Nub wrote:
First time I broke 20mins I ran a 3:25 1k on about 10-15kms per week mainly doing just 2km runs. Took about 6 weeks to go from 26mins to 19:50.
Cool story, bro.
Nub wrote:
First time I broke 20mins I ran a 3:25 1k on about 10-15kms per week mainly doing just 2km runs. Took about 6 weeks to go from 26mins to 19:50.
Cool story, bro.
Isn't mile time usually about 15-20 secs faster than 3-5K time? (Horwill's 4-sec/lap rule)
So 20min 5K is 6:26/mile .... mile needs to be about 6:05.
Uhh wrote:
Isn't mile time usually about 15-20 secs faster than 3-5K time? (Horwill's 4-sec/lap rule)
So 20min 5K is 6:26/mile .... mile needs to be about 6:05.
Hmmm ... Jack says VDOT 50 is 19:57 5K and 5min50 mile ... so a bit quicker than I reckoned
I don't know why everyone doesn't just use Daniels/Macmillans for this stuff.
Because they don't tell you the minimum time required.
Predictor wrote:
Because they don't tell you the minimum time required.
Obviously the minimum time for a 20-min 5K is a 6min26 mile ... but don't see how that helps
The OP is not asking for you to do the math or to tell them what the average mile time is for an equivalency. He wants to know the real life minimum required. I say it is about 6:15 which would be for an older distance runner. High school kids are always going to have more speed so it would be more like 6 minutes for a minimum. Again, those are minimums. There are 5 minute milers who can't do it.
Age 50-57: once I get my mile time under 6:00 (aka 5:58-59), then I can hit sub-20 for 5K.
46 years old, I did something very similar this summer. On August 6th I ran 5:30 for 1500m and on August 17th I ran 19:55 5km ParkRun.
When I was 45, I ran 19:47 5k and 5:55 1600 (track) about a month apart. I had run a 5:53 in road mile (slightly downhill course).
I also ran a 1:33 half six weeks before the 5k. So I am a slow twitch guy. But I bet there are even slower twitch people.
the mile is less telling because you lose speed as you get older. 6 flat is enough imo. don't do 50 per day. you gotta mix it up with some 800 meter intervals
When I broke 20 I didn't have a mile time
But if I had to guess. Id say 5:50
Oarius wrote:
BUT if you do 4x1600 at 6:40 pace twice a week for a month you should be good to go.
No.
Hill reps are a good way to increase speed.
Remember to keep your mileage up a lot of people make the mistake of dropping it just because they are focusing on shorter distances.
Try do your faster work with other people. It's much easier to train harder in a group.
my last good run at sub 20 /age 45 was:
5:58 solo mile TT effort [9/10ths]
20:20 5K race [9/10ths]
~15 mpw, some biking
YMMV wrote:
TexasRunnerGrl wrote:
My 1600 pr is 5:28, 5k 19:41.
Your 5K is XC?
Yep
I must be missing something here but who said you had to run a 5k/20' equivalent mile to achieve that 5k goal ? Certainly not Daniels or any other trainer worth his salt. Besides the older you get the harder it's going to be to maintain "speed". In other words, train for a 5k and not for the mile.
Ideally you would race a 5k (or use your 10k time if recent) and plug in your time in Daniels' calculator (link below) and that will give the proper training paces for your current fitness. Take it from there with some good old RPace, TPace and IPace sessions. Run another 5K, do better, get new training paces, rinse and repeat until you hit 20'.
If you’re looking for anecdotal evidence, I ran two events close to each other in time on certified road courses.
5k: 20:15
1 mile: 5:50
Whatever the age, 5:30 is still harder than running a 20:00 unless you are mainly a 400 m sprinter
You be crazy. Many young teens can easily run 5:30 but can't run 20 minutes.