If a 5K is so aerobic, then why do so much speedwork?

wellnow wrote:In a sea level 400 he would run 51.0

But I disagree with your 800 assessment, he would run 1.46

this gives an interesting "line"

51.60 / 1'48.10 ->

3'31.02 , 7'20.41 , 12'36.59 , 26'14.44

finding the exact fit woud need trying a coupla dozen lines, but i doubt it's going to be anymore than a few tenths quicker than 1'48.1 at best

[bold] bold [/bold]

got it - sorry, using the thread to test

What school do Jundo.co.uk coach at? How fast is coach Jundo 400?

depends on your training regimine

Brent wrote:

Well, you need to be comfortable running at 5k pace which requires a lot of speedwork.

That is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!

Explain how I could be doing no speedwork, yet keep improving my times running faster than I have run before. I was running 5ks around 6 minute pace until I ran one in 18:06. A couple weeks later I ran a 4 mile at 5:50 pace running the last 2 miles in 11:30 (5:52/5:38) even though I had never run that fast in any type of workout.

I agree with the OP that most of the work needs to be aerobic. Of course running a lot of hills doesn't hurt.

Actually what you need to be comfortable at is running just SLOWER than 5k pace. The uncomfortable part should be at the end when you should be running faster than 5k pace!!

You need to do speed work, how old are you? Hell a 60 year old runner, can run faster. How old are you 35?

18:06 5k is slow wrote:

You need to do speed work, how old are you? Hell a 60 year old runner, can run faster. How old are you 35?

I am 45 and the 23:20 age graded to 79.??% which is almost exactly what I age graded when I was in my late 30s and ran intervals every week.

For a 60 year old to run 23:20 would age grade a shade under 90%!! which most consider as elite.

It is interesting how you chose the 18:06 5k to make your assanine point when the 23:20 4 mile is clearly a superior performance.

What is interesting is how all these ftards come on here to say how slow a certain time is, but that time has a chance to win a lot of smaller hometown races.

Well, most of the guys here are average-Joe runners (including me of course ;-) ). There are some faster Joes and some slower Joes.

The point is: when you try to improve, why do you look at exceptional runners like Bekele, El G. which are somewhat special?

I mean: I'm realistic enough to know that I'm not special and therefore I'd rather take a look at how and why another Joe improved than taking a look at

a world-class "one out of a million" elite-runner.

This interessting discussion came to a point when people are confirming their arguments using such exceptional runners as examples. Any example from

average Joes are dissed.

ventolin^3 wrote:

wellnow wrote:In a sea level 400 he would run 51.0

But I disagree with your 800 assessment, he would run 1.46

this gives an interesting "line"

http://www.jundo.co.uk/

51.60 / 1'48.10 ->

3'31.02 , 7'20.41 , 12'36.59 , 26'14.44

finding the exact fit woud need trying a coupla dozen lines, but i doubt it's going to be anymore than a few tenths quicker than 1'48.1 at best

*******************************************

Try it again with 51.0 for 400

51.0 with

1'47.40 -> 3'30.6 , 7'21.4 , 12'40.5 , 26'28.5

that's not the line obviously from his 5k/10k

1'47.25 -> 3'30.1 , 7'19.8 , 12'37.1 , 26'19.8

10k line scuppers that one

1'47.20 -> 3'29.9 , 7'19.2 , 12'36.0 , 26'16.7

that's not a bad line, but 1.5k looks too quick ( he's never looked ``3'30 in his 1500 career - well beaten twice ), 3k looks tad fast & 10k a tad slow

1'47.15 -> 3'29.7 , 7'18.7 , 12'34.8 , 26'14.0

now we are losing it - 1.5k is obviously getting too fast, 3k is not realistic & 5k looks tad too fast also

1'47.10 -> 3'29.5 , 7'18.1 , 12'33.7 , 26'11.1

the 3k is getting waaay too fast, as is 5k

in conclusion : he doesn't have 51.0 speed

Bekele 400 meter time is 47 low!

Is this right guys?

Yes he can run 47 in the 400 meters!

ventolin^3 wrote:

51.0 with

1'47.40 -> 3'30.6 , 7'21.4 , 12'40.5 , 26'28.5

that's not the line obviously from his 5k/10k

1'47.25 -> 3'30.1 , 7'19.8 , 12'37.1 , 26'19.8

10k line scuppers that one

1'47.20 -> 3'29.9 , 7'19.2 , 12'36.0 , 26'16.7

that's not a bad line, but 1.5k looks too quick ( he's never looked ``3'30 in his 1500 career - well beaten twice ), 3k looks tad fast & 10k a tad slow

1'47.15 -> 3'29.7 , 7'18.7 , 12'34.8 , 26'14.0

now we are losing it - 1.5k is obviously getting too fast, 3k is not realistic & 5k looks tad too fast also

1'47.10 -> 3'29.5 , 7'18.1 , 12'33.7 , 26'11.1

the 3k is getting waaay too fast, as is 5k

in conclusion : he doesn't have 51.0 speed

What are you blathering on about? If you were a real mathematician, you would have insight enough to know intuitively based on experience what times he was capable of running at his peak.

How fast can the top 5000 meter guys run the 100 meters?

Observation? wrote:

So, if a 5K race is between 88-93% aerobic (Sports Medicine 2001), then why are we doing so much anaerobic work? Shouldn’t we work more TEMPO & less, say, 400’s?

Sure, I see the other 7-12% in the above numbers, but it seems like we might—just might—be getting wrapped-up in too much speed work.

Let's just run!

Distance runners don't do "speedwork" they do "stamina" work. Interval training isn't "speedwork". You aren't working on your basic speed, you are working on your stamina. 16 x 400m with :45 recovery isn't speedwork.

If you could only do one kind of interval session, the ideal interval work is 2 mile race pace. If you did only 2 workouts a week, 1 40:00 tempo at 10 mile+ rrrace effort and one interval workout of 6k-4miles of intervals at 2 mile race pace with lean recovery, you would do quite well.

How fast can you run and how old are you? What is your best 400 meters?