If you ran 2 Hours MINIMUM every day, What would your 5k PR be?

Run 2 hours a day for 6 months then go run a 5km TT or race on a track and let us know.

ElGuerroujFan wrote:

I have this question because recently I started bringing up the mileage a lot more. It seems that my long runs are the most beneficial out of all the runs every week, and these seem to prepare me a ton for running a 5k race/tt. So if I run long runs more often, or just increase the time every day until you are 2 hours minimum of running every day, how quick would that average person's 5k PR be?

Let's say they have sub 60 second quarter speed.

-EGF

About same as if you ran an hour per day.

ElGuerroujFan wrote:

I have this question because recently I started bringing up the mileage a lot more. It seems that my long runs are the most beneficial out of all the runs every week, and these seem to prepare me a ton for running a 5k race/tt. So if I run long runs more often, or just increase the time every day until you are 2 hours minimum of running every day, how quick would that average person's 5k PR be?

Let's say they have sub 60 second quarter speed.

-EGF

Alright:

Total volume of 60h +-10h is equal +1point to your vdot.

In order to hold vdot at some level it is necessary to keep below weekly volume as well:

Vdot=60 - 6h weekly running

62-7h

64-8h

66-9h

68-10h

69-11h

70-12h

72-13h

74-14h

76-15h

78-16h

80-17h

But, you will develop mostly cardiovascular system, you need also to develop muscles during this process as well in order to use cardiovascular system fully and run fast.

You tell us when you will be able to hold 14h weekly + 2 hard workouts ? ? nice and easy ??? then we talk later...

There's a limit to how useful 2h of jogging is for a 13 to 20 min race (for most ppl on this site). Doing better workouts and moderate mileage (50-80 miles/week) will drop their 5k time faster.

For an average person, running 120 mpw for the 5k is not optimal at all and they'll definitely end up sick or hurt so no real answer.

Also, the average 5k time is pretty slow, around 26-27 mins just from looking at a couple road results, so these people don't have sub 60 400 speed.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

ElGuerroujFan wrote:

I have this question because recently I started bringing up the mileage a lot more. It seems that my long runs are the most beneficial out of all the runs every week, and these seem to prepare me a ton for running a 5k race/tt. So if I run long runs more often, or just increase the time every day until you are 2 hours minimum of running every day, how quick would that average person's 5k PR be?

Let's say they have sub 60 second quarter speed.

-EGF

About same as if you ran an hour per day.

So Haile would be just as fast if he didn't run twice a day. Gotcha.

"It`s not mainly a question about how many miles you run, it`s about HOW you run your miles. "

-J.S -

ElGuerroujFan wrote:

I have this question because recently I started bringing up the mileage a lot more. It seems that my long runs are the most beneficial out of all the runs every week, and these seem to prepare me a ton for running a 5k race/tt. So if I run long runs more often, or just increase the time every day until you are 2 hours minimum of running every day, how quick would that average person's 5k PR be?

Let's say they have sub 60 second quarter speed.

-EGF

Too many factors to get any quality answer.

Not all 60-second 400 people are the same when it comes to 5,000 meters.

Every runner is different with regard to EVERYTHING. Generally speaking, more mileage is beneficial. HOW beneficial it is depends on the individual runner. There is also the Law of Diminishing Returns. At some point, more mileage stops being beneficial for everyone. Individually you need to find out what that point is.

Some runners do better with a very drastic taper before a target race. Others do better with not so much of a taper.

That said, you will run 14:39.73 (that's a joke in case you didn't get it).

BS!!!

What are you smoking dude?

From the other thread:

nordic track wrote:

There's a limit to how useful 2h of jogging is for a 13 to 20 min race (for most ppl on this site). Doing better workouts and moderate mileage (50-80 miles/week) will drop their 5k time faster.

For an average person, running 120 mpw for the 5k is not optimal at all and they'll definitely end up sick or hurt so no real answer.

Also, the average 5k time is pretty slow, around 26-27 mins just from looking at a couple road results, so these people don't have sub 60 400 speed.

This^. Even if you did not get injured, 60 second quarter speed is too slow to be an elite. Just look at the speed the world class 5K runners close their last lap in. Better to whittle the 400 meter time down (work on top end speed) and gradually increase mileage for 3-4 years, then be running those 120 weeks as a long term goal after say 4 years.

Not everyone can handle 100 mile weeks. If you can that is only one piece of the puzzle. Speed will be the biggest limiting factor then- and that is more of a natural gift, but it can be developed some even after a runner is mature already. Running fast is about speed and endurance, the best runners have both.

Not that I agree with that chart nor do I have special insight into the way those guys train but many east Africans double on most days. Assuming at least one hour each time plus a long run that could easily be 15 hours already. Some even triple a couple of days so the hours per week are not that farfetched.

My 5K PR would be slower if I ran two hours a day.

Just because you run more does not mean you will get faster.

2 hours of running is a LOT. Most likely you will get injured.

There is no way that you will get a lot faster because of that.

Probably be the same as it is now, though I didn't average that the whole training cycle. It was pretty darn close. It'd probably be faster if I did more 5k/miler type of work as opposed to the marathon type of work I usually do(I only do 5k races as a workout for marathons ). So I imagine I would it would be around 17 flat give or take a few seconds if I did a training cycle focus on the 5k. For reference, my 5k PB is 17:2x on a course with several 180 turn arounds and I split close to this during the first 5k of a 10 mile race albeit the first 5k was almost all downhill, but also this 10 mile race was 2 weeks after a marathon.

You need to have the right genetics, bro. Many many many people would get hurt or not improve their 5k at all from that type of training.

If you are going to run two hours a day, do not waist your time jogging every run. To race fast, you have to run fast in training; so you need to give it the old college try during some segments of your runs.

Gerry Lindgren, the man who ran 200+ miles in high school did not jog all his miles. He describes his weeks like this:

- 3 days where he ran from "the heart"

- 2 days of running from "the mind"

- 2 days to rest his legs

He had great early career success with the occasional injury but was not able to sustain his success into his post-collegiate career. His early success can be attributed to golden genetics, not "heart", as he and many old-timers claim.

I remembered reading your thread where you tried Jim Ryun's 50x400 workout, LOL. Remember what happened? Remember that 99.9999% of people can not run the same way Jim or Gerry did. In fact, the majority of boys who go to cross country nationals these days only do about 50 miles a week. That isn't that much when you consider the speed that some of these guys run at.

If every 60 second 400 runner ran 2 hours per day, 95% would get injured. Of the healthy 5%, the average 5k would be 20 minutes.

Hutchins said she runs 38-40 MPW. That is 40 minutes per day.

Too many coaches/runners look for that "breakpoint" where more training stops being beneficial

instead of looking for that point of volume where it`s ENOUGH. Enough to give that supercompensation that takes the runner to new better levels.This way also reduce the injury risk.A very smart way! :)

Listen to Coach JS. He knows what he's talking about.

The Wizard JS wrote:

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

So Haile would be just as fast if he didn't run twice a day. Gotcha.

Well....the answer of that we will never know because he never tried it , but my qualified guess

would be that he had been at least as fast as he was, with me as the coach of course.

With you as a coach Haile would have run 2:30 instead of 2:03