Exactly 2.7 fitness units different.
Fitness units are non-linear. Please do not try to extrapolate to other distances or other paces without proper training or you'll end up looking foolish.
Exactly 2.7 fitness units different.
Fitness units are non-linear. Please do not try to extrapolate to other distances or other paces without proper training or you'll end up looking foolish.
One is a hobby jogger.
as a 4:29 guy myself, a lot of it is probably enduric. I run 55-60 miles a week and the 4:20 guys I raced against last year were running a lot more. Could be genes though I'm sure that plays a role. I would like to break that 4:20 barrier this junior track season
For me it was basically the difference between hs and college. (granted I was not a miler in college as I was too slow).
In hs I ran just under 4:29 for the mile (and a 4:09 1500m).
In college I ran a 3:55 1500m outdoors, and an actual 4:17 full mile indoors.
So basically I took about 12 sec off my actual hs mile time and 14 seconds off my 1500m time.
What was the actual difference in fitness? Well, being 22 years old vs. being 18 years old....and starting to run 100 + mile weeks as a sophomore in College, while in hs I was running mostly 40-50mpw.
That being said there were guys at Cornell that ran about 4:30 in hs and then were low 3:50 guys in the 1500m. Another teammate of mine was like a 9:35 2-miler and ended up going around 29:20 in the 10km. Untapped talent.
But the difference in fitness? Well, you either have to train more and smarter (and physically mature), and/or you just have more "talent" and natural speed. Look at your 800m time for potential gains. It's a big difference when you think lots of guys run 4:30ish in hs, but the guys making states usually need to be around 4:20 or faster (depending on the state/Div. of course). It's also almost the difference between a guy that may pursue running in college or not...so it can be a big difference.!
One would have lost to an olympic bronze medalist and world's leader in 2016 at 1500m at today's 5th avenue mile
The other would have also lost to and additional 15 women
alternatively if both of these gentleman lived in new york, one potentially would be allowed to run in the local elite mile and finished close to last or would probably win an age group, while the other would have placed among the age groupers
[quote]Lenny Leonard wrote:
It's a pretty noticeable difference.
If a race goes perfectly well for the 4:30 guy, and they hit 1200m in around 3:24, at best they are hoping they close in 66. A 4:20 would get to 1200m at 3:24 and would probably be able to close anywhere from 59-64 off of that pace.
Len....
I ran 4:21 in high school. I aimed to hit 800 meters 2:10-2:12 and 1200 in 3:15 if I was aiming to run that fast. Side note I had 1:58 speed and never broke 10:00 in the 2-mile. My PR came indoors and I focused on running 32.5 the entire race....I feel a little short. Running 68s for three laps is pretty slow if you want to run 4:20.
one is slow and the other is slower. Seriously who cares enough about people running these times to post on an internet board?
I don't know, Ashton Eaton is a 4:30 guy - you as fit as him, bro?
I was that guy in 1975, going from a 4:30 to almost a 4:20 guy.
Spring, ran a high school PR of 4:30.7 off of 25 - 30 miles per week with 7 weeks of intervals in the legs. Had run some 2:02 and 2:03 880s. Closed out the mile PR with a 63 in a tactical league championship.
Fall, college XC training of 50 - 60 miles per week, with 7 weeks of distance intervals culminating in workouts like 5 @ 1 mile faster than XC race pace (average maybe a bit under 4:55). No miler/middle distance intervals.
Late October, ran 4:21.7 in a time trial (3:18 at 1320).
I guess this is an argument for strength training over speed.
OP wrote:
Besides "10 seconds" as some funny people will say, what is the difference? How much better is that 4:20 guy?
A 4:30 guy *might* have sex this year.
4:29miler wrote:
as a 4:29 guy myself, a lot of it is probably enduric. I run 55-60 miles a week and the 4:20 guys I raced against last year were running a lot more. Could be genes though I'm sure that plays a role. I would like to break that 4:20 barrier this junior track season
20 years in the sport and I've never seen the word "enduric."
4:21.5 HS Guy wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:It's a pretty noticeable difference.
If a race goes perfectly well for the 4:30 guy, and they hit 1200m in around 3:24, at best they are hoping they close in 66. A 4:20 would get to 1200m at 3:24 and would probably be able to close anywhere from 59-64 off of that pace.
Len....
I ran 4:21 in high school. I aimed to hit 800 meters 2:10-2:12 and 1200 in 3:15 if I was aiming to run that fast. Side note I had 1:58 speed and never broke 10:00 in the 2-mile. My PR came indoors and I focused on running 32.5 the entire race....I feel a little short. Running 68s for three laps is pretty slow if you want to run 4:20.
I was saying 3:24 was ideal for the 4:30 guy.
If a 4:20 guy and a 4:30 guy were racing and they got to 1200 in 3:15, the 4:30 guy would probably start walking.
The OP asked what the difference in fitness. Imagine a 4:30 guy hanging with you at 2:10-2:12 through 800m. They are fried, you are fresh. THAT's the difference in fitness.
You can use this to look at the differences:
http://timescalculator.appspot.com/
For an example, assume they both have 55 second 400m speed. The 4:20 guy will be able to run a 5k almost 1:00 faster than the 4:30 guy.
Right. Got it. Truth is, I ran better leading and running even splits. Put me in a race where it was 3:24 at the bell, I got smoked....probably closed in 62....still lost. Happened at my State Meet Outdoors, finished 4th. Winner went to Georgetown and went on to win a National 1500 Meter title so nothing I could've done....(Except run EVEN!) Glory Days!
off base wrote:
Sometimes there is no difference in fitness. I've seen 4:30 guys who were in just as good, and in a couple cases, better shape than the 4:20 guys they trained with. The difference was mental toughness. The 4:20 guys all had it.
Or the 4:30 guy is a workout hero. Mental toughness is given way too much credit. People can look great in workouts because they are running too close to all out. This is far more common than they are lacking mental toughness in the actual race. Just my opinion after coaching several athletes.
fishaintwhatyoueatitsasport wrote:
Or the 4:30 guy is a workout hero. Mental toughness is given way too much credit. People can look great in workouts because they are running too close to all out. This is far more common than they are lacking mental toughness in the actual race. Just my opinion after coaching several athletes.
Or the 4:30 guy is better at some workouts than the 4:20 guys. And vice versa.
Seriously, though, let's think logically here. If they are both doing the same workouts and all else in their regimens is the same, then they would both be equally fit, no? The only difference then would have to be talent, toughness, smart pacing, things like that.
Consider this.... wrote:
Seriously, though, let's think logically here. If they are both doing the same workouts and all else in their regimens is the same, then they would both be equally fit, no? The only difference then would have to be talent, toughness, smart pacing, things like that.
Only if you define fitness as having done the exact same workouts.
Fitness is relative to oneself, talent is relative to others. This thread is moronic
Who cares?
They are both weak athletes.
I find it pretty funny, the idea that a 4:30 or 4:20 runner is a "weak athlete".
I'd say 99.9 percent of the human race is "weak" by that barometer.
People posting stuff like this, I guess you gotta be world class to impress them. And, I'm sure all such posters are elite world class athletes, right?
More likely wannabees, real "weak" athletes...