Explain to me Why I cannot run 1k in 3 minutes flat

Bound4Glory wrote:

The main reason is that you have not done any speed work. Speed work would be a day of 8 repeat 400s with a 60-90 second break, or a day of 8 repeat 200s with a 45 second break, or something like that. If you did that 2 or 3 days a week (Mon/Wed/Fri) when you were 20 I'd say it's pretty likely your 3:30 1K time would get to 3-flat or better after 8 weeks or so.

When I trained aggressively, everyone viewed speed work as the real workout, and distance work was simply what you did to recover.

Yes, it’s true. Before 2005 (before I run my first marathon) I did “some” speed work. But just once a week. And probably not specific enough.

As others mentioned in this thread, I must recognize that I just run. I do not do weights or specific strength training. Those are other mistakes I did. So my muscle or not strong enough. I thought they will get stronger by just running regularly.

But so far, I got very good tips and advices from the majority of the comments posted.

ICannotUNDERstand wrote:

As others mentioned in this thread, I must recognize that I just run. I do not do weights or specific strength training. Those are other mistakes I did..

You could look at it another way. The vast majority of D1 university level middle distance runners I knew from the 80's don't run at all anymore. You've been running for 35 years. Maybe your way was the best way.

I am 42 and with some serious training I think I could run again a km under 3... but I'm not sure at all on this one. 10 years ago, it was my main goal for the winter racing indoor season. I went very specific into it, all-in. At that time, my PR for 5k was around 17:05 and my best for the marathon was 2h49. So, I gave it all to run under 3 for 1000m... and failed. Stucked at 3:01. Even after 4 races and, like in the past 10 years, more than 50 miles per week, I did not run under 3 that year. I finally did it 3 years later without trying too much...but then my 5k Pr was down to 16:44, and my 42.2 at 2h38. So I ran 2:54 once and between that and 3:00 quite a few times in indoor meets. Today, I am older, stil running around 60-70 mpw, doing intervals (but not like 2-3 times a week for middle-distances...), and would not be able to do it. Just like 99% of the over 50 masters runners around ! Like some others said, it has a lot to do with training and genetics. If you are at 21:00 for 5k, unless you are a fast twitch oriented runner, there is not way you will break 3 for 1k. Not near. You to train more, and train better for that specific goal. And, to say the truth, I would not give you a lot of chances to ever succeed. Many physiological factors are at play here. Otherwise, we would all be world record holders.

I am Sam wrote:

You need the equivalent of about 2:45 marathon, 17 min 5km to do 2:17 800m or 3m 1km

Marathon time is almost completely irrelevant to 1k. 2:17/3:00 can be done off 19:30 for some, and not off 17 for others. I did 3:00 off a 19:30 (hard course, high 18s track shape).

1k is a weird race

Youre actually faster than many if not most people.Most people arent meant to run sub 4 minute miles, 2.10 marathons,or 28 minute 10'000 meters.Also very few people could step out onto a track,and run an 11 second 100 meters with no training.Some people are just talented,and dedicated to developing their great talent.

Are you Kenyan? If not, that’s your answer!

a marathon in 3:34 at age 53 is really fine! keep up the effort. considering your question:

i think you have never done serious speedwork or sprint training like uphill sprints, flying 30m, all out 150m and so on. did you? perhaps more important: fast repeats (stuff like 10-12x400m). you have to train for the distance and its requirements for a good amount of time.

now at your age (54) a sub 3/1k would catapult you in the league of 85+ percent (age graded). that's national class. and that kind of training is not funny.

jeff tallon wrote:

Youre actually faster than many if not most people.Most people arent meant to run sub 4 minute miles, 2.10 marathons,or 28 minute 10'000 meters.Also very few people could step out onto a track,and run an 11 second 100 meters with no training.Some people are just talented,and dedicated to developing their great talent.

You believe that anyone faster than sub 4, 28 10k or 2:10 is doping.

ICannotUNDERstand wrote:

Thank you. These are very good answers. But too me, since I am a little bit ignorant, it seems strange that a person like me, that is quite fit and, for sure, not fat, cannot sustain such an effort for just 1K. I mean, I run 5 days per week. All year long. For decades. It seems strange that I could not improve. Of course, now I am getting older, so I guess it is much harder achieve that goal. Even though I run my last marathon with the same time I run my first in 2005 when I was 39. I mean, I am puzzled.

I'm sure your very fit, but your leg muscles simply are not strong enough to go with that fitness. Stop running slow shuffly marathons and instead include lots of strides, leg work, mile time trials.

ICannotUNDERstand wrote:

I would like to thank Stoppit Smith and Runningart2004

Because the purpose of my question was to try to understand better the reasons behind it. I know that, if I was not able to break 3 in my twenties, I cannot do it now in my fifties. But at least to understand why. I know that 3’ is quite fast for 1K. The 1K world record of 2:11.96 Noah Ngeny (according to World Athletics site) is absolutely fast. But I thought that with good training 3’ flat could be achievable, at least once. Instead, it seems is beyond the reach of many people like me …

I think you can do it now (well in the next 12 months anyway). Change your mindset and train for it. You havn't even tried ffs.

indoorszn wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

You need the equivalent of about 2:45 marathon, 17 min 5km to do 2:17 800m or 3m 1km

Marathon time is almost completely irrelevant to 1k. 2:17/3:00 can be done off 19:30 for some, and not off 17 for others. I did 3:00 off a 19:30 (hard course, high 18s track shape).

1k is a weird race

Its basically an 800m race, if the OP or anyone of the posters that say they can't do it actually traingd like a middle distance runner they might get closer than they think to doing it.

And Alan - yes genetics plays a part, Danny DeVito would unlikely achieve it obviously but for most regular guys its more to do with training properly I think, genetics will just determine how quickly they do it.

Over40 wrote:

Its basically an 800m race, if the OP or anyone of the posters that say they can't do it actually traingd like a middle distance runner they might get closer than they think to doing it.

If the OP trains specifically as a middle-distance runner he may improve his 1K time, but there is no way he is going to break 3- at 53, no matter how much training he does. Breaking 3 at that age requires a lot of talent in middle distance, which the OP does not have. Most likely scenario, he will get injured.

On the other hand, his marathon time is quite good for the age.

The simple answer is: you don't have enough speed.

My PB is 2:26 on the 1k and I ran sub 3min when I was like 14.

I am currently 38 and running occasionally a 10k. I can't even imagine running that fast on the 1k.

So it is age but definitely also a lack of talent and specific training. Training for a 1k is completely different from long runs.

mid D guy wrote:

Over40 wrote:

Its basically an 800m race, if the OP or anyone of the posters that say they can't do it actually traingd like a middle distance runner they might get closer than they think to doing it.

If the OP trains specifically as a middle-distance runner he may improve his 1K time, but there is no way he is going to break 3- at 53, no matter how much training he does. Breaking 3 at that age requires a lot of talent in middle distance, which the OP does not have. Most likely scenario, he will get injured.

On the other hand, his marathon time is quite good for the age.

True, I still think even at 53 which isn't that old, it is possible and doesn't require 'a lot of talent' imo, just a bit of hard work and the right mind set.. My point being OP is asking why and reason why is basically he hasn't tried! Not sure about getting injured, most injured people I see are those doing ultras and marathons with overuse injuries. Middle distance volume would be less, he would increase his strength and it may even likely help him avoid injuries.

Of course 1000m time and marathon times are correlated.

Can't really be a world class marathoner without < 2:24 1000m in trainers.

There are people out there who can run < 3' 1000m with no training, zero miles aside from this 1000m effort.

Most would be < 60 400m capable.

What would be the marathon performance upper limit for someone who is only capable of 3min 1k? Asking for a friend :)

Masters Record Age 55 category for the Mile is 4:35 by Australian Keith Bateman

Age 60 is 4:49 by US runner Dan King

If you really wanna try again just for the fun of it . Looks like its not too late

2:30.

Internetsherlock wrote:

Masters Record Age 55 category for the Mile is 4:35 by Australian Keith Bateman

Age 60 is 4:49 by US runner Dan King

If you really wanna try again just for the fun of it . Looks like its not too late

It's too late for the OP as he doesn't have world class talent like those runners. He could however improve his 1k time if, as others have said, he trained like an 800m runner.