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

didn't realize there were two cal coast track club pages on facebook--sorry about that. the one getting more use is the one that says "public group." i assume you don't need an invite for it since it says public...

Troll Patrol wrote:

3/10. Anyone with 55 sec 400 ability can run a sub 5 mile with appropriate mileage.

^ word, although I would have given a 2/10

Trollminator wrote:

Troll Patrol wrote:

3/10. Anyone with 55 sec 400 ability can run a sub 5 mile with appropriate mileage.

^ word, although I would have given a 2/10

It's a question of whether that 55" 400 guy's body is durable enough to run the mileage needed to go sub 5 without getting injured. Flo jo could definitely have run a 55" 400 or better, but her 5K PR was only 20:30 even though she tried to become a distance runner later in life:

I've only done a quick scan through this thread, but it seems that this is the highest mileage the OP has ever run without getting injured and while including intervals/speedwork.

Trollminator wrote:

Troll Patrol wrote:

3/10. Anyone with 55 sec 400 ability can run a sub 5 mile with appropriate mileage.

^ word, although I would have given a 2/10

I don't buy the troll theory. Who would want to drive almost 400 miles from Azusa, CA to Mesa, AZ (the locations of his last two meets) to troll letsrun? It's hard enough for a So Cal unattached runner to find a post-pandemic race within driving distance, and you're going to squander the few opportunities you have by sandbagging both races? It makes no sense!

elusive dreams.. wrote:

I PR'd in the 1500

and my splits were:

300 - 56.64 (75.52" / lap pace)

700 - 2:12.57 (75.93" lap)

1100 - 3:27.76 (75.20" lap)

1500 - 4:40.52 (72.77" lap)

socalcush wrote:

typically some of these "barriers"--and i have it in quotes because we place some magical value on round numbers, like sub-5, or sub-4, or sub-10--have as large a mental component as physical.

+1.

For the 1500, the OP has no problem clicking out 75" laps and closing in 72" because that dreaded sub 5 mile isn't on the line. But his first 2-3 laps slow down considerably whenever he races the big scary mile. If you told him to follow someone running at sub 5 pace for as long as he could (but kept the splits and pace secret from him), he'd run a 4:59 that day.

It might sound crazy, but, OP, have you ever tried training for another event like the 3k or 5k for a while and then gone back to the mile? It could be that training one of those systems could improve a weak link in the collection of physiological systems. It could just be a nice change of pace from doing so much VO2_max. Or maybe it does nothing, but it's a thought.

silvery gold wrote:

It might sound crazy, but, OP, have you ever tried training for another event like the 3k or 5k for a while and then gone back to the mile? It could be that training one of those systems could improve a weak link in the collection of physiological systems. It could just be a nice change of pace from doing so much VO2_max. Or maybe it does nothing, but it's a thought.

I tried training for the 100/200 in 2017 and 2018 out of curiosity, since there were people on here who said that my best events would be the sprints. My 100 times ended up being 12.15 (wind-legal, FAT) and 11.98 (wind-aided, FAT). So they were right, but I'm still obsessed with that sub 5 mile goal.

I haven't tried training for anything longer yet, but I'll admit that I don't have a good reason for not doing so. All I can say is that solo time trials aren't fun for those distances, and I know I'll DFL, get lapped multiple times, and probably delay the meet if I tried to race the 3K, 3200, or 5K. Heck, I almost got DFL when I ran that 4:40 1500 last Saturday, but at least I wasn't lapped.

But I'll probably change my view on that if my attempts to run sub 5 keep hitting a brick wall. I guess we'll find out in the next year or so...

help me pls wrote:

i managed another 5:02 again this summer before losing time/motivation to focus on the mile. maybe next year! :(

help me pls wrote:

in the last couple years i have run 5:02 and 5:01 in races and 5:01 in a solo time trial. i feel OP's pain. sub 5 is the impossible dream. i hope OP will stop by and update us. i haven't given up yet and i hope he hasn't either.

elusive dreams.. wrote:

I PR'd in the 1500 earlier tonight and ran a 4:40

If either of you quit, it would be like turning back from the summit of Everest when you have less than 10 more steps to go. All of that work just to stop when you're at 5:01-5:02? What a waste!

Hey, I totally get it. Also in pursuit of a sub-5, though I'm a decade older than you.. Been close a few times, but even 5-10 seconds is still a lot!

Don't know about where you are, but this spring and summer there should be some road 5Ks open to the public. At least there are a number of options where I am. And in those races, you'll be far from the back of the pack.

Good luck! Just out of curiosity, did you run sub 5 when you were younger (HS or college)?

elusive dreams.. wrote:

silvery gold wrote:

Hey, I totally get it. Also in pursuit of a sub-5, though I'm a decade older than you.. Been close a few times, but even 5-10 seconds is still a lot!

Good luck! Just out of curiosity, did you run sub 5 when you were younger (HS or college)?

Thanks! No, I played tennis, but really never did much running until I was 30. I think my mile time was like 6:0X in HS or something pretty unremarkable, haha. Over the past 5 years , I've had a handful of injuries, so progress has been 1 step forward, 1 step back. It's been frustrating to be so close and not get there yet, especially now that I'm getting older. But I'm giving it a serious push this year and we'll see what happens.

I mentioned trying other distances since adding some long runs and threshold work has seemed to help me at times, and maybe could just help break things up if you're hitting a wall.

Keep updating this thread. I think there are a lot of us "normal" human specimens lurking on LR that can't run 4:15 on 10 mpw, even though reading the message boards would have me convinced otherwise. It's great to see others working toward this goal. I'm pulling for you too!

Five year old thread here. It's true that it is hard to run a five minute mile right now. I doubt I can even run a six minute mile. However, 40 years ago I could run a five minute mile easy peasy. I once even strung together six point two one sub five minute miles back to back with no breaks in between but that's another story for another day.

Seeking a 5 minute mile wrote:

Five year old thread here. It's true that it is hard to run a five minute mile right now. I doubt I can even run a six minute mile. However, 40 years ago I could run a five minute mile easy peasy.

Yeah, the OP has been going at it for almost a decade. His 2:11 800 is from 2012, and his post on 2/20/2016 said that "over the past couple years, I've pretty much made breaking 5 my life's mission, and the fastest I've run is 5:15.6."

I admire the dedication and persistence, but to be honest, the examples given in this thread don't really support the idea that most men can't run sub 5. The OP seems to have figured out a way to increase mileage without getting injured or losing too much speed, and his 4:40 1500 last week shows he's pretty much there. Another guy says that "sub 5 is the impossible dream", even though he's run a 5:01 in a solo time trial. The latest poster on here going for sub 5 is around 40 years old, had minimal running experience until age 30, and was still able to get close to breaking 5 a few times.

If I had to guess, I'd say 90-95% of young males could run sub 5 given appropriate training. I have yet to hear a case of a guy in his 20s running 50+ MPW for years, doing intervals and time trials on a regular basis, and only getting something like a 5:56. No offense, but I don't even think it's possible to be that bad unless you're disabled (I'm talking about the hypothetical 5:56 guy, not the posters on here running in the 5:00 - 5:05 range).

silvery gold wrote:

Hey, I totally get it. Also in pursuit of a sub-5, though I'm a decade older than you.. Been close a few times, but even 5-10 seconds is still a lot!

Hope you don't mind me asking, but what's your exact age and mile PR? I know it's not the same, but you might already be a sub 5 guy if you use the age-graded tables:

This thread shows the divide between LRC posters who ran in high school and those who didn't.

Most of us who ran in high school don't see sub-5 as being that big of a deal. I ran 4:50 something and was eighth on my team. People who started running later in life seem to value it more. It is tougher to reach since you start to lose speed in your mid-twenties.

chasing a white whale wrote:

silvery gold wrote:

Hey, I totally get it. Also in pursuit of a sub-5, though I'm a decade older than you.. Been close a few times, but even 5-10 seconds is still a lot!

Hope you don't mind me asking, but what's your exact age and mile PR? I know it's not the same, but you might already be a sub 5 guy if you use the age-graded tables:

https://runbundle.com/tools/age-grading-calculator

I was 36 when I ran 5:06. It age grades to a 4:59, but that's only a moral victory. I want the real thing!

I am only 5'2'' and the best I could do is 5:15.

I don't have any talent though.

Here's the thing that you're missing: nobody of mediocre talent is going to devote all the time and effort to run 50mpw.  We do things that we're good at, and bail on the stuff we're not.  Nearly all examples in your head are probably coming from people who are already inclined to the sport or at least fitness and were good enough that they decided to spend at least an hour a day engaged with it.  Also, if you're running 50 mpw, you've either done a good bit of research or have a coach or someone guiding you.  Again, the "average" guy isn't going to invest in that.

On LRC, I'm slow AF.  I'm not even in the same universe as you guys running 15 min 5k's because I'd still be a click out when you were all hitting the finish line.  But compared to normal fit people I know who work out at the gym regularly and run 30+ mpw, I'm actually way faster.  I know a lot of guys in their late 20's and early 30's that do a track workout a week and put in a decent amount of miles and can't break 21 in the 5k. 

This is the reality of most people, and even this is a biased sample since most people are too out of shape to even consider working out.  All the hobby joggers that LRC laughs at who collect their participation trophies and post their 52 min 10k's on Facebook are not running sub-5, even if you gave your training plan to them. And those people are probably more fit than the “average” American and overall have at leadt average talent. Average is just that: what most people have.

Average talent here means the average guy on the track team. And yeah, most of them can go sub-5. But you have a massive sampling error here.

jecht wrote:

I am only 5'2'' and the best I could do is 5:15.

I don't have any talent though.

Bekele, Geb, and Manzano were all 5'5", so your height won't prevent you from running a 4:59. If you keep plugging away at it, you'll eventually get there (though you may have to settle for an age-graded sub 5 if you're already age 40+). Did you train specifically for the mile, or was that 5:15 done off of marathon or sprint training?

silvery gold wrote:

chasing a white whale wrote:

Hope you don't mind me asking, but what's your exact age and mile PR? I know it's not the same, but you might already be a sub 5 guy if you use the age-graded tables:

https://runbundle.com/tools/age-grading-calculator

I was 36 when I ran 5:06. It age grades to a 4:59, but that's only a moral victory. I want the real thing!

Congrats, and don't give up!

What were your PRs in other distances? Your average MPW? Your height, weight, and approximate body fat percentage? How were the conditions like when you ran your 5:06? (splits / pacing, competition, weather, footwear, road mile or track mile, etc.).

You're incredibly close to a sub 5; maybe you have a weak point that we can identify and fix which will do the trick.