nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Sub 5 minute Mile or Sub 3 hour Marathon. Which is a better achievement?

Pisco Sour

Came across an interesting discussion on letsrun here. The responses seem to be pretty 50/50.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3697914&page=0

So for the average person with no talent what is the greater achievement, going sub 5 for the mile, or sub 3 for the marathon?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

G-Money

Stupid question, but how do you guys accurately time yourselves to find out something like your 1 mile pace?

I know you can use garmin watches to work out pace but if you set out to run a mile at your best pace, how do you do that? Do you use a track?

My reason for asking is that I've clocked a route in my car that's just over 5k and I'd eventually like to run it. However I don't think it would be a good route to time myself on as there's roads and traffic lights to cross etc which would affect the time recorded.

I guess you just have to run around a track where there wouldn't be these delays?

ocnoc

mountain tops generally don't move.. they haven't fired anything that big in the Glen yet

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Run the route at night? Or yea, if you want an accurate distance, head to the track.

RayCun

grandmaster - either run in a race where the roads will be closed and the distance is measured for you, or run in a park (one with marked intervals or plot them yourself on mapmyrun). Or run on a track.

Krusty_Clown

Whereabouts are you based grandmaster? As RayCun pointed out, many parks have pretty accurately measured loops, and if they're not market out, then you can be sure there is someone posting on the forum who runs it regularly, and can tell you the distance of a specific route in the park.

Husavik

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

As is the 5 minute mile. It's meaningless. Like sub-3 it's just a label.
If you want relevant information from this discussion, ask someone who has done both.

Why was such a fuss made about breaking the 4 minute mile?

Krusty_Clown

Husavik wrote: »

Why was such a fuss made about breaking the 4 minute mile?

At the time it would have been a world record and had been espoused as being beyond human capability. Certainly not the case for either sub-5 nor sub-3.

Why dredge up a debate from a year ago?

Husavik

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

At the time it would have been a world record and had been espoused as being beyond human capability. Certainly not the case for either sub-5 nor sub-3.

Why dredge up a debate from a year ago?

Bloody hell. Just wrote a reply and it got wiped....

Re the 1 mile. It's now at what 3.43. I don't think many knew this but when the 4 min barrier was broken, pretty much everyone knew. It has a milestone value for everyone.

As to the second comment, well I don't look at the site all the time. I think I'm just back in because I'm doing the half on Sat (first race in over a year). So with a bit of luck I'll see you at the start. With a good dose more luck I might pass you...unlikely.

ecoli

Husavik wrote: »

Why was such a fuss made about breaking the 4 minute mile?

There are a few reasons for this:

1) its was the perfect record 4 laps, 4 minutes a min a lap almost a perfect symmetry

2) At the time physiologists had stated that it was beyond the capabilities of the human body and some even suggested that if someone did ever manage it they would die as a result (thankfully for the likes of Bannister and Landy this was proven wrong)

3) Bannister himself set on this task as a direct by product of his failures in the Helsinki Olympics in 1952 to bring back a medal. Being one of the favourites for the medal he walked away with nothing finishing fourth. This was a huge upset for the country who saw him winning the gold. His lack of racing coming up to the Games was heavily criticized and as a result he retorted with a statement announcing he was going to break the 4 min barrier.

4) Post War Britain was heavily rationed due to the economic depression which followed as a result of the war. The country lay in ruins. London hosted the 1948 Olympics which were a disaster in terms of their medal count. England came away with only 3 gold medals despite Germany, Japan, or the USSR not taking part. As a result the people of England got behind major achievements which boosted the moral of the people. National pride became paramount. In 1954 when the barrier was tackled moral was already high as a results of a new monarch and also Sir Edmond Hillary's reaching the summit of Mt Everest.

5) The media also played a huge role. The fact there were actually three men from different continents who had the capability to break it meant that every time one of them toed the line the record could go again ties in with National Pride. Wes Santee of the US, John Landy of Australia and Bannister of the UK were all in a race to break it over the years 1953-1954. Much like the space race this was a race to be the first as the man/ nation who achieved it first would be immortalized (which is accurate considering Landy broke Bannisters record 3 weeks later yet very few remember his name)

theboyblunder

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Why dredge up a debate from a year ago?

an uncharacteristic meeooowwww from the Clown

Krusty_Clown

Husavik wrote: »

Bloody hell. Just wrote a reply and it got wiped....

Re the 1 mile. It's now at what 3.43. I don't think many knew this but when the 4 min barrier was broken, pretty much everyone knew. It has a milestone value for everyone.

As to the second comment, well I don't look at the site all the time. I think I'm just back in because I'm doing the half on Sat (first race in over a year). So with a bit of luck I'll see you at the start. With a good dose more luck I might pass you...unlikely.

In 1908, the World Marathon Record was 2:55, so as long as the official marathon distance has been 42.195 kms (also 1908) the record has been faster than sub-3. Same goes for sub 5 minute mile. As long as the record keepers have been keeping records (1850+), the time has been significantly faster than sub-5 (4:28 in the year 1855). The notable exception is for females, where sub-5 for the mile was first broken by a female in 1954, with the sub-3 marathon being broken in 1971 (in an event in which female participation was discouraged for most of the 20th century).

So from a male perspective, a sub 5 minute mile and a sub-3 minute marathon have never been deemed comparable noteworthy achievements to breaking the 4 minute mile.

Husavik wrote:

So with a bit of luck I'll see you at the start. With a good dose more luck I might pass you...unlikely.

Come up and say hello. If the wind is as strong as it is today, we might end up having a crack at a 5 minute mile to get in 90 minutes.

Pisco Sour

A bit off topic, but how likely is it that a woman will ever run a mile in under 4 minutes. Certainly wont happen in my lifetime but how likely is it that it will happen eventually? And if not, where do people see the limit of female capability being? 4:05? 4:06?

The current record is 4:12 by Svetlana Masterkova set back in 1996 I think. Sonia is around 4th or 5th on the all time list with a 4:17 (a few dodgey characters ahead of her though mind you).

Krusty_Clown

theboyblunder wrote: »

an uncharacteristic meeooowwww from the Clown

Lol. Not really, just curious! The quoted text (I was quoted) was pretty benign and uninteresting, so seemed a strange one to come out of the blue!

04072511 wrote: »

A bit off topic, but how likely is it that a woman will ever run a mile in under 4 minutes. Certainly wont happen in my lifetime but how likely is it that it will happen eventually? And if not, where do people see the limit of female capability being? 4:05? 4:06?

The current record is 4:12 by Svetlana Masterkova set back in 1996 I think. Sonia is around 4th or 5th on the all time list with a 4:17 (a few dodgey characters ahead of her though mind you).

It took 39 years for men to go from 4:12 to 3:59. Perhaps a similar evolution?I guess the problem is that the mile is losing some of its status as a target (being the only non-metric distance left), and there just aren't the same volume of women competing at that level, as there are men.

Gringo78

04072511 wrote: »

A bit off topic, but how likely is it that a woman will ever run a mile in under 4 minutes. Certainly wont happen in my lifetime but how likely is it that it will happen eventually? And if not, where do people see the limit of female capability being? 4:05? 4:06?

The current record is 4:12 by Svetlana Masterkova set back in 1996 I think. Sonia is around 4th or 5th on the all time list with a 4:17 (a few dodgey characters ahead of her though mind you).

I do not think it is possible for a woman to run the mile in under 4min, it is beyond the physical capablity of the femal body. In fact, I think if they actually did manage it, it would be highly likely they would drop dead after crossing the finish line.

zico10

OT, but I remember there was a link on boards about an athlete who supposedly broke the 4 minute mile in Victorian era. I can't remember in what context exactly the link was posted, but it made for very interesting reading. I wasn't totally unconvinced of the veracity of the story either.
Does anybody know what I'm talking about?

RayCun

Gringo78 wrote: »

I do not think it is possible for a woman to run the mile in under 4min, it is beyond the physical capablity of the femal body. In fact, I think if they actually did manage it, it would be highly likely they would drop dead after crossing the finish line.

Worse, it could render them infertile :eek:

robinph

RayCun wrote: »

Worse, it could render them infertile :eek:

I'm pretty sure that anything further than an 800m will have that effect on wimmins. Must be true or they would have long distance races for them in the Olympics from the start.

gerard65

Their feet are too small.
Why did the mile become the 1500m. 1600m would have made more sense.

robinph

04072511 wrote: »

A bit off topic, but how likely is it that a woman will ever run a mile in under 4 minutes. Certainly wont happen in my lifetime but how likely is it that it will happen eventually? And if not, where do people see the limit of female capability being? 4:05? 4:06?

The current record is 4:12 by Svetlana Masterkova set back in 1996 I think. Sonia is around 4th or 5th on the all time list with a 4:17 (a few dodgey characters ahead of her though mind you).

Probably have women break the mens marathon record before they get under 4 minutes. If there were more women competing then another freak of nature such as Radcliffe would soon appear and start knocking chunks of the time again.

Brianderunner

I don't think that lack of numbers competing over a mile is a problem. 1,500m is essentially the same thing. If a woman were to run somewhere close to 3'42-3'43 for 1,500m then she would surely make an attempt at a sub 4 mile. Won't be happening any time soon though, if ever. The best women in the world are struggling to dip under 4 for 1500 these days.

TFBubendorfer

gerard65 wrote: »

Their feet are too small.
Why did the mile become the 1500m. 1600m would have made more sense.

Old European tracks were 500 meter laps, 1500 meters were a standard distance on those.

When they unified European and "Anglo-Saxon" distances and tracks, they agreed to more or less keep the shape of the anglo tracks (which went from 440 yards to 400 meters which is almost the same) on one hand but the European distances on the other. :eek:

Presumably it made sense back then ...

Pisco Sour

Speaking of the women's mile, I've literally just come across this great video. It's Sonia O'Sullivan's attempt at the mile world record back in 1994, which she just missed out on. There's a good chance many people have never seen this race, but it certainly was one of her most impressive performances, in terms of against the clock. Watch from 4 mins 20 onwards. (her European record for 3000m is before that, while not related to the mile, is also worth a watch).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lmygyLaAVE

robinph

She looked more than a little nervous before the start.

walshb

oldrunner wrote: »

The world record for the marathon is 2hrs 3 minutes 59 seconds. If you run a marathon in 2hrs 59minutes 59 seconds, you would take 1.45 times as long as the world record.
The world record for the mile is 3minutes 43.13 seconds. If you run a mile in 4 minutes 59.9 seconds, you would take 1.344 times as long as the world record.
Statistically, breaking the 5 minute mark is 8% better than breaking 3 hours, relative to world record times.
In order to run 1.344 times faster than the marathon world record, you need to run 2 hours 46 minutes 38 seconds.
Breaking 3 hours is just a hang up in marathon runners' minds. It is clearly a lot easier than breaking 5 minutes for the mile.
Having said that, it's horses for courses. I can trot out sub 5 minute miles but will never run a marathon and would probably break down training to go sub 3 hours.

Good analogy and breakdown, but, how does 1.45 vs. 1.34 translate to "a lot easier?"

I also doubt you can 'trot' out 5 min miles;)

--amadeus--

zico10 wrote: »

OT, but I remember there was a link on boards about an athlete who supposedly broke the 4 minute mile in Victorian era. I can't remember in what context exactly the link was posted, but it made for very interesting reading. I wasn't totally unconvinced of the veracity of the story either.
Does anybody know what I'm talking about?

Pre Victorian actually, back in the 18th century huge amounts of money were being wagered on races being run by professionals with a number of credible claims for accurately measured and timed mile runs of sub 4 mins. It was in Victorian times when gentlemen amateurs (who considered training to be unsportsmanlike and whose performances were often quite poor by the professionals standards) codified the sport and defined it's not for profit ethos that these times were excluded by the governing bodies and slowly forgotten about. Link to a great article (probably the one you are talking about) here and there is a great book called "The Marathon Makers" that tells the story of the 1908 Olympics that gives a good background on the conflict between pro and amateur athletics at the time.

As an aside (and back a bit OT) the Observer article mentions some very fast marathonish distance times and while the 1908 Olympic marathon (and the earlier iterations of it) were not won in quick times this again is down to the AAA excluding any professionals from running and there is evidence to suggest that there were runners 200 years ago who were running ~2:10 equivalent for 26.2 miles.

Larry Brent

walshb wrote: »

I also doubt you can 'trot' out 5 min miles;)

He can. Racing well he'd do (and does a few times a year or the 1500 equivalent) 4.48-4.50, so an extra 2.5-3s a lap makes a massive difference. Running 4.48 each lap would be tough, running 4.59 the first 3 laps would feel comfortable, even though you'd be moving, but you'd know that you'd easily pick it up for the last lap.

oldrunner

Larry Brent wrote: »

He can

Thanks Larry.

I don't want to get stuck in this debate again - I was probably a little casual in using the word 'trot'.

zico10

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Pre Victorian actually, back in the 18th century huge amounts of money were being wagered on races being run by professionals with a number of credible claims for accurately measured and timed mile runs of sub 4 mins. It was in Victorian times when gentlemen amateurs (who considered training to be unsportsmanlike and whose performances were often quite poor by the professionals standards) codified the sport and defined it's not for profit ethos that these times were excluded by the governing bodies and slowly forgotten about. Link to a great article (probably the one you are talking about) here

That's exactly what I was referring to, thanks. Arguments are even more convincing than what I remember.
Anybody else think these guys really did run sub 4 minute miles?

ocnoc

No reason why they wouldn have.

Most people spend most of the time sitting down in work - not exactly manual labour jobs that would build strength and fitness.
Then look at the state of peoples diets now

BeepBeep67

ocnoc wrote: »

No reason why they wouldn have.

Most people spend most of the time sitting down in work - not exactly manual labour jobs that would build strength and fitness.
Then look at the state of peoples diets now

But they didn't have Garmins, Nike Frees, compression socks, High5 isogels and protein recovery shakes - impossible :rolleyes:

RayCun

ocnoc wrote: »

Most people spend most of the time sitting down in work - not exactly manual labour jobs that would build strength and fitness.
Then look at the state of peoples diets now

Being a farm labourer might make you strong, but does it make you run fast?
And you should compare the diet of sub-4 runners today to the diet of those 18th century runners. The diet of a non-running couch potato is beside the point.