Why is this? Am I just not built for distance? I completely fade after about 2 miles.
Why is this? Am I just not built for distance? I completely fade after about 2 miles.
Probably because running under 16 minutes for 5k is a lot harder than running under 10 minutes for 2 miles. Work on your endurance. Geez.
This seems to actually be a pretty common thing. Maybe you just aren't meant to run 5000m. Or maybe, you aren't doing the right workouts.
track, road, xc? makes a difference
ever run a track 5000m?
anyway, you could have issues with pacing. you need to be able to run consistent 76.5s per lap.
i broke 16 without ever breaking 10, though i'm sure i could've run 9:50.
ran 9:55 as a soph and couldn't break 16
9:40 as a senior and couldn't break 16
later got smarter and ended up breaking 16 25 or 30 times
20-25 min tempos
weekly long run (90 to 120 minutes)
long intervals 1000 to 2000 meters at pace
good pacing in races (don't try to do 5:00 for your first mile until you are ready)
been there try this wrote:
weekly long run (90 to 120 minutes)
Srsly? 90 mins seems like overkill.
Run, desire, run wrote:
been there try this wrote:weekly long run (90 to 120 minutes)
Srsly? 90 mins seems like overkill.
And this is why you will probably never break 16.
Run, desire, run wrote:
Why is this? Am I just not built for distance? I completely fade after about 2 miles.
Probably because a 3200 meter time of 10 minutes is equal to a 16:08 5K. I'm assuming that you run the 3200m and that you are in HS. Now, if you are 9:40 or so in the 5K, then you would have a legitimate beef.
But with the typical 20-30 mpw HS regime, you aren't going to be very good at the longer distances.
Have you ever considered taking up bowling?
Run, desire, run wrote:
been there try this wrote:weekly long run (90 to 120 minutes)
Srsly? 90 mins seems like overkill.
90 minutes is just getting started--it's the duration that the good stuff starts happing (building red blood cell count, making mitochondria, increasing capillary density, and other physiological benefits) not to mention getting mentally tougher. In fact, I might go so far as to say than unless you have good to very good footspeed (sub 4:30 mile/2:01 or faster for the 800) that is very very hard to break 16 without doing longer runs on a regular basis.
5:15 first mile
5:05 second mile
5:00 last mile
:30 sprint
15:50
been there try this wrote:
90 minutes is just getting started--it's the duration that the good stuff starts happing (building red blood cell count, making mitochondria, increasing capillary density, and other physiological benefits) not to mention getting mentally tougher. In fact, I might go so far as to say than unless you have good to very good footspeed (sub 4:30 mile/2:01 or faster for the 800) that is very very hard to break 16 without doing longer runs on a regular basis.
Thanks for the advice. I had never understood the logic behind long, slow miles making you better at the 5k. It seems more logical that running short distances like 1 or 2 miles fast would make 3.1 miles at a slightly slower pace seem just as easy.
been there try this wrote:
... I might go so far as to say than unless you have good to very good footspeed (sub 4:30 mile/2:01 or faster for the 800) that is very very hard to break 16 without doing longer runs on a regular basis.
Foot speed, schmoot speed.
Everyone knows (or should know) that it is leg speed velocity that counts.
SPEED IS SPEED, MORON!!!
Captain Leg Speed Velocity wrote:
SPEED IS SPEED, MORON!!!
Hip speed is the best indicator.
Captain Leg Speed Velocity wrote:
been there try this wrote:... I might go so far as to say than unless you have good to very good footspeed (sub 4:30 mile/2:01 or faster for the 800) that is very very hard to break 16 without doing longer runs on a regular basis.
Foot speed, schmoot speed.
Everyone knows (or should know) that it is leg speed velocity that counts.
SPEED IS SPEED, MORON!!!
Foot speed is a figure of speech, maybe a colloquialism, but my God doofus, lighten up. I agree speed is speed but you really are stupid.
has to start somewhere wrote:
Captain Leg Speed Velocity wrote:SPEED IS SPEED, MORON!!!
Hip speed is the best indicator.
Have you tried running it on pure hate?
i can crack 10 in the 2 mile no sweat, but i can't break 18 in the 5k. that extra mile is a whole other world
miles fo dayz wrote:
i can crack 10 in the 2 mile no sweat, but i can't break 18 in the 5k. that extra mile is a whole other world
Here was my pace for the recent 5k I tried:
Mile 1: 5:02 min/mile
Mile 2: 5:05 min/mile
Mile 3: 5:47 min/mile
I was attempting to pace myself the first 2 miles lol
Run, desire, run wrote:
Here was my pace for the recent 5k I tried:
Mile 1: 5:02 min/mile
Mile 2: 5:05 min/mile
Mile 3: 5:47 min/mile
I was attempting to pace myself the first 2 miles lol
I think I see the problem.
My guess is you're training like a miler, doing lots of 200, 400, 800 repeats and hoping the 90 minute slow long run fills the endurance gap in your training. The long run is good, but my suggestion is to put in some long, hard tempo efforts from 3-6 miles at 5:30 to to 5:45 pace, maybe closer to 5:50-6:00 on the six miler. Throw in a 10 mile run in under 60 minutes once in a while. You've got to build endurance but more importantly endurance at faster paces.