kny wrote:
[ Yup. I think what rubbed me the wrong way about h2owings, aside from how close his handle is to h2ofun, is his nonchalance of 4:20 as if it's no great shakes. "Oh, I did 4:20 when I was 30 and it was no big deal, and I'm sure I could do it again at 40 too if I threw some speedwork into my training" I am highly skeptical of such claims.
I ran in college. I was a good but not extraordinary D3 runner. I was a 1:57, 3:58, 15:00, 31:30 guy. 3:58 is 4:16 mile equivalent. So I barely managed that "no big deal" 4:20 mile level when young, fast, and training my ass off year round. I appreciate what sub 4 really is and what even the seemingly pedestrian 4:20 is. To think that a bunch of 40yo strong runners not named Bernard Lagat think they are just going to do a few intervals and be able to throw down that time is a bit ludicrous. But, maybe not. I don't know the guy.
I used to be a track guy too. The only way it works is if he was a very solid D1 swimmer with a huge engine who also had a running background - say competitive soccer or actually used to train intervals. Otherwise he may have run 4:20 for 1500 at age 30, but that is about it. anything is possible, but very unlikely at age thirty (presumably after quitting full competitive swim training) he jumps on the track without spikes and any speedwork and runs a 4:20 mile.
Even more unlikely that he could come even close at 40.
The difference between say a 5 minute mile and 420 is huge. People don't appreciate how the improvement curve flatters at that speed for most runners - even very talented ones.