Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How realistic is a sub 5 minute mile on the track?

135678

Comments

  • #62
    TheRoadRunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,983 ✭✭✭TheRoadRunner


    myflipflops wrote: »
    There was a big gap between reps but his aerobic capacity was impressive.

    He should listen to Gerry Kiernan and move up a distance or two :D

    In all seriousness I always though he was made for 800 metres. I know it's impossible to tell if somebody can make the jump but I reckon he could.


  • #63
    Sport101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 339 ✭✭Sport101


    Mc Millan predicts a 2:03 marathon for Gillick... what this guy needs is a new coach, a bit of focus, and the WR is his.


  • #64
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    TheRoadRunner wrote: »
    Funny you should mention Mr Gillick. Have a look at his mile split here :)

    A 4.32. "Walking". 5 seconds per 100m slower then he does over 400m. Pure walking that is! :D


  • #65
    dna_leri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,623 ✭✭✭dna_leri


    TheRoadRunner wrote: »
    He should listen to Gerry Kiernan and move up a distance or two :D

    In all seriousness I always though he was made for 800 metres. I know it's impossible to tell if somebody can make the jump but I reckon he could.
    Not so sure, I think running in lanes suits Mr Gillick better. Although he is able for the physical side of 800m as he showed in Euro indoors, his tactical naievity could let him down.


  • #66
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,249 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    kennyb3 wrote: »
    67 seconds seems a bit quick for the to be honest.

    I disagree here. 67 for 400m is about equivalent to a 5:40 mile, based on the IAAF points tables. We already know that the IAAF tables predict the OP's PBs more accurately from the relevant thread. He has a recent 2:42 for 800m, similar to a 6:04 mile, so the 400m is not too far out of line with a 5:56 mile.

    The OP can easily do a 5 minute mile. But it's not going to happen tomorrow, or the next day. It could take weeks, months or years of preparation, depending on how the OP wants to pursue it.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    village runner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,656 ✭✭✭village runner


    In a card game i would fold.............Enough for me.


  • #68
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    menoscemo wrote: »
    I was talking to my physio about this on monday. He says Gillick can run a 4:10 mile and has done so in training many times. He himself, a former 200m-400m man could run 4:27 in his hey day.

    If true this is amazing really, especially considering Michael Johnson could just barely dip under 5 minutes for the mile.


  • #69
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I disagree here. 67 for 400m is about equivalent to a 5:40 mile, based on the IAAF points tables. We already know that the IAAF tables predict the OP's PBs more accurately from the relevant thread. He has a recent 2:42 for 800m, similar to a 6:04 mile, so the 400m is not too far out of line with a 5:56 mile.

    The OP can easily do a 5 minute mile. But it's not going to happen tomorrow, or the next day. It could take weeks, months or years of preparation, depending on how the OP wants to pursue it.

    Yeh I'm still not quite sure after that thread which is the way to go. Is the IAAF or McMillan the best comparison between events?


  • #70
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    village runner wrote: »
    In a card game i would fold.............Enough for me.

    Before you leave can you please explain what you meant when you said "it seems that its plucked out of the sky".

    I found that statement very odd.


  • #71
    theboyblunder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,054 ✭✭✭theboyblunder


    04072511 wrote: »
    Before you leave can you please explain what you meant when you said "it seems that its plucked out of the sky".

    I found that statement very odd.


    ahh no need to go looking down that road and ruin a good thread with lots of different views, let's leave it at that.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    fiddy3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 138 ✭✭fiddy3


    I highly doubt gillick has run a 4:10 mile, or has run it in training many times, sounds like chinese whispers to me, i've no doubt he could pop a 1:50ish 800, but a 4:10 mile would really be maxing out his aerobic ability and unlikely. 4:15 yes. For a 400 runner to move up distances like that the slowdown rate would be huge, as michael johnson shows.
    To the OP, anyone with a shred of talent who isn't a lardass in their 20s can run a 5minute mile if they trained hard for it. All depends on how much you really wanted it and whether you were willing to do the 50+miles a week to get your aerobic system to the necessary level and the horrific interval reps like 10x400 off 90secs needed to get to your best.


  • #73
    shels4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    kennyb3 wrote: »
    I can kind of see where VR is coming from though, 22 seconds a lap slower every lap for just over 4 laps. Seems like a big difference to me. Either the OP has some serious speed and need to focus on 200m - 400m or something aint quite right. 67 seconds seems a bit quick for the to be honest.

    Seriously OP if you reckon you can run 65 off no training you ve wasted 3 months training for a 4.xx marathon
    Yep I see where VR is coming for but it all depends on the people, Very hard to say without knowing someone where they strong and weak points in running are. I know i'm capable of running a 5 min mile, But to do that it would require a huge amount of training and lipo suction...

    I'd love to see someone actually do it and start a log on a sub 5 min mile as this stuff pops up all the time . Marathons are easy in one aspect as finishing no matter what the target is , is see as doing well. While training fora 5 min mile mightnot get asmany pats on the back but in my view is just as hard and just as possible.


  • #74
    shels4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    Tingle wrote: »
    Also, on the 400 to mile correlation etc, Michael Johnson used to do miles in early transition phase training. I think his best was 5:07 or 5:11 or something like that.
    I've a pb faster then MJ. :).. I can now retire.


  • #75
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,249 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    fiddy3 wrote: »
    All depends on how much you really wanted it and whether you were willing to do the 50+miles a week to get your aerobic system to the necessary level and the horrific interval reps like 10x400 off 90secs needed to get to your best.

    Nonsense! There's no need for 50+ mls/wk or 10x400m interval sessions. You can do it off 20-25 mls/wk and 6x400m. My son ran 4:34 off this type of training. Key sessions might include 4x800m and a 6-8 lap tempo run. These are very hard sessions, but there's no real need for huge mileage. As long as you get in one longish run of 50-60 mins you'd be fine in the aerobic dept.

    I could see Gillick doing very well over 800m, but the mile is something else. He's gotten a lot faster since 2003, but that wouldn't necessarily translate to faster mile times. The 4:32 in the Universities' road relays was done in Maynooth. The distance is NOT accurate. It may be as short as 1500m.


  • #76
    fiddy3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 138 ✭✭fiddy3


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Nonsense! There's no need for 50+ mls/wk or 10x400m interval sessions. You can do it off 20-25 mls/wk and 6x400m. My son ran 4:34 off this type of training. Key sessions might include 4x800m and a 6-8 lap tempo run. These are very hard sessions, but there's no real need for huge mileage. As long as you get in one longish run of 50-60 mins you'd be fine in the aerobic dept.

    I could see Gillick doing very well over 800m, but the mile is something else. He's gotten a lot faster since 2003, but that wouldn't necessarily translate to faster mile times. The 4:32 in the Universities' road relays was done in Maynooth. The distance is NOT accurate. It may be as short as 1500m.

    Sorry but your son probably has more talent than the OP then, asbel kiprop could run a 4:30 mile off 5 miles a week, it's all relative to the talent level. Someone may need to do 100miles a week to break 5:30 and someone else may do 4:30 off 10miles a week. To get the best out of yourself, and i mean best, you simply have do 40 miles a week minimum and 2-3 quality sessions a week, show me one world class miler who hasn't done that. He may be able to do it off 20-25 miles a week, but to be his best, he'll have to do more. Not nonsense in the slightest actually.


  • #77
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,249 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    fiddy3 wrote: »
    Sorry but your son probably has more talent than the OP then, asbel kiprop could run a 4:30 mile off 5 miles a week, it's all relative to the talent level. Someone may need to do 100miles a week to break 5:30 and someone else may do 4:30 off 10miles a week. To get the best out of yourself, and i mean best, you simply have do 40 miles a week minimum and 2-3 quality sessions a week, show me one world class miler who hasn't done that. He may be able to do it off 20-25 miles a week, but to be his best, he'll have to do more. Not nonsense in the slightest actually.

    Talent, schmalent. We are not talking about the OP becoming an elite miler. We are talking about him running under 5 mins. He's already run the equivalent of a 5:40 mile off a few weeks' training at 17. He definitely has enough 'talent'. What he doesn't have is enough training.


  • #78
    Woddle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,492 ✭✭✭Woddle


    There was a documentary (think it was a documentary)a few years back about an average Joe who wanted to break 4 minutes for the mile, I remember him having a chat with Eamon Coghlan, who told him he stood no chance and he was right, I think your man ran 4'59.
    Can't find any links for it but it backs up the off the street guy going sub 5.


  • #79
    kennyb3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,725 ✭✭✭kennyb3


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I disagree here. 67 for 400m is about equivalent to a 5:40 mile, based on the IAAF points tables. We already know that the IAAF tables predict the OP's PBs more accurately from the relevant thread. He has a recent 2:42 for 800m, similar to a 6:04 mile, so the 400m is not too far out of line with a 5:56 mile.

    Yeah but that 67 was an individual TT not wearing spikes, he reckons 63 in a race and spikes. hence comparing the 67 with the 80m time is a bit different! Still strikes me as off and by that i dont mean its not true.( but based on the 5k times quoted here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055721369 I just think 63 seems fast)

    Anyway my main point was that the OP spent a long time training to run quite a slow marathon time. Especially given his blessed natural speed. And more importantly he felt he was training to his full ability. that doesnt seem to be the case to me.

    Anyway i need to stop defending myself and get this back on topic.


  • #80
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    04072511 wrote: »
    If true this is amazing really, especially considering Michael Johnson could just barely dip under 5 minutes for the mile.

    Much aplogies, Just back from physio again, my memory is bad :o.
    I asked him again tonight and It is 4:25, not 4:10 that Gillick can run for the mile.


  • #81
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Woddle wrote: »
    There was a documentary (think it was a documentary)a few years back about an average Joe who wanted to break 4 minutes for the mile, I remember him having a chat with Eamon Coghlan, who told him he stood no chance and he was right, I think your man ran 4'59.
    Can't find any links for it but it backs up the off the street guy going sub 5.

    I think this is the one you are talking about

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZrXo90uIW4

    He's an uncle of one of my mates actually.

    Crazy that he thought he could run a sub 4 over 40 especially considering only one man has ever done that! :D It actually sums up the lack of knowledge the general public in Ireland have of elite athletics!


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    PVincent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭PVincent


    read this thread with great interest ....not really going to get involved in any argument about whether he can or cant do it other than to say that the 'ordinary joe ' will not do sub 5 unless they have a decent amount of 'athletic' ability ...

    I base my reasoning on what I have seen at our Aviva/Hibernian Charity Mile for the past 5 years ....in those 5 years as far as I am aware from my memory ( I have records somewhere) , there have been about 5/6 people out of all races that got under 5mins ...the ones I remember were all good club athletes (Karl Fahy Crusaders, John Travers Donore) ...

    hard work will get you so far but there were a lot of really good guys in these races who train hard all the time and still didnt break the 5mins...


  • #83
    myflipflops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    PVincent wrote: »
    read this thread with great interest ....not really going to get involved in any argument about whether he can or cant do it other than to say that the 'ordinary joe ' will not do sub 5 unless they have a decent amount of 'athletic' ability ...
    ...

    Give me any 10 healthy males in their twenties with the ability to run 6.30 - 7.00 minutes for mile or quicker at the moment.

    6 months of dedicated training and I'd be confident of every one running a mile in sub 5 minutes.

    5 minute mile is not a challenging time. I'm currently 3 stone overweight but am very tempted to take up this 5 minute mile challenge myself.


  • #84
    fiddy3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 138 ✭✭fiddy3


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Talent, schmalent. We are not talking about the OP becoming an elite miler. We are talking about him running under 5 mins. He's already run the equivalent of a 5:40 mile off a few weeks' training at 17. He definitely has enough 'talent'. What he doesn't have is enough training.

    Buddy, there's people who could train all their lives and not break a five minute mile, no matter how much they do. Also, there's people who can run a five minute mile just out of bed having not run in a year. As seb coe said, to break a four minute mile you have to win the genetic lottery, a five minute mile is a different proposition of course, but you still need an okay amount of talent do it, and the less talent you're born with the more hard work needed to run sub 5. Talent is CRITICAL in running performance and potential, talent schmalent is total crap. I noted he didn't have enough training, which is why i said he needs to be willing to do the work, you were saying running 50miles is nonsense, but maybe his maximum potential is 4:50, maybe it's 4:30, maybe it's 5:10, you don't know so to say 20 miles a week will definitely get him there is rubbish. I was just letting him know the level of training required if he is to reach his best potential, whatever that is. (PS- I also noted that any guy in their 20s with minimal talent can rub sub 5 once they train hard enough, so you basically agreed with me.)


  • #85
    gerard65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,612 ✭✭✭gerard65


    myflipflops wrote: »
    5 minute mile is not a challenging time. I'm currently 3 stone overweight but am very tempted to take up this 5 minute mile challenge myself.
    What I was thinking aswell. Alas, at 45 my days of sub5 miles are a distance memory:(. I ran 5:38 this year so maybe 5:30 is a possibity next year if I start training for it now.
    You don't need big milage to run a sub 5 mile, I never did anymore than 30 miles per week, with a longest run of 8 or 9 miles but we did alot of rep/interval type work and hill sprints.
    Pity the OP is off for a few months as I'd have like to see how he'd get on, but maybe someone else will take up the challenge - male of female.


  • #86
    Brianderunner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭Brianderunner


    myflipflops wrote: »
    Give me any 10 healthy males in their twenties with the ability to run 6.30 - 7.00 minutes for mile or quicker at the moment.

    5 minute mile is not a challenging time. I'm currently 3 stone overweight but am very tempted to take up this 5 minute mile challenge myself.

    I cannot agree, My pb for a mile is 5 mins, this was 4 years ago when i was fitter and faster than i am now. Back then i was running interval sessions with 2'50 marathoners, 5 x 400m in 78 secs with 90 secs rest. I would be happy with 5'10 at the mo. I am currently finishing in the top 5% of the field in the race series even at this level, which tells me i am way ahead of the average healthy male. You cant tell me that 10 healthy males in their 20's would beat my time on 6 months training, i just don't buy it.

    You can't put in what God left out.


  • #87
    myflipflops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    gerard65 wrote: »
    What I was thinking aswell. Alas, at 45 my days of sub5 miles are a distance memory:(. I ran 5:38 this year so maybe 5:30 is a possibity next year if I start training for it now.
    You don't need big milage to run a sub 5 mile, I never did anymore than 30 miles per week, with a longest run of 8 or 9 miles but we did alot of rep/interval type work and hill sprints.
    Pity the OP is off for a few months as I'd have like to see how he'd get on, but maybe someone else will take up the challenge - male of female.

    I'm up for trying it.

    I've been sub 4 for 1500 (in previous existance) though so I'm not sure I count as a candidate.


  • #88
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    gerard65 wrote: »
    Pity the OP is off for a few months as I'd have like to see how he'd get on, but maybe someone else will take up the challenge - male of female.

    I'll take up the challenge when I get down to Oz!

    Hitting the track tomorrow to test out the spikes over 400m. Hopefully I can go below that 67 I did last weekend without the spikes.


  • #89
    gerard65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,612 ✭✭✭gerard65


    myflipflops wrote: »
    I'm up for trying it.

    I've been sub 4 for 1500 (in previous existance) though so I'm not sure I count as a candidate.
    Good man. Now stick up a log so we can all rip your training to shreads:D


  • #90
    gerard65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,612 ✭✭✭gerard65


    04072511 wrote: »
    I'll take up the challenge when I get down to Oz!

    Hitting the track tomorrow to test out the spikes over 400m. Hopefully I can go below that 67 I did last weekend without the spikes.
    Great. Two logs to start fights on.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    myflipflops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    Brianderunner wrote: »
    I cannot agree, My pb for a mile is 5 mins, this was 4 years ago when i was fitter and faster than i am now. Back then i was running interval sessions with 2'50 marathoners, 5 x 400m in 78 secs with 90 secs rest. I would be happy with 5'10 at the mo. I am currently finishing in the top 5% of the field in the race series even at this level, which tells me i am way ahead of the average healthy male. You cant tell me that 10 healthy males in their 20's would beat my time on 6 months training, i just don't buy it.

    You can't put in what God left out.

    A session like this indicates to me that you weren't training very hard at all.

    You have no idea what God put in until you test it.


    Basically, it comes down to 2 opinion here:

    Those of us who think it's not possible as you need a lot of talent to run a 5 minute mile.

    Those of us who believe that talent only becomes a factor way after this point (4.25 mile or in my opinion) as a 5 minute mile is a very, very average physical feat for a young enough male who trains properly for it


Advertisement