4:43 mile vs 16:30 5k, which is better?
The 5k is not on a track but a xc course
4:43 mile vs 16:30 5k, which is better?
The 5k is not on a track but a xc course
16:30 is much better. Even on a fast xc course that's probably equivalent to a sub 4:40
If the XC course is legit, then the 5k is better. If it is more like a track time, they are probably a lot closer.
When my PR in the mile was 4:42, my 5k PR was 16:29. I would expect if it was an average XC course, the 5k is equal to more like 4:32-4:35 in the mile.
I was wondering this too. I have a 4:48 1500m PR and a 16:53 5k PR. I know my 5k is better. But know I'm beginning to wonder just how much better lol
16:53 5k is waaaay better than a 4:48 1500m. The 1500m pace is around a 5:07 mile and the 16:53 5k is around 5:26/mi. Given the fact that your 5k pace is sub 5:30, an equivalent 1500m time is probably somewhere in the 4:30-35 range maybe even faster if the 5k was on a tough course.
I am amazed that so many of you say that 16:30 is "obviously" better than 4:40.
You must be very poorly developed aerobically if you think that highly of 16:30 to 16:50 times you are talking about.
I would see them as pretty similar.
McMillan's calculator actually puts a 4:40 equal to 16:12, although McMillan's numbers do ask a lot of runners in terms of strength and aerobic ability, so high school kids and other runners with no real engine find it hard to match the times.
mile up kids wrote:
I am amazed that so many of you say that 16:30 is "obviously" better than 4:40.
You must be very poorly developed aerobically if you think that highly of 16:30 to 16:50 times you are talking about.
I would see them as pretty similar.
McMillan's calculator actually puts a 4:40 equal to 16:12, although McMillan's numbers do ask a lot of runners in terms of strength and aerobic ability, so high school kids and other runners with no real engine find it hard to match the times.
a track 5k is different from cross-country 5k.
According to my 1:58 800 I can run a 2:10 marathon. the formula is far more accurate the longer the distances are and the closer the two race distances are.
I ran 16:59 and 4:43 one year if that helps
What calculator gives 2:10 for a 1:58? Must be programmed by a chimpanzee.
mcmillan wrote:
According to my 1:58 800 I can run a 2:10 marathon. the formula is far more accurate the longer the distances are and the closer the two race distances are.
I ran 16:59 and 4:43 one year if that helps
Well my 1600 PR is 4:47 while my 5k PR is 15:54 (both ran this xc season) but I would say I'm more of a distance runner than middle distance runner. I think your times are very equal especially according to the McMillan calculator
Interestingly I held those exact PR's of 4:43 and 16:30 at the same time. They were set within nine months of each other. With all factors being equal I would say they are very similar but since your 16:30 was cross country I would give the nod to that.
To me they are comparable given my somewhat similar PRs
Mile PR: 4:48
5K PR: 16:49
4:50 mile PR, 17:50 5k PR.
Everyone is different and some people are better at different distances. Hard to equate, as different runners are built differently.
mile up kids wrote:
I am amazed that so many of you say that 16:30 is "obviously" better than 4:40.
You must be very poorly developed aerobically if you think that highly of 16:30 to 16:50 times you are talking about.
I would see them as pretty similar.
McMillan's calculator actually puts a 4:40 equal to 16:12, although McMillan's numbers do ask a lot of runners in terms of strength and aerobic ability, so high school kids and other runners with no real engine find it hard to match the times.
The 5k is on an XC course dude.
HardLoper wrote:
mile up kids wrote:I am amazed that so many of you say that 16:30 is "obviously" better than 4:40.
You must be very poorly developed aerobically if you think that highly of 16:30 to 16:50 times you are talking about.
I would see them as pretty similar.
McMillan's calculator actually puts a 4:40 equal to 16:12, although McMillan's numbers do ask a lot of runners in terms of strength and aerobic ability, so high school kids and other runners with no real engine find it hard to match the times.
The 5k is on an XC course dude.
Which means it could easily be a little short.