It's too damn hard to run a sub 5 mile

God I hate these boards sometimes. Supremely talented people just don't understand that people with average talent can work hard all they want and still not be incredible. Some people just aren't that talented or trainable. You may be neither.

Sounds like you've tried a lot. Given your PR's, I would guess you are a fast-twitch guy... the 55 is more impressive than the 2:11 which is more impressive than the 5:15.

Given that you've tried so many different modes of training, I would say pat yourself on the back for having given it more of a go than most people would have the guts to. Keep fighting to get faster if you want to. If not, don't beat yourself up.

OP, I think you can do it!! First of all, don't get lighter than you are bodyweight-wise. You need real speed, I would recommend hill sessions (150m-200m up a relatively steep hill, in sets, like 4 x 4 x 150).

Second, get your 800m time down to 2:05.

Third, string together 800 reps in 2:20. 3 x 800m. Or start by 3 x 600s in 1:45.

Fourth, add cardio work on a bike, if you have so much time.

Good luck, and hope you make it!!

If you can run 55 you ought to be able to run under 5. If you can run 2:11 you ought to be able to. However, a 55/2:11 combo indicates a serious lack of endurance. At 55, you should be somewhere between 2:00-2:05. Heck, I was a 54/1:58 in HS (but I ran 4:14).

Can you work on your endurance? Sure, but only so far. Still, I'd think you should be able to run sub 5:00. You need to run slower mileage. Keep your heart rate in the 185-age range and put in a good 50 or so miles a week. DO NOT neglect your speed. Do short sprints 2-3 times a week near max speed after some of your runs. You just need to do 6-8 X 50-75yards.

After 2-3 months, you should be running faster at the same effort. You can run a test once every 2-3 weeks. Run a mile at that same easy pulse rate. You're time should be getting faster.

If you are making progress, then start adding a tempo run once a week. 2-3 miles at 85% max heart rate. A month or so after that add intervals. Start with 3-4 X 1000 in addition to the tempo run. After a few weeks drop the tempo and add another session of 8x400 at mile pace. A few weeks later drop the longer intervals and add 15X200 at faster than mile pace.

This should get you ready. Whether you can break 5 after 4-5 months at age 29 in another story, but I will say 29 is NOT too old. However, you are getting close to where you will start slowing down. It happens to us all. Endurance should last longer, but speed goes in your 30's for most of us.

wtfunny wrote:

Did you try pushups?

Don't bail out now, Mo didn't hit his PR for this distance til he was in his 30's.

All that said ..

I agree with you, 5m/mile is WAY faster than most people are capable of running, or even coming close to. WAY faster.

I found that once I started lifting, junio year of HS, and significantly increased my upper body strength, I had a huge breakthrough in mile time (5:22 sophomore year to 4:52 jr year). Bench press soph year: 105 lbs, jr year: 165 lbs.

"Supremely talented people just don't understand that people with average talent"

This is a web-site dedicated to talented runners. Not average runners.

I'd wager that a good majority of posters here ran or run HS XC and track, and that a good portion went on to run college XC/Track division I, II, or III. 100% of people running college can break 5:00. A good 50% or more of HS runners can break 5:00 by their senior year or are at least close enough that if they trained more they'd do it in another year or two.

Yes, running sub-5 for the average american is hard even if trained for it, but this board in NOT a representative sample.

blotto wrote:

put in a good 50 or so miles a week

blotto is clearly a natural endurance guy, whereas the OP is more likely (but not certainly) a fast-twitch guy.

Unless the OP is doing doubles, I don't think he should do as much as 50 miles per week, as that mileage on singles would probably do more harm than good.

this is a board for serious runners, not fast or talented ones, you dont need to be fast to be serious

50 miles is 7 miles a day. That is low mileage for a runner, though it is moderate to high for a hobby runner. The OP mentioned he has run 50 MPW before, so I'm assuming he can do that now.

He says he'll do anything, and that he has done 50MPW before. It is possible to do mileage and to keep speed. It is possible to do mileage and not be injured and dead. The key is to run slow. Slower than he'll want to run. However, for the OP this will be the key, IMO.

He'll still need to work on speed and longer intervals as well.

slow bro 84 wrote:

It might also be illuminating to know your 100 & 200 PR's.

Also, how many hours of sleep do you get? You say you get enough, but I'd like to see a number.

100 PR's: 12.0 (hand timed, significant tailwind), 12.2 (hand timed, minimal wind), 12.49 (FAT)

200 PR: 25.17 (FAT)

I get 7.5-8 hours of sleep on the weekdays and 8-9 hours on the weekends.

Troll Patrol wrote:

3/10. Anyone with 55 sec 400 ability can run a sub 5 mile

Hitmonlee wrote:

First off I think this is a troll trying to illustrate how fast 5 flat is for someone without talent for running.

slow bro 84 wrote:

I also can't imagine how you can be so impossibly light. 112? Seriously?

Not a troll. My times are legit, and the 112 pounds does include clothes and shoes.

Video of me running a 55" 400. I'm in lane 2:

It doesn't show the last 40 meters of the race, but I do have a video of me running a solo 39" 300, which is approximately equivalent to a 55" 400:

Video of me running a 2:11 800:

Video of me running a 5:15 1600 (converts to a 5:17 mile):

. That was one of my best races. I'm usually in the 5:20 - 5:30 range.

If a 230 lb 30-something powerlifter with a detached hamstring and a dislocated hip can run a 4:15 based on a couple days of running a week, it should be easy for you.

Insert Funny Name wrote:

this is a board for serious runners, not fast or talented ones, you dont need to be fast to be serious

I don't even know what that means. But it's wrong anyway. Lately, there seems to be more and more posters who are joggers at best and plenty of non-running trolls. It's a real mixed bag. Maybe deleting all the political and other non-running related crap would get rid of some of the trolls who just google and end up here.

You are not too old.

At least one person stated your 55 second 400 means you have too many fast twitch muscles to race sub-5 mile. Wrong. Every sub-4:10 miler is also a sub-56 400 person. That isn't it.

I've read post suggesting 800 repeats and/or one mile repeats. Long intervals (longer than 6x600m) have little bearing on one mile results. Keep training. Fifty to 75 miles should be enough pure miles per week. Interval workouts of: 12x200/9x300/10x400/8x500 three or four days a week should do it.

As you know, some of this is psychological. My Marathon times do not come close to what I should run based on my 1500/one mile PB. I hate the Marathon. You may psychologically prefer 400 & 800

A 5 minute mile is tough if you are coming from average joe fitness. Case in point, 20+ years ago, in my early 20's, I ran 4 x mile in sub 4:45 with 2 minutes rest. Probably in the top 5 of most intense workouts I had ever done, but I was always in shape and my fitness led to this. Now, I'm old and barely in shape, and have tried multiple directions, but like the original poster I can't get to sub 5 fitness. Got to 5:05 2 years ago, then the wheels fell off and had to take a couple months off. I am considering starting a "I'm 45 and won't stop until I break 5 minutes thread" to motivate myself, but something is telling me this has been done before. Maybe a hot girl beating me in a You Just Got Chicked t-shirt is the way to go...

Sponge wrote:

elusive dreams wrote:

Not a troll. My times are legit, and the 112 pounds does include clothes and shoes.

Video of me running a 55" 400. I'm in lane 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfREJYQXU_M

It doesn't show the last 40 meters of the race, but I do have a video of me running a solo 39" 300, which is approximately equivalent to a 55" 400:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhK2oM_HUQ

Video of me running a 2:11 800:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDUW7qXVn3k

Video of me running a 5:15 1600 (converts to a 5:17 mile):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptyxPoVIJNU

. That was one of my best races. I'm usually in the 5:20 - 5:30 range.

Im going to second this, youre at like 130 steps per minute here because you are braking and bouncing on every step. As a Sprinter- turned distance i had this same thing, and i went from 510 to 444 in 3 months by doing the following:

Drills before every single run, high knees, butt kicks, strides, hurdle drills. All with a focus on good posture and tight arm carriage.

Easy runs hitting 180 steps per second. This might seem impossible at first but it will help your efficiency.

Worrkouts that played to my strengths. My goal was to run sub 5, so I would run an 800 at race pace, 3 minutes rest, then either 300 200 100 300 200 100 or 4-6 by 200. These are all controlled, no kicking any of them in. And if you lose form, the workout is over.

I started out at 235 for 800 then was hitting 220 by my pr.

LAST, a mile time trial once every 2 weeks in spikes. This should tell you what to do the workout in.

slow bro 84 wrote:

Man, I feel for ya. I'm even more of a regular joe than you with regards to talent.

That said, I would KILL, literally KILL for your speed. My 400 best is 1:19 right now, and I went 5:53 on a very windy day. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had an extra 24 SECONDS PER LAP to play with that I'd hit sub-5.

So if I trained you to 55 sec 400, who would you kill? Do I get to pick, literally?

slow bro 84 wrote:

Besides, your performance curve indicates that you're a fast-twitch, short-distance sprinter-type

I checked the IAAF scoring tables, and the OP's 800 time has more points than his 100 time. I don't know of any sprinter who runs better in the 800 than in the 100.

I then tried checking the women's scoring tables. The men's scoring tables may be off since the OP is really far from an elite men's time, but the women's scoring tables should be more accurate since his times are approximately equivalent to what elite female heptathletes would run. The results were similar, his 800 time scores more points than his 100 time and is roughly equivalent to his 200 time.

Edward Teach wrote:

your body won't have the fat stores to run a sub 5 mile.

"Fat stores to run a sub 5 mile" Seriously? It's not a marathon.

blotto wrote:

Endurance should last longer, but speed goes in your 30's for most of us.

Usually false, see: