Lets say if you are a more distance oriented runner. Whats the slowest you guys have heard of?
Lets say if you are a more distance oriented runner. Whats the slowest you guys have heard of?
prolly (notice i used californian accent! i'm so cool!) under 8:50 for 3k.
To qualify for my conference in the indoor 5k you can run a 15:20 5k or an 8:45 3k, so supposedly those should be equivalent and I think it is pretty right on. Last year my PRs were 15:10 5k and 8:40 3k. I'm now down to 8:25 3k and feel like I could run a 14:40 or so 5k.
8:40 will probably juuuust get you under 15:00 if you're a true-blue, strength-oriented, h-core distance guy.
The two guys on my team closest to this threshold have pb's of 8:37/15:03, and 8:22/14:40, so that should give you a bit more of an idea.
The 8:37 guy is a pure strength runner, a real grinder, almost zero speed, whereas the 8:22 guy has alot more speed.
I ran 14:53 with a 8:41 3k PR.
On the same note: How fast should your 3k be to dip under 14 min for a 5k?
I ran 8:48 for 5K and wasn't even close to 15:00
8:48 3K
dinero wrote:
I ran 14:53 with a 8:41 3k PR.
Yeah but how far apart were those two times recorded?
In all likelihood your fitness improved in between the 8:41 and the 14:53. Or you could have had a bad race in the 3k and a good one in the 5k.
I think what the OP wants to know is: what 3k time corresponds to a sub-15 5k?
That's not neccessarily the same as asking "what was your pb in the 3k when you ran sub 15?".
I was running 14:45ish and just a shade under 8:40 at about the same time. I never really got in a super competitive 3k though, so its tough to make a direct association. I would say that if you can run an 8:40 and not be going all out, you should be in shape for a sub 15.
8:37 the indoor season before barely breaking 15:00. But I felt the 3k was as good as I could have done while the 5k could have been a little better (felt a bit flat, no competition).
If you break 8:40 I'd say you're in shape.
I have run 8:33 in the 3k and 14:37 in the 5k for indoors. Never ran the 3k much though. Never ran it outdoors, but ran a 14:20 5k. I have assume that I should really drop that 3k time.
I ran 14:58, then a few weeks later ran an 8:38. Both were PRs and both felt physically equivalent to me. But I am definitely a strength runner.
I would say an 8:05 3k is good to get you to a 14 5k
I ran 8:39 and 14:32....didnt really make sense because I came through the 3k during the 5k at 8:41
The truth:
3K 8:51
5k 14:52
3k? wrote:
Lets say if you are a more distance oriented runner. Whats the slowest you guys have heard of?
I am more "distance-oriented". Three data points below, each pair of races separated by just a few weeks:
8:44, 15:01 (1996)
8:41, 14:58 (2003)
8:43, 14:57 (2008)
I'm not sure if this helps, but I ran three races in three consecuive weeks a few years back...
In this order, all on the track :
3k - 9:00.3
5k - 15:30.1 (windy)
1.5k - 3:59.4
All pr's at the time...
You can look up the iaaf tables but I'm pretty sure an 8:39 3k is about equal to a 15:00. If you're more of a 10000m runner, you could probably run 15:00 with an 8:50 3k, but you'd better off with at least an 8:45.
For 14:00, you probably need at least an 8:10 3k, with 8:05 being more realistic.
In college I ran with a kid who was a pure strength runner, had about 61 second quarter speed. As a jr. he ran 8:37 and 14:43, on back to back weekends. As a sr. he ran 8:29, 14:35, again on back to back weekends, that year he also ran a 4:26 mile pr.
Now I was a strength guy but I was a 8:38, 14:56 guy my sr. year and went 8:20, 14:31 as a fifth year. I would guess that a pure endurance guy, particularly one who was older and out of college with a ton of miles under there belt could run in the 8:50 to 8:52 range and be capable of cracking 15:00.