Does going sub 20 in the 5k take any degree of talent for a female?

I almost forgot. Your 800 time also seems too fast in relation to your 5k, 10k, 21k times. Especially your half and 10k times. Seem kind of slow for someone with those 400 and 800 times. That means that you're lacking endurance.

Obviously you've got some speed. You don't need to do much work there at all. You now need to bank up a massive savings account of endurance, and cash in on that speed you've already worked on!

so much BS crap advice in a single thread. my eyes burn.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

When I was dating my now wife I half jokingly said that I couldn't get married to her unless she broke 20 minutes for a 5k. She found a slightly downhill, point to point 5k and ran 19:36.

Yezzy, I will marry you if you run a sub-20 5k. Guess that got you motivated!!!

I am a man who really didn't start running seriously until 40, but took my 5K pr from 22:xx to sub 20 in 4 years by running a lot of long, hill/mountain runs, most of them pretty easy, but also with regular tempo runs of 3-5 miles on the track. Overall mileage was around 40mpw, but since much of that was on difficult trails, I was getting some extra value per mile. You are going to have to run decent mileage to get better and 20mpw is not nearly enough.

You need a lot of aerobic base, leg strength, and efficiency to take that much off your PR. Long runs and lots of hills are going to take care of the first two. Efficiency can be improved in the track intervals or tempo runs. I personally like track tempo runs because you can get fairly close to your 5K pace without having to worry about obstacles. If you are running 22:30, run a 5K per week on the track at 23:30 or 23:45, then try to run a bit faster after a month or two.

It's going to take awhile to cut minutes off your 5K. Probably a few years, but if you stick with it, it will probably come together for you over the course of those years. Then one summer, bam, you will likely surprise yourself.

Yes, running sub 20 does require some talent, but in the words of mountain running champ Matt Carpenter, "The talent that matters is between your ears".

somebloke wrote:

so much BS crap advice in a single thread. my eyes burn.

Or you could try politely disputing what's been posted with some information of your own, then post your own advice and why you think it better than anything stated thus far.

Live to run wrote:

1) A few others have mentioned it, 45 mpw is low mileage. It's not snobby, it's just facts. It might feel high, probably because all of your peers run 20-30 mpw, right? I've been there, I know a lot of people who are still there. Thinking that because they run 10-20 miles more than 95% of their runner friends that they're running "high mileage". Sorry, but you're not. Start training to hit 60, 70, hell even 80 mile weeks for 6 months straight,

Bingo. OP, I'm also female, and several years ago broke 20 for the first time. Especially for someone like you, with more speed than endurance, you need more mileage. You've got the leg speed, you just don't have the endurance.

A lot of people have given you solid advice already, so mine will stick to: 1) never smoke another cigarette again, 2) up that mileage - anything below 60 is low mileage, IMHO, 3) tempo and marathon pace work should be a regular part of your training. Resist the urge to do too many 200s and 400s - they're not what you need to work on right now.

A question that no one's asked yet - how are you executing your races? Are you going out at significantly faster than sub-20 pace and then falling apart? If so, that would be totally characteristic for someone with your leg speed. And improving how you pace your races would help you considerably.

Also, I struggled for about 2 years to break 20 before I finally did it. And I really felt like part of it may have been mental - it just became this albatross to me. I finally broke it, and felt like a weight was off of me. Several years of consistent training later, I broke 19, indicating that my previous struggles to break 20 weren't due to physical limits.

Two things that help me when I'm getting too focused on a specific time barrier -

1) I now run all my races watchless. I've had numerous PRs that would have never happened had I been staring at my watch - I'd have just panicked at a fast split and talked myself out of the race.

2) I ignore that distance for a while and focus on hitting equivalent times at other distances. For you, I'd spend some time focusing on 10Ks, trying to get that time down to around 41:30. Once you're there, then turn back to the 5K.

I'm not anywhere near 20 min shape right now. Probably around 23. My lifetime pr is 22:30. And yeah, you're dead right- my first mile is always the quickest. Usually when I go out for a race, my first mile ends up being anywhere between 6:45-6:59 (and feels strady, I feel like if I go out any slower then i'd be holding back unevcesarily) and my last two miles end up being around 7:20 pace no matter what I do. Like, if I went out in 7:05 or something, I'd still find it impossible to push harder in the later portion of the race. I've tried to get sub 7 splits countless times in 5ks and couldnt have done it if my life depended on it. I definitely lack speed endurance. I feel like the root cause of my lack of ability to push is my breathing which normally falls apart after the 1.6-7 mile mark. My goal is to be at 60 MPW by christmas and then I'll see where my race times/endurance is at then. I've recently uppsed my milage from 20MPW to 30MPW. Right now I'm focused on building my tempo runs (at 7:45-8.05pace) from 3 miles currently to about 7-8 miles.

*unneccesarily

Personally, I think you need to get off the coaching or following specific plans and get back to more unstructured base building for 10-12 weeks. It seems like you may be following all of these plans to a T and you may just be over tired or burned out.

Consistent running will get you to that barrier, but work on the goals in incremental chunks, ie sub 22, then sub 21, sub 20, etc.

Follow the base-building with 8-10 weeks of pre-competition phase, then another 8-10 weeks of competition (specific) phase.

Also remember to train at your current level, not your goal level. If you're in 22 min shape, train at 22 min shape, not faster. Take easy days easy and hard days hard. So easy days should be 8:20+ (McMillan calc, for example)

AdrianCh wrote:

Keep in mind that a 20 min 5k for a female is like 18 min for a guy.

So wrong. So so wrong.

IAAF tables say...

- 360 points for a male who runs a 18:00 5k

- 654 points for a female who runs a 20:00 5k.

For what it's worth, 23:52 5k is worth 360 points for females and a 15:54 5k is worth 654 for males.

I'm not saying those tables are perfect, but they're better than your conversions. Heck, look at the high school and collegiate ranks... see what the top runners on both sides are doing.

Yezzy wrote:

And yeah, you're dead right- my first mile is always the quickest. Usually when I go out for a race, my first mile ends up being anywhere between 6:45-6:59 (and feels strady, I feel like if I go out any slower then i'd be holding back unevcesarily) and my last two miles end up being around 7:20 pace no matter what I do. Like, if I went out in 7:05 or something, I'd still find it impossible to push harder in the later portion of the race. I've tried to get sub 7 splits countless times in 5ks and couldnt have done it if my life depended on it. I definitely lack speed endurance. I feel like the root cause of my lack of ability to push is my breathing which normally falls apart after the 1.6-7 mile mark.

Well.. quitting smoking for good will massively help with the breathing :).

What you've described is a perfect match to how my friends with sprinter or gymnastics experience experience racing - the first bit is very easy, and going out slow feels ridiculous, and then they fade.

The way I think about it - you (and they) have two engines - one is that supercharged short distance speed engine, and the other is the longer aerobic engine (and yes, I know my terminology is not scientific). That speed engine is very overdeveloped in you, while that aerobic engine is not. So it just feels ridiculously easy and natural to rely on that speed engine. But of course, that fails you about a mile into the race.

For you, it's CRUCIAL not to run your workouts too fast. It's very tempting for you to, because faster feels more natural, and because we all assume that faster splits are always better. Not so. In your case, you really need to take care to keep a lid on your workout paces, so that you are stressing and developing that aerobic engine, not the speed one.

Think of it as similar to strength training - sometimes certain muscles are dominant, and take over when you are lifting heavy. If you want to train and develop other muscles, you need to actually reduce the weight that you are lifting, to the point where you can focus on and use the correct muscles, instead of the dominant ones.

Also, I'd run a 5K as an experiment. Take the splits from a previous 5K, and try to reverse them. For example, if you ran 6:45/7:20/7:20, then go out in 7:20 or slower for miles 1 and 2 (yes, it will feel stupid), and then see what you have left. The point here is not to run your best or fastest 5K this time around. The point is to learn what you can run for the third mile after staying conservative the first two miles.

If you can really hammer the last mile, then that tells you that pacing is an issue. Go out for another 5K, do the first mile in 7:20, and then see what you can do for the second 2 miles.

OTOH, if you fall apart in the third mile even after the slow start, then that tells us that you REALLY need to work on your stamina - perhaps with work at 10K pace to 10 mile pace - 2x3200 at 10K pace or 3-4 miles at 10 mile pace.

macdaddy wrote:

AdrianCh wrote:

Keep in mind that a 20 min 5k for a female is like 18 min for a guy.

So wrong. So so wrong.

IAAF tables say...

- 360 points for a male who runs a 18:00 5k

- 654 points for a female who runs a 20:00 5k.

For what it's worth, 23:52 5k is worth 360 points for females and a 15:54 5k is worth 654 for males.

I'm not saying those tables are perfect, but they're better than your conversions. Heck, look at the high school and collegiate ranks... see what the top runners on both sides are doing.

So....by those tables, a 23:52 female 5K is equal to a male 18:00? And a female 20:00 equals a male 15:54?

I have to admit, I'm finding that really hard to buy. I train with a large group of runners, both male and female, of all levels, including 23-24 minute females and sub-16 males.

I'd buy that a sub-20 female equals a sub-17:30 male. There is no way that 23:52=18:00

I agree.

FWIW, she graded results for a 20 min 5k female @ 24 years old ~ 73.8%. the equivalent male is about 17:35

Also OP, you smoke? Well if that's the case I think we know why you're not running the right times... Case closed

Jeremy R wrote:

I agree.

FWIW, she graded results for a 20 min 5k female @ 24 years old ~ 73.8%. the equivalent male is about 17:35

Also OP, you smoke? Well if that's the case I think we know why you're not running the right times... Case closed

Quit a year ago.

17:30M = 20:00F

Someone may have mentioned this specifically somewhere already, but if aerobic fitness is one of your issues something as simple as learning how to regulate your breathing well can help immensely. I'm a collegiate (female) runner and never really learned how to breathe properly until this summer and even coming off an injury this spring in track, I've dropped my threshold pace down 30sec per mile by just keeping my breathing controlled and making sure I breathe deeply enough. Before this my legs would start getting heavy and giving out long before I knew I was truly spent simply because I wasn't getting in enough oxygen. I know it's likely no miracle cure but it's worth a try? The worst to happen is you'll start feeling a little better while running.

I smoked regularly the year I ran my PR.

Michel Jazy ran a WR for the mile as a smoker. People put too much stock in smoking diminishing performance.

A lot of that is because people are generally sedentary as smokers and assume that it's the smoking that makes them incapable of doing anything.

MMMV from Yours wrote:

I smoked regularly the year I ran my PR.

Michel Jazy ran a WR for the mile as a smoker. People put too much stock in smoking diminishing performance.

A lot of that is because people are generally sedentary as smokers and assume that it's the smoking that makes them incapable of doing anything.

If you smoked the lungs probably weren't your limoting factor. Same for anybody else who runs well wholst smoking. OP stated earlier on in the thread she was training whilst smoking and saw major improvements afterboutting the cigarettes down.

I've both smoked and ran for 25 years. I quit last october and I've PR'd in every single event since.

I agree with the people who say you need to increase your mileage.

But also there is something seriously strange if a person who runs 14.7 100m can only muster an 80 second 400m. That's over 5 seconds slower per 100m. You are clearly lacking speed endurance too and yes that even matters in the 5k. With even minimal speed endurance training you should be able to run 66 at least for the 400m.

Even for the 5k you eventually need to do some intense workouts like 6x300 with full recovery You don't need to do them now while building up your mileage (but still don't neglect pure speed in the form of strides). However, incorporating a workout like that once a week from 6 weeks out to 1 week out from a 5k that you want to peak for, will do wonders.

Good luck and please keep us posted about your progress.