Sub-20 5k or bust!

I don't get it/ wrote:

How could your pace possibly feel fast when you pump yourself up as some sort of sprinter on here?

Because I judge by perceived level of effort. Of course it's not "fast", even by 5k standards, let alone sprint standards.

That's a lot to digest. I'm looking for the easiest solution!

You are totally correct about lacking endurance and having surplus speed.

Not sure what you mean by 40 mins slow--I can do that right now. Today after intervals on the treadmill I did I think 10 mins or so of incline jogging, between 5-6mph, at 5-10% grade. I could do that for 40 mins right now, would it cumulate like you are thinking I need? I like the idea of just doing more incline stuff, and the treadmill is good because it is consistent and relentless. 40 mins slow uphill jog is something I think I could find the time to do on most days, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice my 5k's.

I could see myself stalling out around 21:30 with my current state--and I must say, the faster I go, the more I feel the mass I'm dragging around. Sprint speed, no problem--weightless! Slow jog, no problem, even uphill. But in-between, like 5k speed, I begin to feel it.

Presumably because I can currently "go fast" for 22 minutes, might not just speeding up reap dividends? i.e. maybe I could just "go faster" for less time? What about increasing speed by doing more fast intervals? What if I just hop on the treadmill and do 1-minute repeats at 12mph w/1-minute jogging recovery, for say 10 repeats, then progressively decrease the rest periods by some small increment? Not sure what 5k time a treadmill 12mph equates to, but it seems plenty fast, like under 20min pace.

If something like that would work, I could do maybe 3 such workouts per week, and decrease the jog recoveries by 1 second per workout? That would require 20 weeks to get to zero recovery period.

While I'm on the subject of treadmills, what mill speed at 0% incline is equivalent to a 20:00 5k in the real world?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Presumably because I can currently "go fast" for 22 minutes, might not just speeding up reap dividends? i.e. maybe I could just "go faster" for less time? What about increasing speed by doing more fast intervals? What if I just hop on the treadmill and do 1-minute repeats at 12mph w/1-minute jogging recovery, for say 10 repeats, then progressively decrease the rest periods by some small increment? Not sure what 5k time a treadmill 12mph equates to, but it seems plenty fast, like under 20min pace.

If something like that would work, I could do maybe 3 such workouts per week, and decrease the jog recoveries by 1 second per workout? That would require 20 weeks to get to zero recovery period.

While I'm on the subject of treadmills, what mill speed at 0% incline is equivalent to a 20:00 5k in the real world?

I don’t think your Zeno’s Paradox workout will work. It still won’t train you (physically or mentally) to keep it together in the 2nd mile when the going starts to get tough. I’d recommend trying 3-5 x 10 minute runs between 7:00 to 7:15 pace with a 2 minute rest between them. Start with 3 at 7:15 pace and work toward 5 at 7:00 pace. Once a week or once every cycle you use.

20 minute pace on a calibrated treadmill would be 9.1 at a 2% incline.

Good luck!

Sprintgeezer wrote:

So I looked, and I’m a bit shocked. At a recent Valentine’s day 5k here, 10th overall was 20:26, winner went 18:06. Please tell me that’s an exceptionally slow race.

M50-54 was won in 23:02. In my current crap form, I could have medaled in my age group...and maybe won, if I ever did a warmup.

I'm coming in late, but this caught my eye. I'm pretty sure I know which Valentine's 5k you're talking about based off the 50-54 winning time. I know the guy who won the age group pretty well. That day was -9 °F with a -15 °F windchill, and one week after an ice storm. The course was slippery in spots. The guy who won the age group started running @49, had no previous experience, and runs for health. His best 5k time in a chip timed race is 22:53. He doesn't think he's anything special, and doesn't base his self-worth on a podium finish.

Good luck in your pursuit. Run a race and see how you do. There are plenty in the area I think you are referencing.

LOL THINK LIGHT WEIGHT HIGH REP == LSD == ENDURANCE

Keep HR around 60 percent of MHR for 80 percent of the time

Target the slow twitch fibers .

Ignore the temptation to speed up

Do this daily as much as you can for months

There is a ton of info on this approach aka HADD MAF LSD

Come On Entertain us!

See, that's the thing--I'm not convinced that I have to go slow-twitch to do this.

I think I said early on that I'm doing this while keeping an eye on the sprints.

"Ignore the temptation to speed up"!!! WTH, that is the whole point! The question is how to speed up.

I get what you are saying, but since I am capable of higher speed, that would mean that I would have to run for less time, therefore needing less endurance, and more "specific endurance"--that is, endurance at a higher level of output, rather than absolute endurance.

Also, I just might be more efficient at some higher speed, which is the sense that I got last time I was doing "fast" (for me) 5k's.

I suppose building aerobic capacity will make me more aerobic at 20-min pace than I am now, and a higher aerobic threshold will mean more endurance at that speed. Because my HR is high at my current speed, I assume that I need to build that aerobic capacity, and you guys are telling me that long and slow is the way to do it.

Isn't there a way to do it shorter and faster? Daily 40 mins slow uphill on a treadmill for maybe 5 days a week seems doable, but I don't want to do it at the expense of speed work.

Maybe I should aim for the 3k equivalent of sub-20 5k, so that I can go faster without having to put in all the long slow work.

BTW I'm still not convinced (at this point you are all laughing at me) that doing my intervals and decreasing the rest periods won't work. That also builds aerobic capacity, and allows me to maintain speed. I'm much more motivated when I feel like I'm going fast.

Going for an hour at 60% HR? OMG how do you guys do it? Even if I'm going that long, I'm going harder, otherwise it's boring, there isn't enough feedback. I would sooner get a job as a valet and be jogging to and from cars for an hour, at least I'd be making 5 bucks. Going for an hour at 80%, now that's something, I might try it to see if I get off on it--but even that's only a HR of 140!

Will get back to you.

9.1mph at 2% incline, but what is the equivalent at 0% incline? I din’t believe the incline addition should be the same for everyone. It is added to compensate for wind resistance, right? Well, air resistance is the same for me as for someone my height but 40lbs less weight. Taking 180lbs ip 2% requires more energy than taking up 140lbs.

So what is the speed at 0% incline? With that figure I could do treadmill intervals at a relevant speed.

IF I go the interval route, that is.

I think this is what your experiencing, and Charlie is describing (and which I suffered from most of my career) is this: with high intensity training one tends to make rapid improvement, but there is also a fairly quick plateau, generally followed by decline, and this would tend to me more so with those on the fast-twitch end of the spectrum. My own opinion would be that it's a hormonal/endocrinal system limitation. I've often peaked too early, so have been flying, say two weeks out from a major race, felt a little less good a week out, and pretty crappy by the time the race comes. It's not 'over-training' per se, and you expect to fee fresh having tapered, so it's not a muscular fatigue. I think what happens is that the really spectacular session is coming at the end of the peak, which probably for a fast twitch guy, lasts about 6 weeks.

I've tended to go through that cycle a lot of times. Injured; come back; few weeks steady running; on to high intensity; fitness returns very fast, but instead of continued progress, stagnation or regression (and bafflement as to why continued training isn't bringing results). I'd often peak on the track right at the end of the season (around September in Europe), and now think is was just because we were winding down and doing a lot less work.

I read a "Tinman" article and he was mentioning in that in his experience high intensity rep runners often running surprisingly well coming back from injury, or when having real freshening period.

As far as the aerobic steady runs are concerned if you are a fast-twitch guy, which I am, it's easy to do them too fast, and limit recovery for the more intense session or to peak too early. You basically have to have real caution working on your weaker areas - so a marathon type is more likely to get beat up running fast reps, which you and I might eat up.

Beyond that, there are some arguments that a real metabolic aerobic pace is even slower than standard aerobic pace by cardio (I think this is the pace Charlie is talking about, as he cites MAF). I have quite a lot of problems getting the steady runs slow enough. I'm a big V02 max, fast-twitch guy, and so I can run at what cardio indicates is aerobic and relatively easy, but is too fast for the legs to recover. Yesterday I did 5 miles with an average HR of 125, which on my Garmin indicates that it was pretty steady - right on the border between Z2 (very slow, maintenance) and Z3 (aerobic), but averaged 7:41 per mile, which is probably a fair bit too quick by most reckoning. The other bit I find hard is the biomechanics not all going to pot at slow speeds (say 8:00 and up).

Anyway, I think that's the rational behind what Charlie is talking about, and why you probably can't get to where you want on speed work/high intensity alone.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

9.1mph at 2% incline, but what is the equivalent at 0% incline? I din’t believe the incline addition should be the same for everyone. It is added to compensate for wind resistance, right? Well, air resistance is the same for me as for someone my height but 40lbs less weight. Taking 180lbs ip 2% requires more energy than taking up 140lbs.

So what is the speed at 0% incline? With that figure I could do treadmill intervals at a relevant speed.

Looks like 9.8 at 0%.

Road 5Ks are a gamble as far as actual distance is concerned and longer than the track. The track is more accurate but the longer the race the more embarassing it is to run. It feels so slow and I have too much time to reflect that I am now running HS girl times.

I would like to got sub 20 myself but (a) it hasn't been my focus since I started running a few years ago and (b) I am a significant distance away from this mark.

I am pushing 60, starting running in my early-mid 50s yadda yadda. Last month, I finished a marathon in 3:32, my PB in a 5k is 21:50, and my PB in a 1 km time trial is 3:39. Again, these are not distances I run frequently and most of my "training" has been for marathons so basically to improve my endurance. I have yet to run a flat 5k in cool weather with light winds - in other words, the real world and not treadmill conditions.

And it's the 1 km time trial number that I am now working on - I figure that if I can knock 15 seconds off that and hit a 5:45 mile, I have a shot at going sub 20 in a 5k. If I can't hit a 5:45 mile, it won't be in the cards.

I am between marathons right now so I started doing 400m and 200m repeats a couple of weeks ago and they do seem to be helping - I will likely run more time trials in a month to see if I am truly making progress. And then I will run a 5k in September-ish before my October marathon.

If you can find a local track night with a group of runners, it can help - nothing like somebody pushing you to improve the pace.

Good luck

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I suppose building aerobic capacity will make me more aerobic at 20-min pace than I am now, and a higher aerobic threshold will mean more endurance at that speed. Because my HR is high at my current speed, I assume that I need to build that aerobic capacity, and you guys are telling me that long and slow is the way to do it.

Isn't there a way to do it shorter and faster?

Yes! Ignore those guys. Jogging has nothing to do with building so-called "aerobic capacity" unless you are used to doing even less. Think for a second: do you breathe hard when going slow? Is it much effort? What kind of adaptation should you expect?

To become an aerobic beast, do middle distance workouts. Don't even worry about the specifics, just do something 400m or less at a pace that gets you very winded and feeling acidic (which is when you are using the most oxygen and expelling the most carbon dioxide, two sides of the same coin) and then take recovery intervals sufficient for you to complete 5 to 10 reps in a total of around 20 minutes.

If, on the other hand, you want to be "more aerobic" at 20 minute pace in the sense of merely not using as much anaerobic power, then you can see the real mind-trick distance runners play on themselves with long jogs: weight loss reduces the overall energy required to maintain a particular pace, and by practicing sparing their efforts, they increase their awareness of efficiency. But you don't have to do it that way.

? wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

9.1mph at 2% incline, but what is the equivalent at 0% incline? I din’t believe the incline addition should be the same for everyone. It is added to compensate for wind resistance, right? Well, air resistance is the same for me as for someone my height but 40lbs less weight. Taking 180lbs ip 2% requires more energy than taking up 140lbs.

So what is the speed at 0% incline? With that figure I could do treadmill intervals at a relevant speed.

Looks like 9.8 at 0%.

https://www.hillrunner.com/calculators/treadmill-pace-conversions/

Road 5Ks are a gamble as far as actual distance is concerned and longer than the track. The track is more accurate but the longer the race the more embarassing it is to run. It feels so slow and I have too much time to reflect that I am now running HS girl times.

Thanks for that treadmill pace page.

And lmao running on the track being embarrassing at this pace...so true! “Time to reflect”. lolololol

Although in fairness if I concentrate inward rather than seeing how slowly I am going relative to external cues, I can totally ignore my slow absolute speed.

Funny, though. Even on my road runs, I start feeling like that if I’m not going hard enough.

Also, I have gained tremendous respect for the running ability of HS girls :)

Hey Cavorty, I used to experience the exact same thing—by the time I was totally healthy and fast, there were no more meets! And I couldn’t just advance my schedule by 2 months because of school cycles, etc.

I hear what you are saying. I agree that hormone and endocrine levels are a big deal, and can be fatigued. Question: are you fresher for workouts if you go long and slow and do not go deeply into the well, or if you go hard and fast, and take longer rest? I’m starting to think that my 1-2x/week at high effort level might be a good way to go, if the 2 options are anywhere near equal, and if that constitutes a long enough rest period.

I’m going to think of what I have done until now as my “base period”—ie learning to run again, getting neurology back, getting my feet under me, getting a routine, and having made most of the rapid early gains possible. I think if I went all-out I might be able to go about 21:40-21:50 at the moment.

For convenience, I will say I’m at 22 mins, meaning 120 seconds away. Instead of just doofus base stuff, I’m now going to try something specific to pick off those 120 seconds.

Because it’s so specific a goal, I am going to try a program that is very precise, so that I can get precise feedback on progress (if there is any), and for this, I will use the treadmill.

I find treadmill running harder than running outside, so I will have some cushion as a result.

Also, against the advice of many and maybe with the support of Wigins, I’m going to try my speed-based specific endurance program. Why? Because it offers precise and immediate feedback, and because I’m only trying to break 20:00, not get to 15:00 or some fast time. The program might not be great, but it might be good enough to get me to my lame goal.

If 9.8mph is 20:00 pace, I will use 10mph as my speed, giving a slight bit more cushion. I’m going to do my possibly ridiculous interval program, 1-min run, 1-min slow jog, and start the speed up 10 seconds early because IIRC it takes the mill about 10 seconds to come up to speed.

If that feels ok, I will try to decrease the slow jog period by 2 seconds each workout. If I begin to fail, I will reduce by only 1 second. If I can’t maintain a 1-second improvement, I will be consistent for no more than 4 or 5 workouts before declaring failure and switching to the longer and slower approach.

I plan to do this workout 2x per week, for adequate rest. I should be ok, as I can do a bunch of these repeats at 12mph, but we will see how taxing it is.

The treadmill, ugh. If I can do it there, I will kill it on the track or road.

Simple suggestion: run repeat 800s on a track @ 3:10-3:12 w 400m recovery jogs. Start with, say, 3 and build up to 6. Also, as you add repeats, look to pick up the pace of the recovery jogs [maybe 2:30 at first, more like 1:58 by the time you get to 6 repeats.] The full workout is about 30' + warm-up / warm down, and if you can do that workout, you can almost certainly run a 20' 5k.

The same basic workout also works well on a C2 machine, but you might have to go for a bit faster pace since you seem to have better 5k speed on a C2 than you do running. Maybe something like 6 x 3' @ 1:50 with 2' recoveries @ 2:30.

Fwiw, I'd be curious to know what you can time trial for 5000m on a C2.

Interesting workout suggestion, I would rather do that, than the treadmill. How sure are you that it’s equivalent using 3:12/1:58?

I would use 3:12 because it is divisible by 4, for easier consistent pacing.

Looking back at some records, last winter I would warm up for weights with a 5000m in 20 mins on a C2, not trying for time at all, just as a warmup. Take from that what you will, I have no idea what it means. I was essentially fresh afterwards, and would hit weights.

I am going to seriously consider that 800 workout. Do you think it would be effective if done 2x/wk?

I just realized it’s also divisible by 8 and therefore requires 24-second 100’s at even pacing.

24" / 100m = 20:00 for 5k so yes, that's the basic concept. In my experience, it's always been helpful to work target race pace down to something like 1% faster; hence, the idea of bringing in the 800s between 3:10-3:12.

As for rowing, I know it basically works for me to treat rowing workout times as roughly equivalent to running race times, but I weigh less than you do and am less powerful, so that's probably not right for you. Still, I think rowing workouts will translate well as long as some kind pf appropriate correction factor is applied, My starting guess is that you need to row workouts 10% faster than target running race pace, but I'd have more confidence in that estimate with a 5k TT rowing result in hand. (and if you want to focus on pain tolerance, try maxing out a 2k on a C2. I'm guessing that for you, sub 7 is a plausible but painful result to target)

and I think doing that kind of workout 1x / wk will help you make progress if it's part of a broader 3-5 workouts / wk program.