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

I'm the complete opposite of both of you. I think I'm in 37 min 10k shape (probably high-36s in a really good race), but I don't think I can run a sub-60 quarter right now (or ever), much less 55s. Guess I have to work on my speed this summer to even have a shot.

Letsrun should host an annual "old guys trying to break 5" time trial attempt. They should pay for a wavelight. It would be great entertainment for the boards

As a woman it’s always seemed crazy to me how fast of a mile guys can run without much aerobic development. I’ve run under 18 and can easily dip into low 60s in the 400, but expect I’ll need to be running seventeen low before sub five is more than a dream. Must be nice 🥲

So much this!

So glad you achieved it! Let’s get you on the podcast

The IAAF tables show a sub 5 minute mile as being equivalent to a 57.6 400 and a 36:47 10K, so it's fairly safe to say you need either one or the other to go under 5.

With that said, I have seen sub 5 milers fail to break 60 in the 400. They're usually 34-35 minute 10K runners, though.

Just out of curiosity, what's your current mile PR? You shouldn't be too far off from sub 5.

FWIW, the men's and women's sub 5 equivalents in other distances are pretty similar. According to the IAAF tables, a 4:59.99 mile by a guy scores the same number of points as a 57.65 400 and a 17:10.9 5K, while for women, the times are 57.76 for the 400 and 17:16.4 for the 5K.

And possibly historic as well. I remember reading socalcush mention that he's run sub 5 for 40+ consecutive years. It's highly likely that he'll break Steve Spence's record streak.

I think my official 1500m PR is 5:33? from a few years ago in much worse shape. I'm just a post-collegiate club runner and focused on the 3k during indoor, so haven't actually run a mile since grade school.

I would expect IAAF scores to be near identical; I was more commenting that it's far more common that you see guys who can't achieve the equivalent marks at longer distances far more frequently -- though I suppose there are likely many more women who can run 16:xx, 17:xx and not get anywhere close to <60 in the 400 than men!

I just found this thread today and I have read through every page. I broke 5 in the mile my freshman year of highschool and that was a hell of an acheivement. This whole thread relates more to me in my search of breaking 2mins in the 800m and breaking 4mins in the 1500m(both of which I have accomplished). Both of the races came to me when I was the most relaxed and cared very little about the result. I just went out to run the race and have fun, and it looks like you did exactly that to come up with your sub 5min mile time. You have more dedicaton than many people on this earth so I cannot stress enough how much I want to see you continue to lower your times in every event and not stop running! I truely beleive that like in Ratatouille, anyone can run fast. Keep up the great work and inspiring others to seek out their own running goals!

i''m still happy for the OP's culmination of such a long quest. i just had two first year h.s. runners, a jr and sr, break 5 for the first time, and it was a big deal (program's nowhere near brosnan's "4:20 is not fast" level). they'd both probably be pretty close to the iaaf scores from 400 to 5k, but strangely for me, despite what used to be automatic speed, i can easily run sub-5 (maybe close to 4:40 shape right now) but recently ran an all-out 400 and only managed 61-high. i did recently run 16:45, though, so i guess i'm coming at the mile from a strength angle instead of speed now...

Thanks! I'm also happy that you got to continue your sub 5 streak when we raced at Corona Del Mar a few months ago.

In regards to the posts about the 400 speed required to go under 5, it's worth mentioning that my training was much more speed-oriented when I ran 55.86 on 2/15/2014 and when I ran 56.00, 56.05, and 56.08 in March 2019. My mileage was in the 15-18 mpw range and usually closer to 15 than to 18. Not surprisingly, I didn't run faster than 5:13 until 2020.

I think my all-out 400 time now (or last month when I ran 4:57) would be around 59. I could definitely drop a few more seconds and perhaps run a high 55 or a low 56 again, but that would require me to add even more speedwork, drop the mileage, and pretty much train like a sprinter for 3 months or so. By that time, the reduced volume would make me unable to break 5.

Huge congrats on breaking all those barriers. By the way, what was your training like when you first broke 5 in the mile, and what was it like when you broke 4 in the 1500?

It's also worth noting that the OP's range is fairly decent as well. There aren't too many non-elite, non-D1 runners who've beaten both his sub 12 100 PR and his sub 5 mile PR. Most athletes I know did one but not the other.

Same here. Hindsight is 20/20, and it was nice to see the doubters proved wrong.

I'm also skeptical on the claim made by Flagpole and a few others that only a small percentage of optimally trained young males will ever be able to break 5. While I do agree that sub 5 isn't easy unless you have a ton of talent, people keep underestimating the effects of consistent hard work.

Even the OP didn't fully maximize his mile potential since he spent a considerable number of years in his 20s training to run a fast 100/200/400. If he only trained for the mile and nothing else, he may be under 4:45 by now. And the average guy? Definitely under 5:00.

Well, you're wrong. A 5 minute mile is too hard for the vast majority of young men to do. Don't kid yourself. People who have done it like to think it's because they are tough or had some great work ethic. Nah. They have the genes to be able to respond to some training that enables them to do it. It is out of reach for all but a very small percentage.

While Flagpole is a bit too pessimistic, I would argue the OP actually has an above average talent. Just look at his range. sub-12 100m to a 4:57. That's incredible if you ask me.

Case in point, I know someone who has been training pretty consistently (70-80 mpw, with some 100s here and there) for over 20 years, and he couldn't even break 5 in the 1500 (not mile!). Granted, he's more of an endurance guy (3:02 marathon PB). And even this guy I mentioned is probably above-average, in the sense that he's able to run more than 50 mpw without injuries.(durability is a gift)

I would say, with optimal training, 20-30% of healthy, young males can break 5. Not as grim as Flagpole suggests, but that's definitely not an average mark.

Just did a few 200s/400s (35-36 for the 200s, around 1:13-1:14 for the 400s), Hope to build it up to 400 x 8 in 74 with 1 min rest by the end of Summer. OP has motivated me!

As someone who can't run a sub-60 400m to save his life, I agree, even though I'm a "he". :D

Just throwing my own anecdote here.

I ran 459 and my 400 pr was 62 and my 10k was about 40:30 at the time.