How talented do you need to be to run 15:00 and 31:00

I would tend to agree that if you want to average 4:49 per mile (which is 15:00 5k pace), then, yes you should work on being able to run just 1 mile faster than 4:38.

I've only seen the highest caliber distance runners (El G, Bekele, Geb come to mind off the top of my head) that can be within 10-15 sec of their mile PR for 5k. For the average person, the falloff as you move up in distance is much more severe, typically in the neighborhood of 30+ seconds per mile (which is where you're at averaging 5:10 per mile with a 4:38 mile PR). The better you get the smaller that gap will become, but even getting it down to in the neighborhood of 20-25sec per mile slower than mile PR requires a significant amount of fitness/talent. That's all in my opinion, and is in no way fact, but it's the trend I've come to notice over the years.

If you can only run a 2:12 800, but can still run 16:10, improve on your 800 first. 15:00 in a 5k is 4:50 pace. How would you be able to run 3.1 miles at 4:50 pace if your near all out speed only brings you to 4:24. To run sub 15, your 800 will have to be under 2 minutes.

fast wrote:

If you can only run a 2:12 800, but can still run 16:10, improve on your 800 first. 15:00 in a 5k is 4:50 pace. How would you be able to run 3.1 miles at 4:50 pace if your near all out speed only brings you to 4:24. To run sub 15, your 800 will have to be under 2 minutes.

No. That is stupid.

I think the reason for this trend is that not enough sub-elite/ mid caliber runners train the speed component. A lot of times this is because unless you're a member of a hs or college track team there are few if any chances to run these events. So their distance PRs are comparably better than their 800/mile/2-mile. It's a training gap, not a talent gap.

i would suggest a simple programme such as:

M 60'mins easy

T 5x1KM with 90sec rest / 4x1600m with 1 min

W 60'mins easy

T 16x400m 60sec rest / 12x1min hill

F rest

S 4mile tempo

S 90mins easy+ weights

do that for a while. or add in 30min runs in the morning/evening.

don't worry about complex progressions or tapering, just go by feel and race often.

I was in your shoes a couple of years ago. I'm a slow twitch runner who really doesn't have much speed. I upped the mileage and it made a huge difference for me. You have to keep the pure speed however, not just slog out 100+ miles.

El G averaged 4:08 pace for 5k and his mile PR was 3:43. That's a 25 second difference.

I don't even know if Bekele and Geb averaged within 15 sec of their mile PR

What is your typical training like?

I've known 14:30s, 30:00's guys who couldn't break 2:00. I know a guy who's run 30:50 and never ran an 800 under 2:10 nor mile under 4:40.

Keep working on bringing your distance times down and your mile times will also come down, though you should do some drills and hill work as well.

:|} wrote:

I don't even know if Bekele and Geb averaged within 15 sec of their mile PR

Well Bekele has the WR at 12:37 (4:02 pace). So, even at his prime, I wouldn't have pegged him as being able to go faster than 3:47 which is 15 sec from his 5k PR pace. So he, at least, is within 10-15 sec of his mile PR, but he doesn't have much, if any, company in that regard.

And while I tend to agree with previous posters that alot of people don't train that MD-type speed so the gap between the Mile and 5k mile pace is somewhat inflated, but, in regards to the OP, I still stand by my statement that he should work on being able to run 1 mile faster than 4:38 if he wants to average 4:49 for 3. To me that is a gap that very few people are actually able to achieve. I think he'd have an easier time/better results by bringing that Mile down and translating the speed to the 5k then by training for the 5k and translating that endurance to the Mile. But, like I said, that's just me.

trainingtraining wrote:

i would suggest a simple programme such as:

M 60'mins easy

T 5x1KM with 90sec rest / 4x1600m with 1 min

W 60'mins easy

T 16x400m 60sec rest / 12x1min hill

F rest

S 4mile tempo

S 90mins easy+ weights

do that for a while. or add in 30min runs in the morning/evening.

don't worry about complex progressions or tapering, just go by feel and race often.

Hey look, Runner's World made a spam-bot!

spotter wrote:

Should I try going 100+

Some have told me the opposite - improve your 800/mile time first (from 2:12 and 4:38 )

To start with, your PR's prove nothing except what times you used to be able to run. Put in the appropriate training and your PR's will improve.

Having said this, since you are looking to improve your 10k time, that probably means that your 800 time will be effected less than your 5k or even your mile time.

The best training is going to be a combination between distance and speed. If you can accomplish this between 50-80 miles a week, great! If not, then bumping your mileage up to 100+ would probably be a good option. Either way, if you're looking to run 4:50's for 3.1 miles, you're going to need more leg speed than your PR's show that you had in the past, so as much as I hate to give an endorsement to the Runners World poster, put some strengthening exercises in there, such as interval training, hills and tempo runs.

Keep putting in the work and you'll see the benefit

you need to be in the top 1% gene pool.

Nutella1 wrote:

you need to be in the top 1% gene pool.

Bullcrap. Top 30% I'd say.

I don't think I've ever seen such a good case for moving up to the marathon. Seriously.

but if you're really set on running sub-15 or sub-31 you probably need to work on everything. More miles, more speed, more strength work, better diet, more doubles. Be realistic, you need it all.

you need to be in the top 1% gene pool.[/quote]

Bullcrap. Top 30% I'd say.[/quote]

You honestly think that 30% of the population has the capability to run sub 15:00 and sub 31:00? The top 30 % of collegiate runners can't even come close to those times. Probably only 10 to 15 percent of guys running competitively in college run that fast.

Great point. Most college runners can't get below 15. I hate it when people say, "If everybody had ideal training and wanted to do it, they could go sub ____."Well, competitive runners are running because they are naturally good at it; their natural ability draws them toward the sport. Similarly, most people playing other sports like soccer or tennis or whatever do so because they show some inherent ability at the activity.There are exceptions; slow people that train hard but they are not the rule.I'd say that most people could break....21 for the 5K with ideal training.

sdfhafjl wrote:

you need to be in the top 1% gene pool.

Bullcrap. Top 30% I'd say.[/quote]

You honestly think that 30% of the population has the capability to run sub 15:00 and sub 31:00? The top 30 % of collegiate runners can't even come close to those times. Probably only 10 to 15 percent of guys running competitively in college run that fast.[/quote]

this.

Freelove wrote:

I've known 14:30s, 30:00's guys who couldn't break 2:00. I know a guy who's run 30:50 and never ran an 800 under 2:10 nor mile under 4:40.

Keep working on bringing your distance times down and your mile times will also come down, though you should do some drills and hill work as well.

Nonsense. That's because he never really truly raced a mile. We're talking true, all out effort mile potential. In order to average 4:48 per mile in a 5k, I don't see how you cannot be at least a 4:18-4:20 miler. Usually it's 25-30 seconds per mile slower than current mile effort. I could never run 15:00 unless I was in 4:18 shape. If you don't have the mile talent to run 4:24-4:20, you don't have the talent to run 15:00. Sorry.