm completely out of shape, I can get back under 60 after only a month or so of moderate training. Breaking 5:00 on the other hand is something that requires much more time and work from me. I did it a few times in my younger days, but I may never be able to again unless I really make a serious concerted effort to do so.
agreed. I'm in my mid 30's and can still run well under sub-5:00 but breaking 65 is very difficult. In HS and college running sub 54 took little effort. Speed goes first.
For me sub 60 would be harder. I've ran 24:57 for 8k but can't break 60 for the 400. I hit 60.9x one day during a time trial.
Sub 5. I haven't trained seriously in years. I didn't run at all for a few years due to an Achilles injury. I haven't really gotten back into serious training since recovering. I run 2-4 miles a few times a week these days. If I felt like it, I could go to the track right now with two beers and a half pound of lasagna in my stomach and throw down a 57-58 second 400m. There's no way I could run a sub 5 this week if I prepared perfectly for it.
Fat slow POS, closer to breaking 60 than 5:00. By a lot and on not a lot of training.
It has been said but I think it all depends on the person. There are a lot of people who can walk out onto the track with no training and run 60. The fact is though that if you aren't close to 60 then it is hard to get there if you aren't close to 5:00 you can train your way there.