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

Racing Flat · 22-05-2009 08:09AM #1

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 · 22-05-2009 08:17AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:18AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:20AM

Definitely B.

shels4ever · 22-05-2009 08:24AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:28AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:28AM

The mile.

wizwill · 22-05-2009 08:30AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:31AM

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-- · 22-05-2009 08:32AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:36AM

--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 · 22-05-2009 08:38AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:38AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:41AM

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-- · 22-05-2009 08:48AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:50AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:53AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:54AM

--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 · 22-05-2009 08:56AM

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 · 22-05-2009 08:59AM

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-- · 22-05-2009 09:04AM

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 · 22-05-2009 09:07AM

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 · 22-05-2009 09:08AM

--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 · 22-05-2009 09:08AM

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-- · 22-05-2009 09:10AM

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 · 22-05-2009 09:10AM

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 · 22-05-2009 09:12AM

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 · 22-05-2009 09:12AM

--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-- · 22-05-2009 09:16AM

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 · 22-05-2009 10:02AM

Without a doubt the 5 min mile ....

robinph · 22-05-2009 10:18AM

--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.

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

Comments