Obviously you will get airborne the real question is are you going 10 mph or 610 mph.
Obviously you will get airborne the real question is are you going 10 mph or 610 mph.
[quote]SoCal Pete wrote:
But then SoCal Cush, who ran 3:55 for the mile back in the day, responded that he disagreed, that he thought some 1500 times made the runners worthy of inclusion. Who am I to tell an actual sub-4 minute miler (a group of which I'm not a part) that he can't decide who else, given reasonable criteria, can be a member of his group?
Wait!!! -- I am pretty sure that Cush ONLY ran a 3:57.70 mile, not 3:55. How do I know this? I only heard him say it about a dozen times about a month ago ;) Right, Cush? :D I might never forget your time -- ever. hahahaha
jk
MG
Oops, I'M WRONG!!!! I looked it up - 3:55.42 - April 6, 1995 in Eugene, OR. Sorry, Cush. I should have remembered correctly.
SoCal Kevin - I think the real question is: If I run sub-5 for the mile heading east, does it convert to a faster mile than someone who ran the same time heading west, since the earth spins from west to east, therefore--like the treadmill--doing some of the work for me when I'm heading west.
Or if I barely break the five minute mile on a plane at 35,000 feet, does that not count as a sub-five minute mile at sea level, since clocks run faster at altitude?
Perhaps SoCal Cush has the answer. Since he's the only one who's run sub-4 for the mile out of the SoCal [Enter Name] gang, he must be the smartest. Cush?
go gun wrote:
Not sure, but it won't get you on the rankings list. Sack up or shut up.
can't believe this thread is still alive; can't believe i'm arguing nonsense, too, but what the hell...
1) most of the old men posting here have "sacked up"--unless this means something different than what i think it means? so it is actually a fair question then to "go gun": when was the last time you "sacked up?" (yes, i'm prepared for some pissy and/or crude response, though for the most part you've stuck to your "gun" with the same spurious five worded bullet...)
2) you do realize ANYONE can make a rankings list, and that there really are no rules governing this? so, it could be far easier to make these "lists" than to actually physically break 5. if we're sticking to track, as far as i know, breaking 5 at its simplest is putting together 4 consecutive 440 yd laps averaging slightly under 75 seconds each--not sure what constitutional laws, criminal laws, thermodynamic laws or others you want to apply here. what list you make after is way more arbitrary than you think. but, since you're a rule boy, you should note you CAN qualify for the 1500m at usatf nationals with a mile time, so apparently there are acceptable conversions by this venerated organization. also, for the record, the t&f news list of sub-4 milers has guidelines put forth ONLY by t&f news, not usatf, usada, wada, tac, the fbi, the cia, the dea, or any other official organization, nor by any vote by milers sub-4 or otherwise. you can choose to accept those guidelines or not, and it would be fairly easy to make a definitive list of sub-4s and acceptable conversions, and guess what: you could accept them or not...
sheesh--i must be old. i'm pretty sure i'm repeating myself.
that's my story and i'm sticking to it...
SoCal Pete wrote:
SoCal Kevin - I think the real question is: If I run sub-5 for the mile heading east, does it convert to a faster mile than someone who ran the same time heading west, since the earth spins from west to east, therefore--like the treadmill--doing some of the work for me when I'm heading west.
Or if I barely break the five minute mile on a plane at 35,000 feet, does that not count as a sub-five minute mile at sea level, since clocks run faster at altitude?
Perhaps SoCal Cush has the answer. Since he's the only one who's run sub-4 for the mile out of the SoCal [Enter Name] gang, he must be the smartest. Cush?
only if the plane is flying in the northern hemisphere, and you're running counter-clockwise, or if the plane is flying in the southern hemisphere and you're running clockwise. i think. when in doubt, follow the toilet swirl...
Yes, I've sacked up and raced a mile at an advanced age. Sub 5 is not easy. That's why all these speculators of their mile times need to sack up or shut up.
Posting on this thread is a flag for early-onset dementia.
Thank God I have resisted getting involved in this discussion. But I am thinking about changing my screen name to NorthInDave...
Dave
racerdb wrote:
Thank God I have resisted getting involved in this discussion. But I am thinking about changing my screen name to NorthInDave...
Dave
Why, you don't have an opinion? Running a sub 5 minute mile at 45 or 50 is no easy feat and that is a fact, regardless of flagpole's post (he's wrong).
Early dementia? Give me a break people, it's a discussion. I'm 44 and since Alberto is older, I guess I've got him beat up stairs anyways!
racerdb wrote:
Thank God I have resisted getting involved in this discussion. But I am thinking about changing my screen name to NorthInDave...
Dave
?????????OK wrote:
Why, you don't have an opinion? Running a sub 5 minute mile at 45 or 50 is no easy feat and that is a fact, regardless of flagpole's post (he's wrong).
Early dementia?
Crap....I got sucked into this drivel. No it's not dementia you idiot. But I'm pretty sure I have Alzhiemers. Can't remember a damn thing. Ok, here's my opinion: It's kind of hard, but not real hard to go sub5. Just not very common for old guys to run a mile race. So you would see a lot more sub 5's if there were as many mile races as there are 5k's. FWIW I went 4:50.23 four years ago when I was 50 off HM/10K training...So I've been there, happy about it, but think I could do a lot better with mile specific training and more mile races, just like everyone else.
Dave
Sorry, the early dementia comment was made in sarcasm to Parental Advisory, not you. My miscommunication, my fault.
Flagpole wrote:
MOST college runners who turn 45 could train and break 5:00 if they wanted to. It's not that great a feat. I'm fat and 47 and I could do it in 9 months if I trained (and didn't get injured -- that part is unlikely).
USUALLY I think things are harder to do than people think, but not this time.
As one who has actively chased track times as a master and beyond, the whole "didn't get injured" part is way more significant than anything else, at least in my case. Sure, a lot of master runners could run fast times (by whatever standard) if they could train and recover like 20-somethings. The problem is that they can't.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Flagpole wrote:MOST college runners who turn 45 could train and break 5:00 if they wanted to. It's not that great a feat. I'm fat and 47 and I could do it in 9 months if I trained (and didn't get injured -- that part is unlikely).
USUALLY I think things are harder to do than people think, but not this time.
As one who has actively chased track times as a master and beyond, the whole "didn't get injured" part is way more significant than anything else, at least in my case. Sure, a lot of master runners could run fast times (by whatever standard) if they could train and recover like 20-somethings. The problem is that they can't.
Yep. BUT...even taking into consideration different recovery times (perhaps fewer workout days a week and fewer intervals per workout), injury is STILL the biggest problem for those over 40 even. So, what I'm getting at is that in my opinion, it is still not that big of a deal (more than half who were college runners who could run 4:30 or faster mile) for a 45-year-old to train like a 45 year old (no need to train like a 20-year-old) and still break 5 minutes. The 50% who can't are ones who just can't keep the injuries away even with reduced training load.
I guess I hadn't given much consideration to the number of persons who have the talent to do something modestly noteworthy but who don't in the effort required to get there for whatever reason. I probably will continue to not give them much consideration.
"90% of success is showing up." --- Woody Allen
I ran 5:03 for the mile (and 4:45 1500s) a couple of times at age 47. I never ran faster than 4:45 in high school and only ran shorter distances in college. To get to 5:03 I only was running about 35mpw with 2 mid-distance workouts per week for 6 months. Anyone who was a decent college mid-distance runner, is less than 10lbs over their college racing weight and injury-free for a year of training should be able to run sub-5:00 at 45. I was happy to acknowledge that any of my peers at the time who were marginally faster than I was were sub-5 milers. The reality is that for Masters, there usually are a minimum number of opportunities to run track meets each year, and a very small number of those where they offer a mile rather than a 1500.
This discussion is not about potential but more about how many age 45-49* runners (and I assumed USA, not world) can break 5 in the mile (at the masters level the mile would not even be run outside of the US and Britain, maybe Canada).
That said, let's dial back a bit to the prime years for breaking a time like 4:30 as a younger runner, and for the purpose of that discussion make that age 15 to 22. I checked athletic.net, and they listed 1650 athletes running 4:29.0 for 1600 or faster (which converts to about 4:30.7 for the mile--still "4:30"), and that's high school.
Probably another 4,000 or 5000 in college can run 4:30 (considering that there are about 15,000 college males distance/mid-distance runners out there) based on particpation statistics. So let's make a conservative estimate of 6,000.
It's already been established that the number of 45-49 yr olds (and let's stretch that to about 52 so we have a reasonable comparision with the high school/college cohort) breaking 5:00 is actually in the dozens, not 100s or 1000s. Again, we are not talking about "potential" but the numbers of people that put in the work, find a race, and do the time.
Seeing how there are athletes out there running sub 4:20 at age 45, indeed sub 5 may not be outstanding, but it is very good and surprisingly rare.
"rare" was a poor word choice - relatively uncommon would be better.
If the fastest mile you could muster in your early 20s, the peak of your physical powers, was only a 4:30, you haven't a shot in hell at sub 5 in your late 40s, early 50s, and beyond.
that might be the typical pattern, but "haven't a shot in hell" is wrong. My lifetime mile PR from age 20 is 4:41, and I ran 4:59 at age 50
Dave Haaga