Has anyone run a sub 5 mile and NOT broken 20 in the 5K?

yes, of course

You need some mileage. That's inexcusable.

4.55 mile and 15.58 5k

Ok, maybe I'm at the other extreme (62 flat out for 400), but, conservatively, you should be breaking 17 minutes

there is no way 4:57 indicates sub 17. i ran 4:40 before i broke 17 in the 5k, when i was a freshman i ran 18:03 and 4:53. so i'd say your 4:57 indicates something in the 18's

Wow...definitely need to log some more miles to get your endurance up. I am the least talented runner I know and my times were -

5:30 Mile (done on a track by myself...YES, I am slow)

18:48 5k (fair course, but 35 degrees and windy)

These two runs were within a couple weeks of each other, so a fair representation. I would imagine if you ran some longer runs, your 5k would improve drastically.

sam wrote:

there is no way 4:57 indicates sub 17. i ran 4:40 before i broke 17 in the 5k, when i was a freshman i ran 18:03 and 4:53. so i'd say your 4:57 indicates something in the 18's

but were you running the 18:03 at the same time as the 4:53? if this is freshman year of high school, as i assume, that you are talking about then you have to realize that your learning curve is much steeper going from freshman xc to freshman track than any other point in your running career. this is generally the time you are first exposed to training etc. i was about the same as you-- low 17s for 3mile and 4:54 in the spring. we did run a 1600 right after xc ended that year and i ran 5:04. i think that is more telling of fitness equalities than the 4:53 or 4:54.

if you are running under 5 you should be running under 18, i believe.

sam wrote:

there is no way 4:57 indicates sub 17. i ran 4:40 before i broke 17 in the 5k, when i was a freshman i ran 18:03 and 4:53. so i'd say your 4:57 indicates something in the 18's

I agree. There are some exceptions, but for the general runners, a 4'53" mile is roughly 18-19' 5K. When I ran 4'52", my 5K was 18'01" (with a 400 PR of 53). And I do not believe you can run a 15'50" 5K when you only have a 4'55" mile PR.

Never ran a mile, but I ran 19:45 on a fairly hilly course.

My best mile from a race at the time was 5:53, and that was a hilly close to a 4 mile race. My best 800 from training was 2:30, and I figure I was probably good for 5:40. So IOW, I am pretty slow, but think you should easily break 19.

another data point

At age 25, ran a 4:21 1500 (=4:40 mile, shall we say) same season I ran 16:09 for 5000m.

The relationship between mile and 5000 times varies quite a lot by age. Anyone who prefaces their statement with "when I was a freshman" is not saying anything that generalizes well to adult runners, even adult runners with similar mileage.

The 5k is 80% aerobic, so while you do need to bust out some mile pace workouts to run a good one, tempos and long intervals (1000-1200 at 5km pace, 2000s at 10k pace) were key workouts for me.

I am 47 and lst year ran a 4:57 and 17:32, my 13 y.o son race a 5:45 mile and 20:10 5k.

You should run low 17 to sub 17 with mileage and tempo run.

Mcmillans calculator says a 4:57 mile equates to a 17:09 5K. So you should be under 20min pretty easily. Actually a 56sec 400m says you should be able to run a 4:32 mile and a 15:45 5K.

So basically you need to run smarter in races.

Oranges-

4:57 mile to 20:18 5k almost doesn't make sense. I'm not saying you didn't run those times, just saying I don't think they really indicate your abilities. Let's think through the mile splits relative to each performance...20:18 5k translates roughly into a 19:30 3 mile (actually a little slower but let's keep the math easy). If you can do 1 mile in ~5 minutes, that means the other 2 miles of that 5k take 14:30, or 7:15/mile. 7:15 should feel like an easy jog to you. If you can run 4:57, then going out at 6:00 for the first mile of a 5k should feel pretty easy (15 seconds slower per quarter) and shouldn't come close to putting you over the edge in terms of aerobics or muscle fatigue. Then you can still fade to 6:30 miles the last 2 and run 5k in around 19:30. But if you go out at 6:00 I don't think you'd be fatigued enough to slow down all the way to 6:30/mile.

Work on pacing, and work on extending your endurance.

One pace wrote:

4.55 mile and 15.58 5k

Unless you didn't take the mile seriously, I'm calling those times a load of bull. 4:55 mile is slightly under 74 seconds per quarter, while 15:58 is slightly under 77 seconds per quarter. That means that there's only a 3 second slowdown per lap, from a mile to a 5K? Geee.

Sounds fishy.

4:40 mile - 17:56 5k on 50-55 mpw

I've run 4:58 in track and 20:02 in a road race. I'm a woman, though, if that makes a difference. I really prefer the shorter distances.

I'm the opposite; have broken 19 for the 5k (ran a 5:51 pace for 3.1 miles) but I have never broken 5 minutes for the mile.

My fastest 1 mile has been 5:13. I figure it means I have endurance but no speed.

Also ran a 1:22:17 for the half-marathon and 2:57 for the marathon; not great, but good enough considering I'm not a thin guy.

I couldn't break 5 in the mile (although I never really had many chances at real competitive miles) but I broke 18 for 5K. If you can run sub 5 in the mile you should at minimum be sub 19 for 5K at the absolute slowest. Add some mpw and do some tempos and you should EASILY be under 20, and probably under 18 in short order actually.

I was running 30-40 MPW, and it still wasn't enough to break 20 :(

It's just that I do really badly in anything over a mile. My best 2 mile is only 11:58, while my best 800 is 2:12. In case anyone wanted to know, I've been running for 4 years, so I'm not new to running (that takes away the "freshman XC to freshman track" theory that someone posted earlier).

seems like it is in your head so you are not mentally tough, you should be running a minute to a minute and a half faster in your two mile.