I'm just curious what people think is more of an accomplishment, a sub 17 5k or a sub 5 mile. In high school I always thought it was for sure sub 17, (everyone I knew who was sub 17 was in the 4:40s atleast). However, that could have been a combination of difficult cross country courses and poor aerobic development. For example, now, I have a pr of 16:48 in the 5k and 5:03 in the mile. I know more older runners with this trend.
sub 17, the majority of sub 17 runners are in the 4:40s, i've seen many kids go 4:30s of sub 17 and the slower outlier would still be 4:55 at worst. in fact ive seen kids go 4:40 off of 17:30
Sub 17.
dude, sub 18 is more in like with sub 5. A lot of my teammates we're like mid 18s guys who went high 4:50s
Wow, I really need to work on my speed then lol
17:17/4:42 guy checking in.
Do you mean sub 17 in XC, or, sub 17 anywhere? And are you only asking about hs runners?
If you're speaking generally, then, sub 5 is harder than sub 17. If you're talking about a freshman in hs who is trying to break 5 on the track and 17 on a hilly XC course, then the sub 17 is going to be harder.
At least based on personal experience, sub 5 roughly equal to sub 18. I can run the 1500 equivalent of a sub 5 mile but will struggle to go much under 18.
I'm saying the same conditions, so both races would be run on a track. As for age, I don't want that to be part of the consideration. What is a better performance for a runner in general. (I know age does matter especially on the extreme ends but I mean for runners that are fairly versatile and not that much better at speed than endurance or vice versa)
Sub 17 is more difficult.
Run some intervals, the sub 5 will come.
Also, get a few miles races under the belt to get the legs and head ready for a big PR assault.
Sub-5 is a bigger accomplishment if you are over 30 years old.
Sub-17 is harder if you are a high school kid.
Lower Mileage: sub 5 was easiler
4:39 1500 (5:00) versus a 17:38 5k
Medium Mileage: never really got a chance to get a good mile as both time trials were on bricks
16:50XC versus a 5:01
Slightly Higher Mileage (and quality): seemed to be about similar
4:19 1500 (4:40) versus a 16:03 5000, roughly 12/k each from what we are discussing
Higher Mileage: I can't speak since I'm well beyond this fitness level, but I'ld have to go with sub-5 being harder
4:45 / 16:38 guy, age low 50s.
At age 47 I ran 5:00 and 17:46 about a month apart. Sub 17 would have put me somewhere in the 4:4x mile range.
I was under 16:30 over 3 miles XC, equivalent to under 16:20 on a hard surface, before I ever broke 5. So I would say breaking 5 is harder, unless you live in a country where track season is first, then breaking 17 is probably harder.
All those sub-17'ers ran their times after a summer of slow slogging around, and then ran their 4:40's after months of continued training.
Do your speed work and you'll break 5. I mean real speed work, not 12x400 in 75.
sub 5 is tougher i think
pretty much identical challenges for me - I'm 45 and last yr ran 4:57 and 17:12. But the 17:12 was on the roads - on a track I'm sure I could have broken 17.
Bad Wigins wrote:
I was under 16:30 over 3 miles XC, equivalent to under 16:20 on a hard surface
How many times do we have to explain this on LetsRun? You can't claim a time of yours just because you think it's "equivalent" to another time.
I knew some asswipe would say that. Congratulations, asswipe.