Is it possible to break 16 (5k) with a 63s 400?

Yes, but you will need very good endurance. Your speed over 400m will improve as you get older as well. Do some hill reps to improve leg strength.

The Predictor wrote:

?

For what it’s worth, when I set my 5k PR I could only manage a 62-63s 400. I ran just under 15:30. But that was me pushing 30, I used to be a 53s runner in college. So I suppose it’s not quite a confirmation of your question.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

flvmmox wrote:

probably not.

there's probably some marathoners who would run 58 and 14 high, but the 58 would be because marathon training is so far removed from 400m training

Probably not but it is more because the odds are you aren't an endurance monster. You can run a 4:25 mile with 58s speed and then off that something like a 14:40. But most people don't have that level of endurance and they aren't going to get there no matter how much endurance work they do.

Really good endurance guys run a mile at 7-8s off their 400m time. But most people are more like 10-12s. So yeah there are some people who run like 63/4:45/15:00. But not a ton.

Yeah, a mile time would give a better "reading". It's hard to carry that mile time out to 5k and beyond on the calculators. But it depends if you are more of a distance person and if you have put in enough miles to build the engine.

It seems the fast pros in the mile and marathon have a very small spread from their mile time > marathon. Amazing really.

Partridge wrote:

No, 15:00 is an average pace of 4:49, so it is not possible to do if your mile PR was just 4:45.

However, I think with a 63 s 400 you can hope for 4:50 and 16:00 with well trained endurance. But that might be the limit if you don't improve your basic speed in the process.

Yeah that was supposed to be 16. There are rough rules of endurances (mile time is 400+8, 5000m is mile PR+20) that aren't perfect but get you in the ball park.

The thing with basic speed is that you need to work on it in framework of being a distance runner. I am sure if I would have trained as a 400m guy, I could have run maybe a 52 or 53 instead of a 55 but that added speed wouldn't have helped my mile time. As soon as I went from training 15mpw to 50mpw and lost that extra 10lbs of muscle, my 400m time would have regressed. You need to improve your 400m while doing distance training. For most people that is short hill sprints and things like 150-200m strides that are almost all out. You don't need a ton of this type of work, but you do need some of it.

Anything is possible! That being said, no. no it is not.

HS teammate of mine broke 16 but never went sub-60. I paced perfect 59s several times immediately following outdoor in an attempt to get him under. Even with rolling starts, he just couldn’t do it. But he was an endurance monster. The longer the race, the better he faired. Worth noting his weekly mileage rotated from 95, 105, 115, and back. So he’s proof slower 400s can’t directly predict a 5k time, but it sure takes something to make up for it.

Additionally, my HS coach ran 4:12 (full mile) and 29 high, both of which are verified. Claims he never broke 60. I always found this to be suspicious, likely a motivational tactic for the speed-impaired runners on the team.

Heavens yes. I ran 15:33 and my best 440 at the time was 66.

You can't break 16 if you can't break 60. Your teammate did not do it on a legit course.

shrug wrote:

HS teammate of mine broke 16 but never went sub-60. I paced perfect 59s several times immediately following outdoor in an attempt to get him under. Even with rolling starts, he just couldn’t do it. But he was an endurance monster. The longer the race, the better he faired. Worth noting his weekly mileage rotated from 95, 105, 115, and back. So he’s proof slower 400s can’t directly predict a 5k time, but it sure takes something to make up for it.

Additionally, my HS coach ran 4:12 (full mile) and 29 high, both of which are verified. Claims he never broke 60. I always found this to be suspicious, likely a motivational tactic for the speed-impaired runners on the team.

Your coach is either lying or leaving a lot out. There is zero chance a guy that is basically running 63s for 400m can't run 1 lap sub 60. He might have never run a sub 60 but that is because there he never ran one not because he couldn't. But I am mildly suprised he never ran like a 59/62 800m. Of course he might never have run the 800m either.

For what it's worth, Sydney Thorvaldson has a hs 400 pr of 63 and an overall pr of 62 (both were run at altitude though, which gives her some advantage) and ran a 16:19 5k at over 5000 feet of elevation. She'd easily be sub 16 on most sea level 5k xc courses and well under 16 for 5000m on the track.

Interpret this as you wish.

David S wrote:

I never ran faster than a 65, and my 5k PR is 16:28, and I think I could have gone faster for 5k.

Same deal here. I'm not sure I've ever run an all-out 400 but I've hit 64/65 at the end of workouts on rare occasions. I ran 16:15 for 5k in a race last summer. 16:2x this fall solo. I don't think you need to break 60 to get to sub-16. I think I'm pretty close to 15:5x now & will take a shot this winter/spring with some specific training.

I came to running backwards. Started running marathons + high mileage in college. Went back to the mile-5k after several years of half marathon and marathon training after more/less stagnating at the longer stuff.

Some of those 2:18 marathon types have mile PRs in the 4:30s and are just barely sub-15:00. Idk if those guys can crack 60. If they can, breaking 60 is probably the goal for most of them in an all-out TT.

Rob de Castella had troubles to dip sub 60 and ran a 13.34, so I guess you can run at least a sub 15.

My best 400 was 65 and I ran 16:09. So I'd say yes, it's possible. I was (am) a real slow-twitch type of runner and did that off about 55 miles per week.

I know a guy who has a 61/62 PR but runs low 15's for 5K. So it's doable

ive run 15:47 for 5k, 8:59 for 3k, and a 4:32 mile while clocking out around a 63s 400 (although I never 'raced' a 400, for obvious reasons). yes the 4:32 mile was absolute hell from about 300m into it.

chances are I probably would have been closer to 60 flat in a 400 if a raced a 400 fresh all out, but that season i was put in a 4x400 and split a 63 after running a 1500m earlier in the day.

so its definitely possible. i was averaging ~80 mpw

I once split 62 in a hand timed in a 4x400. I am skeptical I could run below 65 in a real 400m race. My 5k PR is 15:15. Definitely doable.

Need more info... workouts mileage pace of workouts. Generally speaking I would say no. I have run a 16:01 5k 9:39 for 3200m and 4:08 1500. My speed workouts were 65 second pace training for mile. I would say to break 16 for 5k minimum u should be able to break 60 for 400. 2:08 800. 4:30 mile 9:50 2 mile at minimum but just says no u can run a 63 quarter and ask if u can break 16 for the 5k is not giving enough data

4x1200 at 4:14 pace (I think), 2 min jog between reps.

4 mile tempo on the road at sub 6 pace one time. Usually hovers a bit above 6.

A couple of times I did a 7 mile tempos on a hilly route at 6:20s pace.

I also did 12x400 a few times at 73-76 with 60 sec standing.

I have been stagnate in the 5k and 1600 for 2 years now despite doing workouts 2-3 times a week and running 40-60 mpw. Somehow I improved in long distance rapidly in my first year despite doing half the mileage and running hard everyday. Maybe this sounds silly to some of you but I think it may be because I can improve my aerobic engine super fast as long as my 400 is low? Idk. Maybe I'm more of a miler than a 5k runner and I just don't know it yet.

Impossible. Short course.