Has anyone run a sub 5 mile and NOT broken 20 in the 5K?

i ran 4:43 indoors and 17:01 outdoors on the track as a freshman in college and 4:39/16:20 outdoors. now after many years off, I haven't yet broken 5 on the track (5:03) but have run 17:24 on the road, slightly uphill, but I'm running 80/week with a tempo run at sub 6 for 3-7 miles and a track workout at sub 5:30 for half, sub 80 for quarters. speed is much worse but 5k's are sustained better. there's no way that somone running 4:57 shouldn't be able to knock the 5k time down several minutes easily from 20+. when I was just coming back on 10 mpw I ran 5:32 and 20:30 and the 5k was down to 19:15 a year later on 30 + mpw.

Oranges wrote:

Just wondering. My mile time is 4:57, but my best 5K is 20:18. Is anyone else like me?

And no, I do not have some kind of crazy speed. In fact, I can't even break 56 in the 400.

wow what are you running like 15 mpw?

5:00

17:49

4:50, 17:42(from 2 years ago)

This has been one of the kindest threads in letsrun history. . . what's the matter with you guys? Isn't anyone man enough to call the original poster something derogatory?

I'd agree with everyone else about tempos and doing more mileage (30-40 mpw isn't really that much, especially if you only run in season, like many Hsers do).

One element that I'd think about adding to your training plan that no one else has mentioned is cutdown runs. They could start as 5 miles long, with a two mile warmup, a two-mile cutdown from your easy pace to 6:20-6:30/mile pace, and a one mile wardown, and progress to eight miles, with a two mile warmup, a four mile cutdown to 6:20/mile pace, and a two mile warmdown. This is a good, medium-effort aerobic workout and should get you used to steadily picking up your effort over distance, which should really help your 5k (and the aerobic work should help your mile, too).

Not An Expert wrote:

This has been one of the kindest threads in letsrun history. . . what's the matter with you guys? Isn't anyone man enough to call the original poster something derogatory?

Not going after the OP here, but the guy who said 4:53 or whatever equates to 18-19 5k for "general runners" is a grade A idiot.

That's like saying a 3:52 mile is like a 15-16 5k for "general runners." I don't know if LHS is just retarded, trolling, or has no concept of how actual runners train.

The guy backed up his 4:55 and 15:50 with reasons, and actually those times are a hell of a lot closer to lining up than 4:55 and 18:01. My PR's are 4:33 and 14:59 (actually the 5k is a bit weak compared to my 3k), so extrapolating that 3 minutes up in the 5k to 18:01 means I should have run around a 5:30 mile with an 18:01 PR. And I've run 53 in the open 400, so the same speed as LHS.

And if you ran 18:01 by going out like a bloody idiot with 5:10 for the opening mile or did it on a hilly road/XC course, please leave your comments at the gate, because the point of the original post was about people who have actually put in times close to their potential.

That said, I think someone like Michael Johnson could probably run sub-5:00 but not sub-20:00, with equally motivated efforts.

YOU SUCK!!!!

Three miles in 6:26 each. That's all you need. Think about it!This just doesn't make sense that you could run a sub-5 mile and not string together three 6:25 miles. What are you doing the first mile of your 5k's in? Get some volume in your legs. Do 50 miles a week of all easy running for one month. Once or twice a week, push the middle miles of one of these easy runs down around 7:00 - only if it feels easy. With some volume and your speed, you should be able to do the first two miles of your 5k well under 13...if you pass that 2 mile marker under 13, mentally and physically you're going to have it in the bag.

Oranges wrote:

I was running 30-40 MPW, and it still wasn't enough to break 20 :(

Get your mileage up a little - all easy miles remember - and a sub-20 5K will feel like walking. You can do this easily.

Oh, yeah. 4:58/16:30.

I only broke five for a mile the one time (adult recreational runner; all roads no track), and I only rarely broke 17 for 5k. But I ran low 17's for 5k all the time.

I ran sub 2 for 800m but couldn't break 20

to the OP:

If you are no a troll, then listen up:

Screw the mileage/tempos/long runs. You are at best an 800 runner (though not especially gifted at that, but at least you won't get humiliated like in the 5K). Work on your speed, and stick to the track.

As the Brits like to say: "horses for courses".

Of the runners I coach (High School), here are some mile and XC 5k prs.

4:36/16:20

4:59/ 17:03

4:43/ 16:55

5:10/ 17:04

4:45/ 16:45

4:55/ 18:00ish

5:05/ 18:00ish

We have a bunch of kids at or just under 5:00 and 17:00. There are some factors that I should mention. First, I coach them in XC, but not track( I coach 400 and 800 only). Our styles of coaching do not differ greatly. We both focus on enduance/aerobic capacity rather than speed and anaerobic work. I think he should do more of the latter in track.

Second, there is obviously about 5 months between some of these times, in both directions.

Third, Xc is obviously run on grass as where track is usaully on all-weather surfaces.

One Pace wrote:

4.55 mile and 15.58 5k

As a distance I "didn't take the mile seriously". I was coming down to it via 5k, having entered running as an adult 10k road racer. At 33-odd years old, I was hardly going to seek a career in the mile, having found 4.55 a shattering experience.

When I was assisting at my old high school, we had a kid who was 6th or 7th runner in the cross country, on a team that had the second best team time at the CA state cross country meet (looking at all divisions). He ran in the mid-16's for 5K on hilly cross country courses. But his best mile was 5:02.

He desperately wanted to break 5:00 in the mile. He ran the mile a lot in track, especially during his senior season, for obvious reasons - he was embarrassed by his mile PR and wanted to put it behind him. I don't think I've ever seen someone so disappointed to run a PR as he was when he ran 5:02. He ran a lot of other races in the 5:04-5:10 range. He's the slowest guy I've ever seen who could run at a decent level in cross country. He wasn't much faster than 70 in the quarter based my old memories of mile relays in dual meets("C" team or the like).

Last year pr's 5k-18:32, mile-5:13. Age 48

Oranges wrote:

Just wondering. My mile time is 4:57, but my best 5K is 20:18. Is anyone else like me?

And no, I do not have some kind of crazy speed. In fact, I can't even break 56 in the 400.

Most everyone reading letsrun think that they are distance runners, so there is a bias that assumes that everyone can be good at distance running.

Maybe you are just not well trained, but from the limited information that we know about you, it is just as likely that you are just not a distance runner. You might not be faster than 56 at this point, but that is a decent time and is "better" than your mile time on equivalency charts. So maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to explore your ability in the sprints through the mile.

Good points but somewhat off target. I know not everyone can be a distance runner but I also know that if you can break 5 minutes in the mile you should be able to run a low 11 two mile no matter what your genetic traits are or how you are trained.

Wolfgang Grajonca wrote:

This just doesn't make sense that you could run a sub-5 mile and not string together three 6:25 miles. What are you doing the first mile of your 5k's in?

Usually, I do them around the 6:10-6:20 range. I tried neg splitting and running even splits, but my times always seem to hover around the 20:15-20:30 area no matter what method i use.

I ran 5:09 and 17:53 on the track in the same season.

Macmillan conversion suggests:

4:53 = 16:55

5:09 = 17:50

I would think that it's fairly accurate. I really don't know anyone that could run 4:53 but only 18-19 minutes.

This season I've run 16:52 and 4:51. Trying to get my mile a good bit faster, but I'm not exactly a speed runner.

On your comment that you're not super fast, I think 56 quarter speed is pretty fast for a 4:57/20-min guy. Nothing extraordinary, but certainly above the average quarter mark among 4:57 (or thereabouts) milers. Don't be afraid to work on the 5k and 2 mile marks for personal satisfaction, but I think it's pretty clear that you're suited to middle distance.

Tons of good advice on this thread, and the best that "Oranges" can do is comment on how he paces the 5K. I think we have our answer on why this runner is wasting their time in the 5K and why he is getting nowhere.