Different people react in different ways to high mileage.
I for example was running a typical 10 mile (race)at 6 minute pace. Took a few months to build up the miles
to an even 100 and voila: 5:30's. It brought my 5k from low 17's to low 16's. Wasn't really worth it when you have 50-something women running that fast but nevertheless it was still a substantial drop in times. Food for thought
for the original poster.
My 5k progression:
HS
Junior yr- 21 something (I started XC late)
Senior yr- 18:20
College
1st yr- 17:42
2nd yr- 17:17
3rd yr- 16:53
4th yr- 16:22
I hope to be sub 16 by September. Between 2nd-3rd yr I was probably doing around 40-50 with a 3 mi tempo and some kind of interval work. Dropping to 16:22 took averaging 50mpw for 2 months with a high of 65. Similar workouts like tempos, 6x800s, 4x1200s, just faster times than before. All of this was done without a team, mostly training on my own. So yes, a Sub 16 with little talent is possible (my first 5k was somewhere around 24 minutes...).
Axel, looks like we are in exactly the same boat. I started Junior year. My first 5k was 23:56. It gives me a lot of hope. Thanks for all the advice everyone gave. It is greatly appreciated! It gives my running career worthwile.
CondomSense wrote:
Anyone can run 16 flat. All you have to do is have a little patience, a little heart, a lot of hard work, and some nuts...
Ha! No way can "anyone" run 16 flat. There are road races all over this country complete with runners who actually train to run their fastest where the winning time isn't below 16 minutes. I know guys who ran in college, continue to run and run the ocassional 100 mile weeks who couldn't run 17 minutes flat, let alone 16 minutes to save their lives.
Here is how I did it (break '16' for 5000).
I was living in England at the time, and running for Hercules Wimbledon Athletic club with teammates like Dave Clarke (3:39, 7:56, 13:22, 27:56, 2:13) and Bob Holt (3:51, 7:59, 13:48, 28;39, 2:16).
1975 - ran 16:13. Training was 5 miles a day, mostly steady with some tempo. (age 19)
1976 - ran 15:56 for 5000 at Tooting Bec. Training again was 5 miles a day, mostly steady with some tempo (age 20).
1977 - ran 15:41, for 5000 at Highgate Open meeting. Training was 5 miles a day, mostly steady with some tempo (age 21).
1978 - ran 15:17.4, for 5000 at the Melbourne Trophy Meeting at Wimbledon Park, London. Training was mostly 5 miles twice a day, for a total of about 60 miles a week, with a long run on Sundays (10-12 miles). Also ran p.b.s of 52:06 for 10 miles and 1:50.49 for 20 miles (Finchley '20'). (age 22)
1979 - did not improve on my time. Ran around 15:30 for 5000 at Croydon Arena. Same training as 1978 - with two 5 mile runs on most days. (age 23)
1980-81 - Ran for Mansfield State University in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., a Division 2 school. Moved my mileage up to 80 miles a week....but only improved marginally, running a time of 14:42 for 3 miles indoors at Bucknell in February 1981.....that time for 3 miles is equal to about 15:12 for 5000, and that time was never improved upon again. (age 24).
Also - I was never fast -with best times of only 4:19 (1500) and 8:57 (3000 indoors at Rochester, U.S.A. in February 1981).
So in a nutshell....with minimal talent (like me) it is not difficult to break '16' and I did it dozens of times with a training regimen of about 30 minutes per day (5 miles).
The key is to be consistent in training. In the 1977-1980 period I rarely if ever missed a day of running, and even though I was mostly only doing 30 minute tempo runs, the continuity and consistency does pay off.
More info:
coach: Chris Moulton, e-mail:
I do not believe it necessary to suffer with endless track training to break '16' for 5000 - and as shown in the previous post, I broke '16' for 5000 many times without ever stepping onto the track - except on race day....
All my training was on the roads and preferably trails, on Wimbledon Common, which is such an inspring setting for runners with its miles and miles of trails through the woods, making it easy to run fartlek type sessions (like the Kenyans). Track training might have helped me to go a bit faster, but it would have destroyed my enjoyment of the sport.
Of course, once you want to reach a certain level (sub. '15' for 5000) then some track training is probably beneficial and necessary, but my thought was always that if you could not break '16' based on tempo running, then you did not have much of a talent in any case....
And athletes are different, each case is different. I have known some athletes, like Ray Marriott (SLH), who was not a particularly talented athlete, but through persistent and agonising track sessions at Croydon Arena (South London) managed to get down to a very creditable 14:30 for 5000...and certainly, in his case, he would have been stuck at around 15:30-16:00 had he not done the work on the track.
The key, though, is the steady base of running over a few years, of which much of the quality should come from tempo running, which is less destructive than interval running.
Dr.S wrote:
You definitely have potential to break 16 at some point in your life. You just gotta train right. So many people are all about high mileage, and doing 100 miles a week may get you there, or it may crush your goals when you wind up so injured you can no longer run... Not worth it.
In 10th grade, I ran 6:23 for the mile... Started out running 5K XC in 12th grade, and was running mid-18's and managed to get it down to 17:31 by year's end with decent coaching. Ran about 30 miles a week and got it down to 16:18 and ran 5M in 27:30 at that time. Kept on training 40-50 a week and got down to 15:17 within two years. I was never naturally talented
Sorry to spoil your myth of the self-made man, but you were clearly very talented. I'm guessing you ran 6:23 off zero training, so it's meaningless as an indicator of talent. That you ran 16:18 on 30 MPW is even more proof. Even with the most quality workouts imaginable, 16:18 on 30 MPW is a lot of talent.
Back to the talent thing....in 1977 I ran 15:41 for 5000 at the twilight meet in Highgate (North London), and my training for the past year was 30-35 minutes a day (maximum), no intervals, no hills, no structured workouts....just a 30-35 minute run every day...mostly at around 7 minutes per mile, going down to around 6:20 toward the end of some of the runs.....
I was far from talented, but the key was the consistency from running 30-35 minutes (every day)....and staying healthy. I had a low BMI at the time, being 6feet 2inches tall, and weighing around 145 pounds....so I was not carrying any extra weight...which made me a pretty efficient runner.
You do not need talent to break '16' - just a certain level of commitment to running on an almost daily basis.
Three letters man...
E P O.
Dr.S wrote:
Sorry to spoil your myth of the self-made man, but you were clearly very talented. I'm guessing you ran 6:23 off zero training, so it's meaningless as an indicator of talent. That you ran 16:18 on 30 MPW is even more proof. Even with the most quality workouts imaginable, 16:18 on 30 MPW is a lot of talent.
My PB is 16.13 and that was running an average of just over 25 miles a week beforehand. I don't think I'm particularly talented either. In fact, I didn't start running properly until my early 30s and am at the heavier end of the BMI for someone of my height. What it did involve was following five-pace training and doing all my recovery runs on grass to strengthen my legs and reduce impact on them. That made a big difference. I also tried to eat and drink more sensibly (with only limited success). That's all.