dancinpants Registered User
#16

johnners2981 said:
I agree with your friend, you do sound like a patronising elitist. I play football and can run 5 miles in 31 min, trying to get under 30 in a race this year.
And if he can do a 5 miles in 31 minutes without much training I can see him getting very close to a 5min 1 mile. Hope he proves you wrong.


Thanks Johnners! The problem is he can't get close to 31 mins for five miles. His timing is all over the place and he's only guessing the distance he's covering. If you think someone can crack out a five-minute mile on that kind of training, then you're just as deluded as him.

I wouldn't join a Leinster Senior League soccer team in the morning and expect to walk straight into their team on the basis that I play five-a-side twice a week.

By the way, if you're hoping for sub-30 for five miles and are only running part-time then I'd suggest packing in the football and joining an athletics club! That's very good going.

#17

dancinpants said:
Thanks Johnners! The problem is he can't get close to 31 mins for five miles. His timing is all over the place and he's only guessing the distance he's covering. If you think someone can crack out a five-minute mile on that kind of training, then you're just as deluded as him.

I wouldn't join a Leinster Senior League soccer team in the morning and expect to walk straight into their team on the basis that I play five-a-side twice a week.

By the way, if you're hoping for sub-30 for five miles and are only running part-time then I'd suggest packing in the football and joining an athletics club! That's very good going.


Back when I used to play ball. I was always close to 6 mins. A lap of my local park is 1 mile and I used to love going down and giving it a lash. I reckon sub 6 is a fair bet.

dancinpants Registered User
#18

Woddle said:
Back when I used to play ball. I was always close to 6 mins. A lap of my local park is 1 mile and I used to love going down and giving it a lash. I reckon sub 6 is a fair bet.


Agreed. I think I was being a bit generous with 6.30 so sub 6.00 is what i'm going to suggest.

augustus gloop Registered User
#19

if he sets out as planned, flat out sprinting.... he wont even finish the mile

2 people have thanked this post
bo-sco Registered User
#20

You are completely judging people by your own standards. You evidently think a 5 minute mile is very fast and if you have to train very hard to do that then everybody must be the same.

If a guy is playing a decent level of soccer, doing a few evenings supplementary running training and has a reasonable level of natural talent then there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to run 31 minutes for 5 miles or run a mile down around 5 minutes. They are not particularly fast times.

Just because, by the sound of things, you probably couldn't off such training, doesn't change that.

1 person has thanked this post
dancinpants Registered User
#21

bo-sco said:
You are completely judging people by your own standards. You evidently think a 5 minute mile is very fast and if you have to train very hard to do that then everybody must be the same.

If a guy is playing a decent level of soccer, doing a few evenings supplementary running training and has a reasonable level of natural talent then there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to run 31 minutes for 5 miles or run a mile down around 5 minutes. They are not particularly fast times.

Just because, by the sound of things, you probably couldn't off such training, doesn't change that.


And you are making wild judgements about two people you have never met and know absolutely nothing about...

Go out and try and run a five-minute mile or 31 mins for five miles (6.10 pace) on very little specific training and get back to me. It sounds easy, but trust me it's not.

Update: My mate has upped the ante by telling me yesterday that he did 5.48 in a practice run. He seemed a bit iffy on how he measured the distance, though, as he doesn't have a Garmin. This is going to be very close.

Krusty_Clown Registered User
#22

dancinpants said:
And you are making wild judgements about two people you have never met and know absolutely nothing about...

Go out and try and run a five-minute mile or 31 mins for five miles (6.10 pace) on very little specific training and get back to me. It sounds easy, but trust me it's not.

Update: My mate has upped the ante by telling me yesterday that he did 5.48 in a practice run. He seemed a bit iffy on how he measured the distance, though, as he doesn't have a Garmin. This is going to be very close.

Better base the bet on a 5 minute mile (just to be safe).
Then tell your mate to go join a club if he gets under 5:30.

walshb Registered User
#23

bo-sco said:
You are completely judging people by your own standards. You evidently think a 5 minute mile is very fast and if you have to train very hard to do that then everybody must be the same.

If a guy is playing a decent level of soccer, doing a few evenings supplementary running training and has a reasonable level of natural talent then there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to run 31 minutes for 5 miles or run a mile down around 5 minutes. They are not particularly fast times.

Just because, by the sound of things, you probably couldn't off such training, doesn't change that.


I tend to agree here. 31 mins for 5 miles is hardly blistering for a non athletics athlete. If the person is fit, young enough and in good shape, this is more than capable

I run 5 K (3.1 miles) in 20:30 and I am fit, not fit as a fiddle. That pace I run isn't killing me either. Now, I am sure I could go lower, but I don't want to really, as I run for enjoyment. Increasing the pace to try and set some "record" proves nothing, well, nothing for me.

hot to trot Registered User
#24

And never estimate the will of the mind. He is likely to bust himself proving you wrong

baalthor Registered User
#25

bo-sco said:
You are completely judging people by your own standards. You evidently think a 5 minute mile is very fast and if you have to train very hard to do that then everybody must be the same.

If a guy is playing a decent level of soccer, doing a few evenings supplementary running training and has a reasonable level of natural talent then there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to run 31 minutes for 5 miles or run a mile down around 5 minutes. They are not particularly fast times.

Just because, by the sound of things, you probably couldn't off such training, doesn't change that.


And you are making wild judgements about two people you have never met and know absolutely nothing about...

Go out and try and run a five-minute mile or 31 mins for five miles (6.10 pace) on very little specific training and get back to me. It sounds easy, but trust me it's not.

Update: My mate has upped the ante by telling me yesterday that he did 5.48 in a practice run. He seemed a bit iffy on how he measured the distance, though, as he doesn't have a Garmin. This is going to be very close.


Why don't you join him for a run?
Then you'd have a better idea of how fast he is.

ultrapercy Registered User
#26

baalthor said:
Why don't you join him for a run?
Then you'd have a better idea of how fast he is.

A mate of mine who played junior soccer and had one season at the lower div in The LOI ran 5.05 on the road for a mile and 56 for 400m he ran 2 marathons in 3.30 off very very little training.Id say hed have been realy good at some distance if he gave it a go but he didnt have much interest. These things are of course possible if the talent is there.It frustrated me a small bit tbh that he could causualy run 56 for 400 in flat shoes on awindy day with no training while I trained full time an could hardly run 65. I got over it tho.

dancinpants Registered User
#27

walshb said:
I tend to agree here. 31 mins for 5 miles is hardly blistering for a non athletics athlete. If the person is fit, young enough and in good shape, this is more than capable

I run 5 K (3.1 miles) in 20:30 and I am fit, not fit as a fiddle. That pace I run isn't killing me either. Now, I am sure I could go lower, but I don't want to really, as I run for enjoyment. Increasing the pace to try and set some "record" proves nothing, well, nothing for me.


You did 3.1 miles at 6.36 pace, which is good going. Now run the 3.1 miles and add in another 1.9 miles at the end, and all at 6.12 pace. There's a pretty big difference. And do it in training as a casual run. This is what my mate claims he regularly does, which apart from being silly, I struggle to believe.

It's all well and good throwing things like that casually out there, but the reality is that it's training that will get you there not idle talk.

walshb Registered User
#28

dancinpants said:
You did 3.1 miles at 6.36 pace, which is good going. Now run the 3.1 miles and add in another 1.9 miles at the end, and all at 6.12 pace. There's a pretty big difference. And do it in training as a casual run. This is what my mate claims he regularly does, which apart from being silly, I struggle to believe.

It's all well and good throwing things like that casually out there, but the reality is that it's training that will get you there not idle talk.


Yes, but your friend is young, and in good shape isn't he? This is key, and if he's naturally good at running, then I see nothing special about 5 miles in 31 mins.

BTW, can anyone back me up and tell me if you are running consecutive miles is it odd that the last mile of say a 4 mile run may well be the "easiest," or at least feel the easiest on the legs and body?

I have found that when I am on form, somethimes the last mile is when I can really flow and move with less effort than the fist mile or so. It's like a car heating up and flowing freely after a run.

BTW, over the past two years my best mile time is 6 mins flat. So, 6:36 pace over 3 or 4 miles with a best of 6 mins for one mile isn't special.

dancinpants Registered User
#29

Yes, but your friend is young, and in good shape isn't he? This is key, and if he's naturally good at running, then I see nothing special about 5 miles in 31 mins.

BTW, can anyone back me up and tell me if you are running consecutive miles is it odd that the last mile of say a 4 mile run may well be the "easiest," or at least feel the easiest on the legs and body?

I have found that when I am on form, somethimes the last mile is when I can really flow and move with less effort than the fist mile or so. It's like a car heating up and flowing freely after a run.

BTW, over the past two years my best mile time is 6 mins flat. So, 6:36 pace with a best of 6 mins isn't special[/QUOTE

Young, yes. The thread name says he's of 'average fitness' and nowhere have I said that he's naturally good at running. In fact, I would pick out at least three or four of my friends who I think would make better runners.

With regard to the last mile of four being the easiest, it's not that unusual as you'll often feel sluggish at the start and then feel your way into the run. If you're racing, the last mile should nearly always be the quickest.

Well done on the 6.00 minute mile. Do three or even five of them in a row in your next race and you'll be doing even better. I never said 6.36 is special, but it's decent going for a casual runner. I wouldn't even describe my mate as a casual runner; he goes for a couple of runs a week and sometimes not at all.

walshb Registered User
#30

I'm mid 30s now and not near as fit/fast as I was when I was 19 or 20. I could run a 5:25 mile then. I am a casual runner, by no means very good.

Not sure about your friend. Maybe he has his distances confused.

Sometime people can be like that. They may pluck a distance or time out of their asses.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!