masters runnerman wrote:
half assed and Mcdonalds regularly wrote:
Balanced training.
So you definitively and arrogantly state that proper training is not important, but balanced training is?
Just shut up?
Yes, I do. Proper training of course being what is considered "necessary" but really isn't.
Everybody is always telling me that I should train properly. Especially the guys who I am already faster than.
DC Wonk wrote:
Speed becomes more and more difficult as you age obviously. Endurance and strength can be maintained a lot longer. For a 50 year old male to run a 4:59 mile, that age grades to 85.11%, which is above what most runners are doing at that age. That same 50 year old would have to run about a 2:44 marathon to reach the equivalent 85% age grade, or a 16:57 5k. How many 50 year olds at your local races are hitting that time?
So yes, running sub-5 at age 50 is an accomplishment to be proud of.
That's funny, I am in my early 40s, have a recent 4:4x mile, have never quite broken 17:00 and probably won't get close to 2:44 ever. I would definitely call a 2:44 50 year-old very locally impressive.
So now I feel more impressive.
half assed and McDonalds regulalry wrote:
masters runnerman wrote:
So you definitively and arrogantly state that proper training is not important, but balanced training is?
Just shut up?
Yes, I do. Proper training of course being what is considered "necessary" but really isn't.
Everybody is always telling me that I should train properly. Especially the guys who I am already faster than.
So what you are saying is that "balanced" training (as you define it) is better than "proper" training that is not actually proper (as you define it).
You are an absolute idiot.
The principle of relativity2 wrote:
1979 wrote:
I competed against a 49 year old guy who ran a 4:16 1500m last summer, so that equals a 4:33 mile.
I'm ten years younger, ran a 4:27 1500m that day, but a lot of masters runners are faster than me on the 1500m. I'm more of an 800m guy.
There is much disagreement about that. My best time in college for 1500 was 4:12.
My coach immediately walked up to me and said I ran a 4:35 equivalent.
Before that I had been told that you add 17 seconds for the extra 100+ meters, which
would make it 4:29. That is your formula.
I will tell you what, there is no way I could have ran another 101 metres at sub-17
when I ran the 4:12.
I tend to think that 20 seconds would have been more accurate for me that day.
(I would have had to use a slightly different pace as well to get that!)
When you ran the 4:27, you might add 30 seconds or so to it. So you might have broken 5 minutes for
a full mile.
no, there really isn't much disagreement, except among the uninformed. the formula is 1500 time X 1.08. anyone who exclaims "well, if i ran a 3:43 1500, that's sub-60 pace so i should just be able to add 15 seconds comfortably" doesn't understand that if that 3:43 was an all-out effort, no, they should not be able to run another 100+ meters in 15 seconds. if they could, then it wouldn't have been all-out, in which case they have no else to blame for their lack of a sub-4 effort. i ran 3:42.81 PR in college, and in that race i'm not sure i could have run another 100m in 20 seconds, let alone the 17.8 seconds that the conversion would allow. hell, i didn't want to walk 5 meters after that effort. anyone who's run anywhere near a 4 minute mile knows the math doesn't lie in this case, from el g on down the line...
that's my story and i'm sticking to it...
cush
socalcush wrote:
anyone who exclaims "well, if i ran a 3:43 1500, that's sub-60 pace so i should just be able to add 15 seconds comfortably" doesn't understand that if that 3:43 was an all-out effort, no, they should not be able to run another 100+ meters in 15 seconds. if they could, then it wouldn't have been all-out, in which case they have no else to blame for their lack of a sub-4 effort. i ran 3:42.81 PR in college, and in that race i'm not sure i could have run another 100m in 20 seconds, let alone the 17.8 seconds that the conversion would allow. hell, i didn't want to walk 5 meters after that effort.
You don't have to run the 17.8 seconds at the end. Throw in the extra 109m in the middle somewhere.
How about if the wind is blowing sideways so there's a tailwind on turn 1? Then you'd be adding 109m with a tailwind to the start of your 1500, with everything else equivalent.
socalcush wrote:
The principle of relativity2 wrote:
There is much disagreement about that. My best time in college for 1500 was 4:12.
My coach immediately walked up to me and said I ran a 4:35 equivalent.
Before that I had been told that you add 17 seconds for the extra 100+ meters, which
would make it 4:29. That is your formula.
I will tell you what, there is no way I could have ran another 101 metres at sub-17
when I ran the 4:12.
I tend to think that 20 seconds would have been more accurate for me that day.
(I would have had to use a slightly different pace as well to get that!)
When you ran the 4:27, you might add 30 seconds or so to it. So you might have broken 5 minutes for
a full mile.
no, there really isn't much disagreement, except among the uninformed. the formula is 1500 time X 1.08. anyone who exclaims "well, if i ran a 3:43 1500, that's sub-60 pace so i should just be able to add 15 seconds comfortably" doesn't understand that if that 3:43 was an all-out effort, no, they should not be able to run another 100+ meters in 15 seconds. if they could, then it wouldn't have been all-out, in which case they have no else to blame for their lack of a sub-4 effort. i ran 3:42.81 PR in college, and in that race i'm not sure i could have run another 100m in 20 seconds, let alone the 17.8 seconds that the conversion would allow. hell, i didn't want to walk 5 meters after that effort. anyone who's run anywhere near a 4 minute mile knows the math doesn't lie in this case, from el g on down the line...
that's my story and i'm sticking to it...
cush
Don't you think you could've lasted the extra 100m in 17.8s by just delaying your final kick a bit? I mean, the 1500m and Mile are usually evenly paced races. Isn't the kick the part that drains you the most?
masters runnerman wrote:
half assed and McDonalds regulalry wrote:
Yes, I do. Proper training of course being what is considered "necessary" but really isn't.
Everybody is always telling me that I should train properly. Especially the guys who I am already faster than.
So what you are saying is that "balanced" training (as you define it) is better than "proper" training that is not actually proper (as you define it).
You are an absolute idiot.
Yes. Now think of how much of a moran you are for not getting it like this idiot does.
Good luck on your sub 5 quest. Let me know if you want some tips.
BIU wrote:
Who among you ran a 4:30 at 17, and a 4:59 at 52? I've decided I have a goal for the next 8 months or so!
I sort of did it. I went 4:16.1 a week after my 18th birthday in HS in 1978. Then at 57 in 2017 I ran a 5:01 at the Masters Road Champs. My Garmin read a bit faster 4:57.61 at 1.00 miles so I count that with an asterisk.
I probably screwed up with my training leading up to the 2017 mile. I was in pretty good shape running a 17:08 5K in July. Then stupidly I decided 7 weeks of intense speedwork would get me to 4:45 or so, at the end of August. Seven weeks of 2-3 really tough speed sessions each week left me haggered. I was running my 1000's right at 3:00; 800's at 2:25; 400's 67-68. I was so sure I'd be in the 4:40's so it was a huge disappointment to run 5:01. Unfortunately I haven't been the same since, struggling with a eff'd up achilles and old age... I've been unable to get under 18:00.
Dave
12 and 50
Racerdb wrote:
BIU wrote:
Who among you ran a 4:30 at 17, and a 4:59 at 52? I've decided I have a goal for the next 8 months or so!
I sort of did it. I went 4:16.1 a week after my 18th birthday in HS in 1978. Then at 57 in 2017 I ran a 5:01 at the Masters Road Champs. My Garmin read a bit faster 4:57.61 at 1.00 miles so I count that with an asterisk.
I probably screwed up with my training leading up to the 2017 mile. I was in pretty good shape running a 17:08 5K in July. Then stupidly I decided 7 weeks of intense speedwork would get me to 4:45 or so, at the end of August. Seven weeks of 2-3 really tough speed sessions each week left me haggered. I was running my 1000's right at 3:00; 800's at 2:25; 400's 67-68. I was so sure I'd be in the 4:40's so it was a huge disappointment to run 5:01. Unfortunately I haven't been the same since, struggling with a eff'd up achilles and old age... I've been unable to get under 18:00.
Dave
This is what I meant by "proper" training to the belligerent guy above. Hopefully he gets it now.
1979 wrote:
Don't you think you could've lasted the extra 100m in 17.8s by just delaying your final kick a bit? I mean, the 1500m and Mile are usually evenly paced races. Isn't the kick the part that drains you the most?
i don't think it works that way. for one, you do realize that a mile is a longer race than 1500m, meaning it gets more and more difficult to maintain pace--not necessarily the difference between a 1500 and a 3k, but still, it's longer, and there should be a slow-down if you're doing both races right. second, if i delay my kick an run an even pace, then i come through around 3:45, not 3:42. now add 17 seconds. or even 15 seconds. whatever. it ain't sub-4. have any of you actually raced these distances? if el g and every other great miler conversion roughly follows the 1.08 formula (for the record, it's closer to 1.083 for him)--and that's a $#!+-ton of data--why do you think others would not?
still my story, and i'm still sticking to it...
cush
Cush is right. Otherwise every mile world record would include a 1500m record. It’s never been done. You can’t run a mile at your 1500m pace. It’s only 109 meters longer, but the intensity of effort required makes it impossible to continue at that pace. It’s like raising the high jump bar a mere inch. It’s only an inch, but it’s an inch too much to clear.
Sub 5 mile is impressive at 14 (or in middle school) and 50 for men and always impressive for women.
Duck miler wrote:
Cush is right. Otherwise every mile world record would include a 1500m record. It’s never been done. You can’t run a mile at your 1500m pace. It’s only 109 meters longer, but the intensity of effort required makes it impossible to continue at that pace. It’s like raising the high jump bar a mere inch. It’s only an inch, but it’s an inch too much to clear.
Sub 5 mile is impressive at 14 (or in middle school) and 50 for men and always impressive for women.
Didn't Roger Bannister run an actual 1500 PR within his two sub four miles?
I believe the man said no world records for 1500m have been set during a mile world record. Indicating that it’s impossible to run a mile at your peak 1500m pace.
Bannister’s 1500m pr was no doubt weaker than mile pr. Probably due to him running in 1950s Britain.
People on here (from last year) are saying that a sub 5 mile is impressive for a 14 year old.
I am a 14 year old. But I have been doing high school intensity training for 2 years now, going into year 3. Does this mean that if I run a sub 5 mile it will be impressive ? Or will it not be since I ran it with possibly more intense training that a typical 14 year old ?
Impressive. Talent beats training.
That's completely subjective. To much of the population, a sub 5 minute mile is impressive at any age.
Young and male wrote:
Impressive. Talent beats training.
So what you are saying is that a sub 5 mile is impressive because it shows talent when run by a 14 year old ?
Yes. Training is irrelevant.
half assed and Mcdonalds regularly wrote:
Predictor wrote:
45. It is still very reasonable but very few people have the dedication to train and eat properly at that age.
Neither proper training nor eating is a large part of running sub five at 45. Trust me.
Agree. The knees and nagging injury just prevent intense training after 40. I am 45 and have realized the last few years that I have to be veeeeery careful and take more days off. Things that never used to bother me can quickly develop into a two moth lay-off if your not careful.