What is more difficult sub 17 or sub 5?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Do your speed work and you'll break 5. I mean real speed work, not 12x400 in 75.

Please elaborate.

Sub 17 is much harder. I ran 17:08 in high school during a race where I hit runners high. After being out with ITBS for 5 months and only doing cross training and 200s I managed 5:01

When I was a freshman in high school, I ran 4:57 for 1600, then the summer after that I ran 17:57 for a completely flat 5k road race. I would say that I'm just as good a miler as I am a 5k runner. Breaking 17 is way harder in my opinion.

Mcmillan Running Calculator says a 5:00 mile is equivalent to a 17:21 5k.

Sub 17 is much more difficult.

sub 17 is definitely more difficult, whether you're talking about on a track or a cross country course.

On a track, a 5:00 mile is IMO more like 17:20ish for 5k. On a decent cross country course, it would probably be close to 18 or maybe even slower.

worst poster wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Do your speed work and you'll break 5. I mean real speed work, not 12x400 in 75.

Please elaborate.

I'm assuming he is talking about how running a 400m is not speed work. It's a speed endurance workout.

Speed work would be shorter than 200m, usually more like 60-120m.

mcmillan running calculator says a 4:59 mile is equivalent to a 17:18 5k and 2:48:33 marathon.

sub 17 it seems is harder based off that and also the fact that training becomes more important in the 5k vs mile. the runner will likely have to commit more time to the 5k.

anecdote: i broke both in the same week

I agree. I am a girl and don't have the best wheels either. I have broken 5 way more than 17. Anytime I can go sub 17 I can easily break 5! :)

Speed, speed endurance, the whole nine yards. Work at faster than race pace.

the stonehenge wrote:

sub 5 is tougher i think

and you're wrong

OP, are you joking? It's not even close. If you are sub-17 and can't break 5, you must be an ancient master with endurance and no wheels whatsoever.

I know many sub-5 guys who can't break 17. I can't think of even one sub-17 guy who can't break 5.

High on Endorphins wrote:

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.

xc times are a waste of time but its got to be worth at least 10 secs from grass to road/track

It is something that changes with age. A sub-5 mile is easier for a HS runner with speed but maybe not tons of endurance. A 50 year old bada*s that can go sub-17 in the 5K might not have the speed to run a sub-5 mile.

Sub 17 is harder. I don't believe anyone saying it was easier for them to run sub 17 than sub 5. People who are saying that just didn't have the right conditions for the mile if they didn't break 5 while being sub 17 shape.

I've run 17:11 and 4:37 (1500). I haven't gotten any speed to speak of. I've never run an open 400 but I have run a couple of 64.x relay legs. Probably no better than 65 open. I agree that 17:00 is quite a bit harder than 5:00 (or the 1500 equivalent). This year I am putting much more emphasis on the basic speed side of my training. My hope is that taking one second off my 400 ability will lead to 4-5 seconds off my 1500, and that in turn will get me under 17:00.

I don't think that you can run under 17:00 without sub 5:00 ability unless, as others have said in this thread, you are a master with decades of aerobic base but no speed.

Bad Wigins wrote:

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.

Bad Wigins = Xfit_Guy_the_real_1

Mind. Blown.

How many people that break 17 in a 5k go through the first mile in 5:10ish? My PR is in the low 17 minute range, but i could see myself going to a road race and splitting something like 5:10, 5:40, 5:30 for the first three miles of a 5k in my current condition. The 5:10 would probably feel pretty damn easy as well, but soon catch up to me.

Most 17 minute guys probably aren't disciplined enough to evenly pace a 5k, so they almost have to be in sub 5 shape to even have a chance at an okay race.

Sub 17 for sure!

...for women at least. I run 5:10 and 18:40, which I think is pretty typical. So breaking 5 is a lot more attainable for me than breaking 17 at this point!

I would think sub-17:00 is a fair bit harder.

As a 54-year-old, I ran 17:32 in the Nationals, and came back a couple of days later on sore legs to run a 4:42 1500m, so about 5:03 mile (having not run a mile race in years).

In spikes, fresher, and focus on a 1500/mile sub 5 would be a possibility, but sub 17 (or anything near it) is not happening.