Would you rather go Sub 4 in the mile or sub 27 in the 10k

ex-runner wrote:

Are you thick? He's run 12:56.

Do you have any idea of the level of running ability required to break 13?

Sub 4 in the mile is not even a standard amongst elite athletes with the ability to break 13. That's a joke.

They can and do routinely close 5k and 10k races with low 4 minute miles in fast races. Faster in slow races.

The more I read this site the more I realise hardly anyone knows anything about running here. Probably why half the threads have nothing to do with athletics.

Let's rephrase the scenario in HS terms: "Would you rather go sub 5 for the 1600 or sub 16 for the 5k?"

Seriously. This is how ridiculous the question is.

I'm Wit Ya, Man wrote:

Let's rephrase the scenario in HS terms: "Would you rather go sub 5 for the 1600 or sub 16 for the 5k?"

Seriously. This is how ridiculous the question is.

So, a kid running 5:10 pace for 3 miles is probably capable of running sub 5 for the 1600, even though they don't actually do that in a race? Is that what you are saying?

I get it wrote:

I'm Wit Ya, Man wrote:

Let's rephrase the scenario in HS terms: "Would you rather go sub 5 for the 1600 or sub 16 for the 5k?"

Seriously. This is how ridiculous the question is.

So, a kid running 5:10 pace for 3 miles is probably capable of running sub 5 for the 1600, even though they don't actually do that in a race? Is that what you are saying?

yeah.

A lot of people have faster 200m paces than 100m paces, even though the 200 is longer

Logical choice wrote:

I would take sub 27 because then I could get the sub four as well.

that's not how these hypothetical questions work, knucklehead. It's one or the other, then you go back to your hobby-jogging

i'd go sub 4. way cooler, even if it's less impressive.

Bill Oregon wrote:

A lot of people have faster 200m paces than 100m paces, even though the 200 is longer

that's a bad analogy.

it's called momentum. I (and pretty much everyone) would run a faster mile time if i didn't have to start from a standstill.

Sub 27,

There is a good chance that in a championship style race (e.g. London 2017) that you could potentially run sub 4 in the last mile. Last 1000m in 2017 was 2:28.82 (from Mohamed Farah, formerly known as Mo Farah). In 2009 Bekele ran ~5:07 for his last 2000m to finish in 26:46, looking comfortable (56 last lap, celebrating last ~50m), thats probably worth a sub 4.

Really depends on your definition of sub4/sub27 (3:59/26:59?)

No where int he world but LRC would you see anybody say anything but sub 27 lol, but it undoubtedly implies superior fitness to sub 4 shape if we compare like 26:59/3:59, so I'd take the sub 27.

Woops I meant no where would you see anyone but LRC say they'd want a sub 27.

i'd go blah, because blah blah blah. wrote:

that's not how these hypothetical questions work, knucklehead. It's one or the other, then you go back to your hobby-jogging

i'd go sub 4. way cooler, even if it's less impressive.

No, its a dumb question. You break 27, you break 4.

It's like saying would you rather break 20 in the 200 or 10.5 in the 100.

Like Really Bro wrote:

i'd go blah, because blah blah blah. wrote:

that's not how these hypothetical questions work, knucklehead. It's one or the other, then you go back to your hobby-jogging

i'd go sub 4. way cooler, even if it's less impressive.

No, its a dumb question. You break 27, you break 4.

It's like saying would you rather break 20 in the 200 or 10.5 in the 100.

It’s not actually like that at all. Maybe if I said sub 27 or sub 4:25. 10.5 is a slower pace than a 20 200 yet 4 is a faster pace than a sub 27 (depending on how much sub)

Kvothe wrote:

I think sub 4 would be more equivalent to sub 2730 or even sub 28. Definitely would take sub 27.

So you claim that runners who can run at 3:59/mile pace for 1 mile can run at 4:15/mile pace for 6.2 miles? lol.

This thread gets a prominent mention in a piece by best-selling author and LRC visitor Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker on Roger Bannister : https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/the-ordinary-greatness-of-roger-bannister

jamin wrote:

Kvothe wrote:

I think sub 4 would be more equivalent to sub 2730 or even sub 28. Definitely would take sub 27.

So you claim that runners who can run at 3:59/mile pace for 1 mile can run at 4:15/mile pace for 6.2 miles? lol.

That's not what anyone has been saying, jamit. We've only said that anyone who can run 4:15/mile pace for 6.2 miles ABSOLUTELY can run one fresh mile at 3:59/mile pace.

Assuming that you only have one capability of one, I choose the mile. If I can run 3:59 or better, then surely I have a shot at running 3:50 or better in the 1500, and that's almost automatic Olympic gold these days (jab at competitive racing). Honestly though, sub 4 is just so much more prestigious that sub 27, despite sub 27 almost surely being way harder.

I am a big fan of Malcolm Gladwell but this article really surprised/disappointed me. How can Gladwell, a talented runner himself, say “Today high school kids routinely run them” (sub-4s). Routinely???

And how can he also say “a decent élite long-distance runner can probably run a four-minute mile within a world-class ten-thousand-metre race: do a brisk five miles, and then bring it home in four minutes.” A “decent” elite long distance runner? I wonder how many even exceptional elite guys (i.e. not merely decent) have ever run sub-4 in a 10,000. I would bet ten or fewer. Does anyone know?

Maybe I am just quibbling over words where the 10,000 is concerned but I still can’t believe Gladwell really thinks high school kids routinely run sub-4s.

Ok, so your first mistake is assuming anyone has ever heard of Malcolm Gladwell. Seriously, I had to Google him. Even then, I only vaugely remember hearing about his Tipping Point book. I think my wife read it many moons ago.

Gsinesville/Miami guy wrote:

I am a big fan of Malcolm Gladwell but this article really surprised/disappointed me. How can Gladwell, a talented runner himself, say “Today high school kids routinely run them” (sub-4s). Routinely???

And how can he also say “a decent élite long-distance runner can probably run a four-minute mile within a world-class ten-thousand-metre race: do a brisk five miles, and then bring it home in four minutes.” A “decent” elite long distance runner? I wonder how many even exceptional elite guys (i.e. not merely decent) have ever run sub-4 in a 10,000. I would bet ten or fewer. Does anyone know?

Maybe I am just quibbling over words where the 10,000 is concerned but I still can’t believe Gladwell really thinks high school kids routinely run sub-4s.

Agree.

Typically a pretty insightful guy... Not his best stuff here... He's being dramatic to tell a story, but if you know that most high school kids in fact do not routinely run 4min miles, then this sounds like he's trying too hard for a surprising POV / Hot Take.

As a former elite, (who broke 4 many times) now in the business world, I can say that there is rarely a happy hour or broker dinner where me breaking 4 minutes doesn't come up for at least a blip in the conversation. (We also have a few other former elite runners in our workplace, and they would all agree with this sentiment.)

There are very few people in the overall scheme of the real world (or even your average runner) that can relate to a sub-27 5k. You may as well say "I was the archery champ in college." People would think "Cool, I guess.."

The Sub-4 is instantly recognizable. We all ran the mile in PE class. It's like climbing Everest or playing in an NFL game. The common person knows.

You take the Sub-4 all day every day.