60s 400 v 5min 1 mile v 3hr marathon

Racing Flat

If someone offered you a lot of money to chose which of the following a random, but average male off to street (who does not run) could run, within a year, either

a) 400m in less than 60 seconds
b) 1 mile in less than 5 minutes
c) a marathon in less than 3 hours

Which would you pick to try and win the money? You only get the money if he is successful, and you can only attempt one of the 3 within the year, although that one can be attempted as many times as possible. At the time of being asked you have no idea of his body type, or whether he has any speed or endurance, just that he is a fairly average man, randomly selected from the population.

So which would you chose, i.e. which is the most doable?

Running Bing

Racing Flat wrote: »

If someone offered you a lot of money to chose which of the following a random, but average male off to street (who does not run) could run, within a year, either

a) 400m in less than 60 seconds
b) 1 mile in less than 5 minutes
c) a marathon in less than 3 hours

Which would you pick to try and win the money? You only get the money if he is successful, and you can only attempt one of the 3 within the year, although that one can be attempted as many times as possible. At the time of being asked you have no idea of his body type, or whether he has any speed or endurance, just that he is a fairly average man, randomly selected from the population.

So which would you chose, i.e. which is the most doable?

Id say definitely the 5 minute mile.


Id imagine their would be quite a few people who would get down to a 60 sec 400 within a year quite handily but on the other hand a huge number would not get near it just because of natural limitations/body type.

The marathon is too big a task because you have to build the persons speed to be able to run that fast and then build their endurance to be able to run that fast for 26.2 miles. Would be very hard within a year.


The 5 minute mile would be very difficult as well but I think its more probable than the other too. You could focus on speed while gradually building endurance throughout the year through increased mileage.

RoyMcC

Quiet day RF? To answer this I've tried to beam myself back 30 years to when I was young and fit. And my conclusion is Option B.

On the grounds that, as an average male, I would be able to train to acquire a mix of the 400m runner's anaerobic capacity and the distance runner's aerobic endurance.

Interesting though...

TheRoadRunner

Definitely B.

shels4ever

The 5 min mile for sure. For me I think i could get below 60 sec's for 400m with a years training too.. but i think the marathon would require 2-3 years to get down to anywhere near 3 hours.

Racing Flat

Running Bing wrote: »

Id say definitely the 5 minute mile.


Id imagine their would be quite a few people who would get down to a 60 sec 400 within a year quite handily but on the other hand a huge number would not get near it just because of natural limitations/body type.

The marathon is too big a task because you have to build the persons speed to be able to run that fast and then build their endurance to be able to run that fast for 26.2 miles. Would be very hard within a year.


The 5 minute mile would be very difficult as well but I think its more probable than the other too. You could focus on speed while gradually building endurance throughout the year through increased mileage.

Similar thoughts to me. But you could get very lucky withthe 400m one - the randomer might have natural speed and breeze to the sub 60 on the first attempt with no training, so it might be worth a punt....

You could similarly get lucky with the marathon, but too much training needed and only one attempt so would avoid that one.

Similarly to the 400 though, some people will find the 1mile very, very difficult. I'd nearly go for the 400...

RoyMcC wrote: »

Quiet day RF?

Some people call it Friday

cfitz

The mile.

wizwill

interesting dilemma,

I would think the mile. The body need a couple of years conditioning to get close to that kind of marathon time. Although its nice to some recognition of the feat that is a sub 3 hour marathon, last week the average club runner and his dog was potenially capable of sub 2.30.

Racing Flat

Everyone plumping for the 5 minute mile. It took me until my third year of running, or second year of actual racing 1 miles to do it. While it might be the easiest of the 3, would they get there in a year???

Also, go to the gradeds and you'll see loads of fellows going off way too fast, doing 32 or 33 for the first 200 and ending up with a 5.30. If they've the speed for that 200, might they not have the ability for the 400m in 60secs?

Perhaps the 400 is just run less commonly so we are less familiar and therefore afraid of it? I've never raced one...

--amadeus--

Someone obviously doesn't have much on today!

My instinct would be the 5 minute mile. But the numbers suggest that is actually the hardest and teh easiest is the marathon...

The WR for a mile is 03:43. Running 05:00 is running at 74% of WR pace.
The WR for 400m is 00:43. Running 01:00 is running at 72% of WR pace.
The WR for the marathon is 02:03:59. Running 03:00:00 is running at 69% of WR pace.

Not sure if that makes it any easier to hit the marathon target though. There is so much endurance work involved that the chances of injury are higher. I'd maybe go for the 400s...

Racing Flat

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Someone obviously doesn't have much on today!

No, I just bumped into Bill Cullen last night and he put the challenge to me.














I wish.

Racing Flat

Right then, considering most people are going for the mile...


Do you think you'd be collecting the money? Or do you think you've picked the most likley one, but they still probably won't be able to do it?

shels4ever

Racing Flat wrote: »

Everyone plumping for the 5 minute mile. It took me until my third year of running, or second year of actual racing 1 miles to do it. While it might be the easiest of the 3, would they get there in a year???

Also, go to the gradeds and you'll see loads of fellows going off way too fast, doing 32 or 33 for the first 200 and ending up with a 5.30. If they've the speed for that 200, might they not have the ability for the 400m in 60secs?

Perhaps the 400 is just run less commonly so we are less familiar and therefore afraid of it? I've never raced one...

Actually your right, I did say the mile but thats the one I would want to do, But the 400m would be the one that i'd be more capable of doing. Took me a year to go from a 9+ min miler to sub 7 , will be another year untill i'm under the 5:45 mark I would think...

Stupid_Private

I'm going with the marathon.

Judging by the times I run 400s in in training I've got to assume that's a tough one. Then again I've never trained specifically for it.

Also from my own experience, by the time I was able to run a 5 minute mile I was well under a 3 hour marathon.

--amadeus--

Off the top of my head I can think of 5 people (from here and RL) who went for a sub 3 marathon in teh spring. All had solid backgrounds in marathon running, all had put in a good winters training (some had done the best training of their lives) and all had PBs and times at shorter distances that suggested that sub 3 was realistic and achievable.

None of them achieved it.

A marathon is a one shot deal - you need to spend the year building to it, hope teh endurance work doesn't injure your runner and hope that conditions are good on teh day. There are also so many variables beyond your control (crowds, courses, weather). And if it goes wrong that's it, game over, try again next year.

At least with 400s or teh mile you can make multiple attempts, run them indoors, etc.

cfitz

The marathon is by far the hardest.

In one year, you'd only get one chance to go for it, unless he has in good shape already then you might get to go for it twice. You could have 3 full seasons at the other distances if you wanted.

For an awful lot of people it would take a good portion of the year to get fit enough to run the marathon, any setbacks would be likely to put your target in danger.

Possibly like a lot of people here, I'm not sure what it takes to progress your 400m time quickly. Perhaps a year is plenty of time to knock a few seconds off it. For the mile though, I reckon a good coach could take a random fella under 5 minutes within a year fairly consistently.

mrak

Those were good distances/times to pick RF - very hard to say which is more doable. The marathon is the easier time, but the risk of injury would be too great so I'd plump for the 400m and hope he was quick - wouldn't be easy though.

A mile on a track can be tough - 5 minute mile is 4x<75sec laps - that's a pretty hard pace to maintain.

I'd say the odds are slim of getting an average joe to do any of those 3 within a year. Remember that bloke who was on the radio a few years ago who gave up work to attempt the 4-minute mile - I think he just about made the 5 minute after more than a year working fulltime at it.

Stupid_Private

--amadeus-- wrote: »

A marathon is a one shot deal - you need to spend the year building to it, hope teh endurance work doesn't injure your runner and hope that conditions are good on teh day. There are also so many variables beyond your control (crowds, courses, weather). And if it goes wrong that's it, game over, try again next year.

True, with the marathon a lot depends on the day but the same endurance work for the marathon is going to have to be put in for the mile. The only exception is the long run probably won't go above 15 miles. The injury reasoning doesn't really hold up as I'd reckon you've a much greater chance injuring yourself sprinting than jogging.

aoa321

What age will the random person off the street be, will he be in good shape - say a good gaelic footballer but you just have to train him in a new event, or will he be slightly out of shape?

The reason I ask is because if you guys feel you could train me to do a five minute mile in one year I'd be stunned. I'm in not bad shape for my age (40 years) and I don't think any of those targets is achievable in one year to be honest - like you say you might get lucky with the 60s 400 but the other two are big asks.

cfitz

Racing Flat wrote: »

Right then, considering most people are going for the mile...


Do you think you'd be collecting the money? Or do you think you've picked the most likley one, but they still probably won't be able to do it?

With plenty of time to put into the coaching effort, and a willing participant? I reckon chances are I'd cash in. Wouldn't be by any means a certainty, but I reckon if you got Mr Average then it should be ok. (But if Mr Average these days is quite fat, then he would need to be willing to do a LOT of hard work early on!)

--amadeus--

I know very little about training for the shorter distances; I knew that elite milers ran significant mileage but I didn't think that runs of up to 15 miles would be needed for an amateur racing a mile? You're right about teh intensity of training though - 400s and mile training would involve a lot more high intensity work than a marathon training plan so the risk of injury probably doesn't change that much.

donothoponpop

I thought this was a trick question at first, designed to prompt a marathon-obsesses forum to belittle a sub 60 400 or sub5 mile, so extreme are the training schedules, the effort involved, the Familial Sacrifice Neccessary to Complete The Weekend Long Run: in the quest for the Holy Grail of a sub-3 marathon... after all, these spinters just turn up at the track a couple of times a week, shake their legs for a few minutes ("drills"), a few short bursts of speed ("intervals"), and then jog slowly once or twice around the outer track ("long run")... sure a marathoner takes more time than that to get a Garmin signal...

But if I'm honest, I'd say the sub3 marathon is easiest, in that most randomers could get the required training done in a year.

shels4ever

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I know very little about training for the shorter distances; I knew that elite milers ran significant mileage but I didn't think that runs of up to 15 miles would be needed for an amateur racing a mile? You're right about teh intensity of training though - 400s and mile training would involve a lot more high intensity work than a marathon training plan so the risk of injury probably doesn't change that much.

Depends on the person, I think the average joe on the street would gain more in regards to improvment with by jsut doing miles, main reason for that is the weight they may need to lose. If you pick someone of the street and start them on 400m reps I wouldnt think the training would last a couple of weeks.
The more I thin about it the harder the sub 5 mile is sounding again...

Racing Flat

mrak wrote: »

A mile on a track can be tough - 5 minute mile is 4x<75sec laps - that's a pretty hard pace to maintain.

True, I remember an interview with Lance Armstrong soon after he retired and he was asked what he would like to do now and he mentioned that he's love to try to run a 5 minute mile, that to run 4 laps at 75secs each would be very tough, but would have a nice symmetry, that it would be a great challenge for him. I would have thought that it would have been quite easy for him. Don't know if he ever attempted it.

--amadeus--

cfitz wrote: »

With plenty of time to put into the coaching effort, and a willing participant? I reckon chances are I'd cash in. Wouldn't be by any means a certainty, but I reckon if you got Mr Average then it should be ok. (But if Mr Average these days is quite fat, then he would need to be willing to do a LOT of hard work early on!)

According to the (rather brilliant) new Wolframalpha website Mr Average is 34.6 years old and weighs 75kgs (around 12 stone) so they should be ok

Abhainn

Nice one RF.
I think you agree the toughest one to achieve is the marathon. It's a combined mental and physical partnership to meet that target while its more of a physical thing in the other two.

It really is a bit of a toss up on the 400 v mile. You need more raw speed to meet the 400 target. So my view is the sub 5 min mile would be the easiest.

I must try out the sub 1min 400 on next track session just to see how far off I'd be.

Racing Flat

cfitz wrote: »

With plenty of time to put into the coaching effort, and a willing participant?

You can do whatever you want within legal limits during the year to help them get there...


I think the 5min mile and marathon are possible for everyone, but may take a lot longer than a year for the majority of non-runners.

While the 400m will be impossible for some, if they don't have the required fast twitch fibres, but for those in whom it is possible, they'd have a greater chance to get there in a year than for anyone to do the mile or marathon times.

So I'd take my chances with the 400 option.

cfitz

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I knew that elite milers ran significant mileage but I didn't think that runs of up to 15 miles would be needed for an amateur racing a mile?

A number of factors may contribute in determining the length of a miler's long run, but I'm fairly sure that the athlete's status as 'elite' or 'amateur' is not one of them.

--amadeus--

cfitz wrote: »

A number of factors may contribute in determining the length of a miler's long run, but I'm fairly sure that the athlete's status as 'elite' or 'amateur' is not one of them.

What I meant is that a full time / elite athlete will generally run further and do more miles in training than the general runner. For example elite marathon runners do 100 - 120 miles per week, most amateurs do 30 - 70. I wasn't questioning the benefits I was asking if that length run was normal.

Sosa

Without a doubt the 5 min mile ....

robinph

--amadeus-- wrote: »

According to the (rather brilliant) new Wolframalpha website Mr Average is 34.6 years old and weighs 75kgs (around 12 stone) so they should be ok

That makes me Mr. Average then, just.

Not done a 400m though but I think I'm probably just as far away from beating a 5 minute mile as I am from the 3 hour marathon, being 15 seconds short of one and 27 minutes short of the other. Looking at the required mile pace for the 3hr marathon though scares me though, so I suspect I'd be more able for attempting the single mile version of the challenge.

shels4ever

robinph wrote: »

That makes me Mr. Average then, just.

Not done a 400m though but I think I'm probably just as far away from beating a 5 minute mile as I am from the 3 hour marathon, being 15 seconds short of one and 27 minutes short of the other. Looking at the required mile pace for the 3hr marathon though scares me though, so I suspect I'd be more able for attempting the single mile version of the challenge.

Well there are a few mile races at this time of year.. that give you a year to train for them

robinph

shels4ever wrote: »

Well there are a few mile races at this time of year.. that give you a year to train for them

Would certainly be a challenge to see if I can beat the mile target by next year, I have a vauge notion to try for 3hrs in Dublin 2010 as my next marathon, but I really don't think that is quite as likely.

I'll be a year less average by then though.

High&Low

When I first read this I thought the mile would be the hardest 12mph (19.2km/h) for 4 laps v 15mph (24km/h) for one lap.

A 12/13 second 100m sprinter could easily (with a little training) achieve a sub 60 400m, I think an average male (non sprinter) could be trained to be run the 100m in under 13 secs and also build the endurance to run 4 back to back 15sec 100m.

I was a sub 11 sprinter and my only ever attempt in the 400m was a 4x400 relay and I ran around 60 secs and that was with no endurance training (apart from warm up, nothing really over 250m in training)

4 back to back 75sec laps, I believe, would require a lot more training and natural endurance and therefore be harder.

The marathon would be pretty hard as the volume of training would be very high and you would, as someone else mentioned, only get one or two chances in the year

MCOS

High&Low wrote: »

When I first read this I thought the mile would be the hardest 12mph (19.2km/h) for 4 laps v 15mph (24km/h) for one lap.

A 12/13 second 100m sprinter could easily (with a little training) achieve a sub 60 400m, I think an average male (non sprinter) could be trained to be run the 100m in under 13 secs and also build the endurance to run 4 back to back 15sec 100m.

I was a sub 11 sprinter and my only ever attempt in the 400m was a 4x400 relay and I ran around 60 secs and that was with no endurance training (apart from warm up, nothing really over 250m in training)

4 back to back 75sec laps, I believe, would require a lot more training and natural endurance and therefore be harder.

The marathon would be pretty hard as the volume of training would be very high and you would, as someone else mentioned, only get one or two chances in the year

Agree. Marathon hardest as it takes the most dedication and as --amadeus-- puts it you may get only one shot in the year.

Mile is proabably doable if the person is anyway fit but also needs dedication

The 400 in sub 60 might well be within the capacity of more than might think so. The likelihood that the average man you pick off the street has some sort of current or past GAA, Rugby, Soccer or Community Games background would suggest that he at some stage sprinted from A to B. Factor in the fight vs flight theory. Put a snarling viscious rottweiler behind the average Joe for 60 seconds and see what how quickly he can 'suddenly' run with adrenalin on board!

I'd also gamble on the 400 as there is a decent chance that the average joe could pull it off in an all out first attempt owing to natural fast twitch fibres.

You are born with speed. Stamina and Endurance are Built.

donothoponpop

Racing Flat wrote: »

...At the time of being asked you have no idea of his body type, or whether he has any speed or endurance, just that he is a fairly average man, randomly selected from the population.

So which would you chose, i.e. which is the most doable?

This is the crux of the question, there's lots of different body types out there that could line up in a sub-3 pen after 8-9 months dedicated training. I'm not so sure you can go couch-sub 60secs in the same time span. Bear in mind that the training will start off slow and build in intensity: I think its easier to do this without injury for a distance event, rather than a sprint. Same reasoning against the sub 5 mile.

dna_leri

--amadeus-- wrote: »

A marathon is a one shot deal - you need to spend the year building to it, hope teh endurance work doesn't injure your runner and hope that conditions are good on teh day. There are also so many variables beyond your control (crowds, courses, weather). And if it goes wrong that's it, game over, try again next year.

At least with 400s or teh mile you can make multiple attempts, run them indoors, etc.

I think that's the key point, definitely not the marathon, even though it is easier in the long run for the average runner - McMillan calculator gives a 5:19 mile and a 65s 400m for a 3hr marathoner.

So assuming the 3hr marathon is possible in the long term but high risk in the short term, which is easier, to knock 5 sec of 400m or 19 secs off the mile? Again from the gospel according to Greg, a 5 min miler will be a 61.5s 400m runner.

Therefore the answer is the mile.
QED.

shels4ever

Maybe a nice pole to see what people on here have done , I'd say most of the sub 5 mins milers will be the sub 3 horus marathon runners.. unless you were an 800m runner doing the mile

TFBubendorfer

I don't understand why everybody keeps repeating that the marathon is the hardest one.

I like to think that I have a good shot at beating 3 hours at some stage. On the other hand, a sub-5 mile or a 60 secs 400 are way beyond the times I have ever run.

Sure, you have a lot more chances with the short ones, but I think that for me the marathon is the only realistic option.

Plus, anybody who can run a mile in under 5 minutes is able to run a sub-3 marathon easily (when trained for the distance, obviously).

mrak

dna_leri wrote: »

I think that's the key point, definitely not the marathon, even though it is easier in the long run for the average runner - McMillan calculator gives a 5:19 mile and a 65s 400m for a 3hr marathoner.

So assuming the 3hr marathon is possible in the long term but high risk in the short term, which is easier, to knock 5 sec of 400m or 19 secs off the mile? Again from the gospel according to Greg, a 5 min miler will be a 61.5s 400m runner.

Therefore the answer is the mile.
QED.

okay - you changed my mind - it's close between them but I guess with a years training and a good day more people would be able to break 5 min mile.

TFBubendorfer wrote:

I don't understand why everybody keeps repeating that the marathon is the hardest one.

I like to think that I have a good shot at beating 3 hours at some stage. On the other hand, a sub-5 mile or a 60 secs 400 are way beyond the times I have ever run.

Sure, you have a lot more chances with the short ones, but I think that for me the marathon is the only realistic option.

Plus, anybody who can run a mile in under 5 minutes is able to run a sub-3 marathon easily (when trained for the distance, obviously).

Can't speak for others but the reason I'd go against the mara is because of the 1 year limit. You will only get one shot at it and your first marathon is a real eye opener (at least mine was). You would get 50 decent attempts at the other distances in a year. I also think that to achieve your potential in a marathon you need a few years of miles in your legs. If RF hadn't put the 1 year limit in there I would definitely say marathon is far far more achievable than the others.

Pherekydes

I'll go against the grain and plump for the 400m.

Statistically, the 400m time is worth 417pts, the mile time is worth 464pts and the marathon time is worth a whopping 568pts, all on the IAAF scoring tables. Taking an average joe, the marathon time is out of the question, due to the volume of training required. Which do you think is easier, without any prior training whatsoever: 15 seconds for 100m or 75 secs for 400m. My bet is on the 100m. Once that is achieved, it's just a matter of building the speed endurance to run 4*15, which would come a lot quicker than training to run 4*75, imho.

TFBubendorfer

mrak wrote: »

Can't speak for others but the reason I'd go against the mara is because of the 1 year limit. You will only get one shot at it and your first marathon is a real eye opener (at least mine was). You would get 50 decent attempts at the other distances in a year. I also think that to achieve your potential in a marathon you need a few years of miles in your legs. If RF hadn't put the 1 year limit in there I would definitely say marathon is far far more achievable than the others.

Alright, if you put it like that I actually have to agree.

T runner

More friday waffle to add!

I think the % of the population fast twitch/slow twitch muscle type ratio is signicficant.
There would be an upper and lower ratio forming a band that would be beneficial for each of these distances. People predisposed to better marathon running might have 70% plus slow twitch. Sprinters might be 70% fast twitch.
Middle distance in between.

I would guess that the most people would fall into the mid band.
Other points indictate that a marathon may be out due to the liklihood of failure after one attempt.

So would go for the 5 min mile too.

dna_leri

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'll go against the grain and plump for the 400m.

Statistically, the 400m time is worth 417pts, the mile time is worth 464pts and the marathon time is worth a whopping 568pts, all on the IAAF scoring tables. Taking an average joe, the marathon time is out of the question, due to the volume of training required. Which do you think is easier, without any prior training whatsoever: 15 seconds for 100m or 75 secs for 400m. My bet is on the 100m. Once that is achieved, it's just a matter of building the speed endurance to run 4*15, which would come a lot quicker than training to run 4*75, imho.

But... if you can do 15 sec for 100m, then you can easily do 75 sec for 400m and therefore the mile is easier.

dermCu

There is only one way to resolve this:
3 guinea pig ‘Mr Averages’ need to come forward and pick one event each. This time next year the money gets paid out….;)

They’ll need to sacrifice a year of their lives to train. It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make on their behalf.
They could even be coached by the collective. Would make for an interesting experiment.

Diggy78

I'd have to plump for the 400, again as someone mentioned previously, in the hope that the person at least has some natural speed. I only started running properly in October last so kind of was one of those ordinary Joe's. Had a good soccer background a few years ago at a high level so I knew what it was like to be fit and fast. Am now 30 and had 3 proper races after getting into running pretty seriously, 4 or 5 times a week. 5k 21 mins, 10k 45 mins and Connemarathon 3 hrs 56 mins.
I suppose my point is I doubt any are possible or at best are extremely unlikely for a random pick on the street as I imagine it would take a hell of a lot longer than a year to get to those levels. Doubt we'd be collecting.

robinph

dermCu wrote: »

There is only one way to resolve this:
3 guinea pig ‘Mr Averages’ need to come forward and pick one event each. This time next year the money gets paid out….;)

They’ll need to sacrifice a year of their lives to train. It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make on their behalf.
They could even be coached by the collective. Would make for an interesting experiment.

So who is volunteering to suggest the idea to the BGRH crowd then?

shels4ever

dermCu wrote: »

There is only one way to resolve this:
3 guinea pig ‘Mr Averages’ need to come forward and pick one event each. This time next year the money gets paid out….;)

They’ll need to sacrifice a year of their lives to train. It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make on their behalf.
They could even be coached by the collective. Would make for an interesting experiment.

I'd be up for that, but i'd be a below average joe...

Magnet

The marathon!
My Money is on it!
Its only 6.52s all the way... :rolleyes:

gilmore

Magnet wrote: »

The marathon!
My Money is on it!
Its only 6.52s all the way... :rolleyes:[/quote

If i could do 6.52 for 1 mile i'd be delighted.

runjb

Tough one...

400m in 60sec would def require some natural speed, without which would be extremely difficult to break 60sec. It means going through the opening 200m in under 30sec and to do that comfortably the runner would have to be able to run a 200m in at least 28sec which is quite fast.

The mile in under 5mins..nothing easy about this one wither to the novice. But I think with this option training would probably pay most dividends. However running a mile at this pace would require 2 x 2.30 800m conseq which is challenging.

The marathon in under 3 hours is demanding and I think would require more than one years training for the average joe soap.

I'd take on the mile probably..put them through torturous sessions which would eventually shape them up and build up their stamina...best chance to break it id say.