What are the equivalent times of a sub 5 mile?

Most 3 hour marathoners are saying the opposite.

We have tons of guys running low 12s in the 100, and you'd need a sub 12 to even be considered as an alternate in the 4x100 "B" squad. But we only have one sub 5 guy and two sub 11 3200 dudes.

Five of our XC guys were right around the 5 minute mark for the mile and in the low 17s for the 5k. They tried running the marathon, and none of them were even close to getting sub 3.

really slow guy wrote:

I looked up the IAAF tables and found out that the infamous 5 minute mile is 465 points, which is equivalent to:

100: 12.65 (12.40)

200: 25.93 (25.30)

400: 57.65 (57.76)

800: 2:13.5 (2:14.3)

1500: 4:38.1 (4:38.8)

2 mile: 10:47 (10:45)

5K: 17:10 (17:16)

10K: 36:47 (36:29)

Half marathon: 1:21:24 (1:20:11)

Marathon: 2:57:45 (2:53:25)

Women's times are in parenthesis (a 4:59.9 mile gets you 914 points). Do those equivalents seem right? The sprint times seem too slow, while the marathon seems to be too fast.

Interesting....I think right now I'd just miss a 4:59 mile, but could hit some of these "equivalents" on both sides.

100m - no

200m - probably not

400m - easily

800m - probably

mile - probably not

2 mile - borderline

5k - borderline

10k - probably

half - pretty confident

marathon - easily

Wow CA guy, that is hard to believe. Our team has about 10 guys sub 12 but we have 20 guys sub 5.

XC heavy wrote:

Wow CA guy, that is hard to believe. Our team has about 10 guys sub 12 but we have 20 guys sub 5.

Eg. Dorsey High School in L.A., CA had nine FAT sub-12 guys in 2017. I am sure numerous more on relay legs. Dorsey only had three sub-5 1600m guys in 2017. Data from Athletic.net

really slow guy wrote:

I looked up the IAAF tables and found out that the infamous 5 minute mile is 465 points, which is equivalent to:

100: 12.65 (12.40)

200: 25.93 (25.30)

400: 57.65 (57.76)

800: 2:13.5 (2:14.3)

1500: 4:38.1 (4:38.8)

2 mile: 10:47 (10:45)

5K: 17:10 (17:16)

10K: 36:47 (36:29)

Half marathon: 1:21:24 (1:20:11)

Marathon: 2:57:45 (2:53:25)

Women's times are in parenthesis (a 4:59.9 mile gets you 914 points). Do those equivalents seem right? The sprint times seem too slow, while the marathon seems to be too fast.

I don't doubt the accuracy of IAAF tables, globally. The best sprinters are strong, well fed and very coordinated individuals. US will have faster 100m sprinters than the above table indicates. In US, we start kids sprinting early with youth T-Ball and youth basketball.

Amazing how different high school teams can be. Wayzata MN had 4 guys go sub 12 in the 100 in 2017 but had 35 guys go sub 5 in the 1600.

Predictor wrote:

Amazing how different high school teams can be. Wayzata MN had 4 guys go sub 12 in the 100 in 2017 but had 35 guys go sub 5 in the 1600.

Wayzata, school of Ruby Stauber. Considering population theory and twelve months of beautiful CA weather. It's interesting that MN 800m performances are relatively close to CA high school 800m performances. [Please people don't respond that 1:50.xx versus 1:53.xx and 2:07.xx versus 2:10.xx for 2017 MN high school versus CA high school are not close.]

really slow guy wrote:

I looked up the IAAF tables and found out that the infamous 5 minute mile is 465 points, which is equivalent to:

100: 12.65 (12.40)

200: 25.93 (25.30)

400: 57.65 (57.76)

800: 2:13.5 (2:14.3)

1500: 4:38.1 (4:38.8)

2 mile: 10:47 (10:45)

5K: 17:10 (17:16)

10K: 36:47 (36:29)

Half marathon: 1:21:24 (1:20:11)

Marathon: 2:57:45 (2:53:25)

Women's times are in parenthesis (a 4:59.9 mile gets you 914 points). Do those equivalents seem right? The sprint times seem too slow, while the marathon seems to be too fast.

But the 5k time looks the hardest of those to me. I'm over 30. Can about match the sprint times. Much faster than 800 mile and 2 mile. And much faster than 10k up. But I could barely run that 5k time

When I first ran a 5:00 mile I ran an 18:27 5K a month later, and considered it a great race, ha.

5K, 10K, and HM times are way to fast imo.

800-2:30

400-75

2 miles-10:00

The 2-mile and 5K equivalents are bombproof and irrefutable. Of course, High School kids will find those tough as they are aerobically underdeveloped, whereas masters will find it tough going the other way as they usually lack as much speed. The marathon and 100 are debatable but good ballpark. (as attested by the 4-minute differential between men and women in the marathon....?)

really slow guy wrote:

I looked up the IAAF tables and found out that the infamous 5 minute mile is 465 points, which is equivalent to:

100: 12.65 (12.40)

200: 25.93 (25.30)

400: 57.65 (57.76)

800: 2:13.5 (2:14.3)

1500: 4:38.1 (4:38.8)

2 mile: 10:47 (10:45)

5K: 17:10 (17:16)

10K: 36:47 (36:29)

Half marathon: 1:21:24 (1:20:11)

Marathon: 2:57:45 (2:53:25)

Women's times are in parenthesis (a 4:59.9 mile gets you 914 points). Do those equivalents seem right? The sprint times seem too slow, while the marathon seems to be too fast.

Most of these line up very close to my times during a single racing season, at age 43. But there's no way I could have matched those sprint times. Or 2:13 for 800. Actual results that year:

Mile -- 5:02

5K -- 17:10

10K -- 37:16

Half marathon -- 1:22:47

Marathon -- 2:56:03

For somebody like myself, a sub-5 mile is a long ways away from the IAAF table - it is way too difficult compared to a sub-12, or even sub-11 100. For others, it is opposite. It all depends on one's physiology. I know I will never be able to run a respectable 5k, although others will have trouble matching my alactic output. But even when I was of lower body mass index (6'1, 145# compared to 185# now, I could not perform endurance events beyond 400 respectably). For some reason, I respect a sub-5 mile, or especially a sub-2 800, much more than the sprinting accomplishments one can muster in this topic.

Well for me:

100: no

200: Prob not

400: yes

800: yes

1500: yes

2 mile: prob not

5000: no

10k: no

HM: no

Marathon: yes