Curious. Asking for a friend.
Curious. Asking for a friend.
16:01 5, particularly for a youngster. I know a sophomore who can crank out 2:40 but only went 17:30 for 5k XC in the fall. This appears to be the trend for most kids unless they're real slow twitchers
2:39 is a better time generally speaking.
But most people, particularly younger runners, are under-developed aerobically, this skewing times in favor for the middle distances. But 2:39 is a better time without any other context.
From personal knowledge, 2:39. I've met dozens and dozens of runners who could run 16:00 - 16:30 routinely but could barely break 3:00 in the 1k.
2:39 requires WAY more speed and talent than a 16:01. That being said, 16:01 requires WAY more hard work and endurance. Guess it depends. Out of these two, 16:01 would probably be harder for me, but I'm more speed based than endurance based.
Depends, am I wearing trainers?
I ran 2:45 10 days before my 15:57, so if I got to 2:39, I'd expect to get down to 15:3x(x is an algebraic symbol here, which represents a numeric character from 0 - 9).
i train hard and run 15:24 for 5k and 8:48 for 3k, however i would struggle to run 2:39 for 1k. i think many people could run 2:39 with minimal training, but few could run 15:24 without training hard
To add a data point in high school I ran 2:36 for 1000 while being unable to break 17 for 5k. I was the typical poor aerobic guy who had good wheels - sub 2 800, sub 52 400 etc.
Even as I got older the 1000 still would have been easier for me, I ran 2:41 by myself as part of a workout. Granted I was in 15:20 shape at the time but I still think the 2:39 would have been easier than 16:01.
Thank you for the feedback. He is in his 20s, ran as a pre-teen then stopped, and started again at 19. He is now 24 and does about 50 miles per week with two workouts and no real long runs. 16:01 and 2:39 were both on the track and in racing flats, not spikes. He hung on to two guys for the 2:39.
It seems pretty evenly split. I guess he is an OK club runner and it sounds like the 1500 is probably his best event.
At a point in my career when I could go slightly under 15 for 5k, I could barely hit 2:40 for the 1000; I was more of a distance/endurance guy and just didn't have the leg speed for the shorter events.
Yours seems most accurate according to the conversion charts. Gotta say this 2:39 is probably a mid-15s effort.
Banana Bread wrote:
I ran 2:45 10 days before my 15:57, so if I got to 2:39, I'd expect to get down to 15:3x(x is an algebraic symbol here, which represents a numeric character from 0 - 9).
2:39 is superior. Case in point 15 year old recently ran 16:07 for first 5k on the track. One week later a 1k TT was performed by my group. He placed 6th in 2:49! His personal best for 1500m is only 4:21 so the his 1k time is pretty accurate.
16:01
An interesting if irrelevant way to look at it is to compare marathons.
If 2:11 is the 1000 record is to the 2:39.
If 2h 02m is the marathon record is to 2h 30m. So all things being equal it's on par with a 2:30 marathon perhaps? That probably puts it into the lower to mid 15s for 5000.
Just tell him to go out at 75 per lap pace for his next 5000 and see how he holds up.
the way I do these sort of comparisons is to translate them to a distance between the two points.
a guy running 2:39 for 1000m is going to be doing 4:02 - 4:05 for 1500m, whereas a guy running 5km in 16:00 is going to be doing 4:15 - 4:18 for 1500m, so the 2:39 is a superior time.
cheers.
2:39 is better and there is no argument.
Simply because one or the other might be harder for you doesn't mean it's the better time.
2:39 is a decent bit better. A 2:39 1k is equivalent to ~15:30 for 5k