10 mile to 1500 conversions?

I'm afraid this is an unfair comparison.

I ran 10 miles in 60:56 at age 16, but on the track could not better 4:24

since I\'ve run 57 min at age 19, and 26:20 for 5 miles, but my 1500m is only 5 seconds fasteer.

10 miles= entirely aerobic.

1500m=faster paced race more dependant on speed

Well irrespective of your 10 mile time, 4:08 at 15 is impressive. Given you seem to have some talent then you may well be able to run 1500 in 3:55 or even better in the summer.

Let's throw it back and ask what you think you can run?

well, i guess 3.55 would be a target i have in my head, but one which will take a lot of work and things to go perfect to get it. since returning from injury, my stamina is much better, but my speed sure needs a good bit of work.I'm probably more of a x-c type of 1500 runner, but my speed has always been decent--probably about a 2.01 800 and a 54 400 when i ran 4.08.

p.s- i turn 18 in august, so when running 4.08, i was nearly 16, but my question is whether a same chunk percentage time decrease is realistic or possible?

thanks for your insight.

it depends, was your 10 miler on Papa John's or a 10 miler?

A sub 3:55 1500m is certainly very realistic for any 18yr old MD runner who has just put in a nice progressive winter base which has seen him hit 54min shape. You must not be afraid of chasing this kind of time, but do it through progressive methods, both in training and in your racing expectations.

The real indication will come from any indoor sessions that you may be looking to do over the next few months. As a word of warning though, after such a long time off with injury, be very careful not to work to hard on the track before April time.

Progression is the key.

Good luck.

I think these kind of guessing exercises are fun if they are for other people. When done for yourself, I think they too often create false expectations in the form of artificial limitations or unrealistic goals, both of which are not helpful in the least to your career.

Let your near term goals in workouts and races be based on recent performances. Let your long term goals continue to be great dreams.

That being said, your 54:20 10-miler is roughly equivalent to a 4:16 1500m, IF you have a well developed aerobic system. In my experience, very few high school runners have well developed aerobic systems. Since the 10-miler was run with your existing aerobic base the 4:16 is a very conservative estimate of your current 1500m abilities.

I assume your goal is to peak in the May/June time frame, so are probably in a base phase for the next month or two. Use your 10-mile time to establish paces for tempo workouts (5:30-5:35 pace for 25 minute tempo run); though, I think you are going to find that pace slower than you can run.

Find an indoor 3k or 5k to race about the time you plan to begin speed work and use those times to plan your paces for interval work. Do interval work at the 3k-5k paces and repetions about 5 sec/400m faster than that.

Don't worry about predicting race times for yourself. There's little that's postive that can come of that exercise. Instead use your race times to set goals for workouts.

Once you step on the line for a race, don't make it a time trial. Based on your recent workouts, you'll know roughly how fast you can run if all goes well. Let yourself get into the race with competitors you expect to be in that neighborhood. Once you're halfway into the race forget about the times and just race the people and push yourself to the limit.

Don't let time goals hold you back or trip you up in races. It sounds to me like you've got a bright future if you're patient, stay injury free, and continue to enjoy running.

Good Luck!

thanks guys.

the time ratio 15K:10 miles should be around 13.049:1;... so a 3:26.0 1500 might be equal to 44:48 for ten miles. AT least that's my math over by here.

It just doesn't work that way. Your 1500 PR of 4:08 was by far better than the 61:30 time you ran for 10 miles. Now the 54 minute time you recently ran is more in line with your 1500 PR in terms of aerobic developement. It seems to me that you just trained properly this time around after coming back from your injury. If I had to guess, even with sharpening, I wouldn't expect more than barely a sub 4 minute. An 11% improvement for you 1500 is just dreaming. That would be a 3:39, and I'm sure guys who run that fast for 1500 can easily run much faster than 54 for 10 miles in a training run.

Keep up the good training and the faster times will come, but don't expect 11% improvements this season.

thanks for that info.

to be honest, i never worked it out and yeah, theres a snowballs chance in hell of me running 3.39- hoping for sub 4 though. but you're right, i should stop guessing times because i'll only let myself down and pressure myself. i'll post how i do next summer under the same heading, and hopefully i'll prove some of ye right.

thanks guys.

Your post is pretty sensible but you may have misread something. For what it is worth your time conversion between 1500 meters and 10 miles is way off. A 54:20 10-mile performance is about a 4:07 for 1,500. A 4:16 is more along the lines of 56:28 for 10 miles. And the kid's 4:08 for the 1,500 would grade out at about 54:33 for 10 miles. (According to the J. Gerry Purdy comparitive tables). Other than that, you've made solid points.

56:28=4:16?

54:20=4:07?

So we're talking 56:28 equals about a 4:30 mile or more?

54:20 equals about a 4:22 mile?

No way. I know a lot of runners who've ran 4:25-4:30 for the mile and have ran 52-53 minutes for 10 miles.

The 1500m and the 10mile is a very unfair comparison. Purdy tables are crap.

One Keg,

All of these "tables" are laden with unstated assumptions. I doubt any of their authors would be willing to bet anything of value on using these tables to make accurate predictions for a 1500m based on a 10 mile time, especially for a high school kid who has only been running for a couple years.

The estimate I made was using Daniels' VDOT tables (50:40 15k). They provide predictions in-line with my own experiences across a great range of race distances. Different models will give different predictions. The difference in predictions only increases as the difference in race distances increases.

BTW, Purdy's "Running Trax" (2002) gives 684 points to a 54:20 10-miler and 686 points to a 4:12 1500m, so the difference between Purdy (4:12) and Daniels (4:16) is only ~4 sec. If you're reading your source correctly, it appears that Purdy himself may be having trouble settling on a prediction :)

Well bizarelly my 1500 pb is 3:55.5 (achieved in 1992 aged 25) and 10 mile 54:27 (only the other week - never ran one until 2002!)

I certainly could not run 3:55 or anything close right now but equally I never even ran 10 miles in training back in 1992!

Comparisons between 1500 and 10 mile times here are tricky as a 17 year old training to run 1500s by training to run an optimal 10 mile is kind of rare I would say. If 54 odd is worth 4:07 or even 4:16 then this rather implies the guy won't improve his 1500 time at all which is clearly nonsense. Just by being 2 years older he ought to be faster.

Of course this massive improvement at 10 miles might indicate he is going to be a better distance runner than miler. Either way a sub 4 at least seems more than possible. But, as with any pb, your first target is to beat your current 4:08...

Alright kiddo... You obviously worked hard on interval training to get to that 4:08 when only running 61 min for 10 miles. However ur 54:20 is amazingly impressive, and if you put that same hard effort into ur interval training again this year, you could run 3:55 or better. No question. Its all aerobic work that makes you faster in the longer distances. But then when its time to get fast, that anaerobic work you do is what pushes you on to do great things. Now give or take you have to have the aerobic work first because it is the most important part of training. However once you start working hard on intervals, your times will drop dramatically.

yeah, thanks for those opinions.

Just to let you know that yesterday, i completed my second track session since july 2003. now off the back of a cross country season, but been doing some track strides to get accustomed the last few months.

Anyway, last week, I did 8 x 400 in about 67 (last-65) with about 1.55 gentle jog between.

yesterday, I ran 4 x 400 at a hard effort with 5 mins rest/slow walk between in 61,62,63,64. (not planning to slow like that). How do those sessions sound and where do they put me, considering they were first time back on track. I'm getting ready for some small indoor races in january, and will be running cross country in february and march, and then all systems go for track in april, may and june.

Is a 3.55 realistic considering my speed at this time of year, and the 54.20 10 miler last week?????

Actually these are not so horribly far off, but I did cite them too casually. My bad. I have the old collector's item Bill Dellinger & Bill Freeman book (The Competitive Runner's Training Book c. 1984), so it's just a general but ancient late-night reference.

The table of that day says: A 56:28 for 10 miles = 4.16.3 for 1,500 = 4:37.9 for the mile = 720 points on the J. Gerry Purdy tables. I'd say that's more like 55:40s for 10.

A 54:20 for 10 miles = 4:08.2 for 1,500 = 4:29.1 for the mile = 770 points on the J. Gerry Purdy tables. I'd say that's more like 53:30s.

These seem at least a little more in line than you make them out to be, especially when you compare the world records in these events. I'd say the sub-53/high 4:20s 10-miler guys are road-race oriented guys who've not trained that specifically for the mile. It might only be a matter of shaving four or five seconds, which is huge in the mile. Sub-53 is a pretty quick 10-mile time. Still, the kid is going to run sub-4:00 this spring for the 1,500, that seems clear. He's gotten a lot stronger, and you're right, predicting the performance of a developing high school runner is more chancy.

Leroy i ran 55 minutes for 10 miles in the winter as a senior in high school and then ran 3:50 for 1500 that spring. I was wondering what youre name, was cause youre set up to do real well this spring.

most 17 yr olds who are of around 3:55 - 4:00 standard can run anywhere between 52:30 - 56:00 so if you ran 3:50 then you were running an excellent 1500m for your 10M equivelant.

Leroy, you have obviously improved aerobically in the past 2 years, which is the sole reason why your 10 mile time has improved. Your 1500m time will depend more upon your 800m speed and on how well you prepare from March through into the track season for this specific distance. You have obviously laid good foundations to build your track season upon, and you would do well to explore 3000/2miles also, as i suggest that your improved aerobic fitness will see you smash your PR for this distance by a huge margin.

Good Luck, work on your strenghs, your weaknesses and don't believe any of those tables which are being thrown around...they are for old men who have reached the point in life where all they can produce on the track is a predictable result!