Yeah but when people ask you about your mile time, they don't care about what you've actually done. It's not like you're being interviewed by a potential biographer who is asking for facts. More often than not, they want to know what you're capable of. It's a TALENT question.
Very easy - if you have run, say, 3:44 1500 - say I have run the mile-equivalent of 4:01.
Most people won't care.
Runners slower than you might try to run you off the road.
I'm a sub four miler but my 1500 PB is quite a bit faster than my actual mile time. I use the same rule that others have mentioned.
If a total non runner asks my PB I'll sometimes convert my 1500 (especially if we've had a few pints) but when a runner asks, I always give the true mile PB.
I've had other runners say it's okay to convert and use that, but the reason I don't agree is for a full season my 1500 PB was well below 4:00.00 converted and I never once called myself sub4.
mgm wrote:
Yeah but when people ask you about your mile time, they don't care about what you've actually done. It's not like you're being interviewed by a potential biographer who is asking for facts. More often than not, they want to know what you're capable of. It's a TALENT question.
So we can just answer what we think we are capable of?
All of my PR's just got a lot better.
I don't even need to train any more.
As long I as I was capable of getting those marks.
no, I'm not ok with it. If you really were in shape for your 1500 time and the track wasn't short you could hit within a second of your predicted mile time. Until you do, you can't change your pr.
Alright, so 26 posts into this thread, here is the tally. Is it OK if I claim a mile pr based off my 1500?
No - 3
Yes - 1
Qualified yes - 9
10 out of 13 people think the concept is basically fine, they are just being persnickety about how the statement is worded. I expect nothing less from the letsrun sticklers. Best in the biz.
800 dude wrote:
Yeah, totally depends on who you're talking to. If some guy at my office gym sees me hammering on the treadmill and asks my mile time, and he obviously isn't a runner or knowledgeable about running, I'll just give a converted 1500 time without bothering to explain.
If it's a recreational runner, I'll usually give them the 1500 time and explain what it would be equivalent to. I figure they have enough interest in running that their eyes won't glaze over when I mention the metric system.
If it's an ex collegiate runner, they're asking for my 1500 time anyway.
This... this is exactly what I do. Except without the treadmill, cause those things are evil.
Catcher in the Rye wrote:
Just use your 100 time and multiply it by 16.09.
+1
I'm curious as well.
I ran a workout once where I was supposed to run as fast as I could for 4 minutes. I came through 1400m in 3:56, and I was running in flats. My mile PR at the time was 4:35... god I wish I'd just kept going. Don't really get that much credit going around saying I ran ~1420m in 4 flat.
+2I'm against this. You're lying if you do it.
I Got This wrote:
Catcher in the Rye wrote:Just use your 100 time and multiply it by 16.09.
+1
1500 converter wrote:
Assuming I use the 1.08 conversion, are you cool with me citing my mile pr based off my 1500 time?
I'm going to anyway, but I'd like to hear your opinions on this one.
Will I lose sleep over it? No. Do I think you should do this? No.
Take what you went through the 1500 in during a 1600 or mile, and that's ok. Convert to a LONGER distance, even if it's just a 109 meters? Nah.
If at the end of your illustrious career you have a 1500 PR of 3:27 and a mile PR of 3:59, it's clear that you were more fit when you ran the 1500.
What's wrong with your real mile PR?
The bottom line is...who really cares? As long as you aren't making things up out of thin air, its really all good.
But a good rule of thumb is to say whatever you want to lay people, and to real runners say your actual mile PR and then mention your 1500.
I am against it. It's not a big deal but it's just not true because you didn't run it. If someone asks you you can just say "my best 1500m time is xx which roughly converts to xx mile time." It's not that difficult to say that.
It's all a matter of expressing your true talent, not actually doing it. Just like Paul Ryan actually had the talent to run a 2:50 marathon, which makes him a 2:50 something marathoner.
Ask Max Harn, he is the expert on the conversion from mile to 1500
How about giving a 1600 time for a mile PR? The difference is pretty insignificant, and most high school runners have never raced a mile. Or should I add two seconds?
skiz wrote:
How about giving a 1600 time for a mile PR? The difference is pretty insignificant, and most high school runners have never raced a mile. Or should I add two seconds?
Let's put it this way: If you run a 3:59 1600, are you a sub-4-minute miler?
toro wrote:
I'm not OK with that.
I have a 3:42.1 1500 PR which converts to 3:59.9.
My mile PR is 4:04.8.
I claim my mile PR is 4:04 but I will say I have run a 4 flat equivalent.
I never say I have run a 4 flat or sub 4 mile.
Otherwise you are just saying something that you didn't do.
If someone says - what can you run a mile in?
I'm OK with giving the conversion.
Because you can run that.
If the question is - what have you run for a mile?
You say your actual time.
I would just say, "I run about 4 minutes for the mile" to most people.
With actual runners give them as much info as you want, but don't pretend a conversion time is an actual time.