It's too damn hard to run a sub 5 mile

RudyBlabber wrote:

Also, if the OP's turnover rate is really only 130 then that is the problem right there. it needs to get to 180 a minute.

I checked the OP's 800 vid and this doesn't seem to be the case.

Time for last 31 strides in race: 10.9 seconds

Stride rate: 170/minute

Distance covered: 61 meters

The OP's stride rate drops in his 1600 race but it's still quite a bit above 130.

Time for 31 strides at the ~315 - 370? meter mark: 11.5 seconds

Stride rate: 162/minute

For reference, the OP's stride rate in his 300 time trial is around 200/minute.

Sadly, I know how you feel. I've recently run 56/2:14/5:06. I'm about to turn 40 and have yet to figure it out. Heck my 1k PR is 2:53, which was done recently, as well. What a mindf^|

"When I went to high school, me and my four junior high friends all went out for cross country simply because someone talked us into it. At the end of our first year running, all five of us had broken 5 min in the mile. We were just a random sample of non-athletes doing something we weren't normally inclined to participate it."

Congrats, Rudy, I broke 5 too. But that doesn't mean you or I are average talents. You chose a sport you could succeed in. I did too. I coach middle schoolers, and I have seen average. If you break 5 in HS, you are not average. You are also obviously not exceptional unless you are running 4:10 or so... but take 100 random boys, train them for three or four years, and I would say you've got 5 or 10 sub 5 milers in the bunch. Maybe a few more... but you sure as heck wouldn't have FIFTY, which is what you would need for it to be an "average" (technically median) time.

And for the person who said that all 4:1x milers can break 55 so muscle composition isn't the issue, those are SUPREMELY TALENTED athletes. A fast twitch athlete of solid but not spectacular ability could easily max out at 55/2:11/5:15.

One of OPs arms is flailing wildly in that 400 video. I've never even seen someone run like that!

FWIW in high school, I had a 2:07 800 pr but my 1500 was only 4:50ish. I was severely undertrained, to put it mildly.

Blame your parents. Genetics play a huge role, regardless of how hard you work, and do everything right. I ran a 4:56 mile at age 15 (female), but was also blessed with good running genes and a very strong work ethic. Most folks can't run one 75-second 400, let alone stringing 4 together. Be happy with what you have achieved, and keep running for running's sake - not to break records. Good luck.

Why should he run for running's sake? The whole point is to be faster at some distance, correct?

The only thing I would add to what has been said is that when you are talking about any kind of reps, you have to remember to finish them feeling strong.

So if you are doing 400m repeats in 75, running 35/40 for the 200 splits is failing.

Also, running 73,73,74,72,75,75,78,81 is failing.

Every rep, and the whole workout, you should be feeling like you are saving something for the end.

At 112 lbs with your shoes and clothes on, you are more like 108-109 lbs. That seems quite a bit lighter than even world class runners. You say that you are in your late 20s, so you're no longer growing, so I wonder if there is something about your health that is restricting your energy. Do you think you have any eating issues?

If you just want to break 5 for the mile, do what Big Wave (Dave Torrence) did before he became a sub-4 flat miler and time trial a mile on a downhill course.

As others have noted, you have pretty good speed - way more than enough for a sub-5. I've never run faster than mid-14s rolling start/hand timed in 100s, but ran sub-5 the first time I raced a mile in high school (back in the 80s).

You say that you've run high mileage. How many miles per week was that? At what pace and effort levels? And for how long? There's a good chance you don't know how to pace yourself in normal training runs. A lot of slower runners try to go to hard all the time.

112 lbs is 50 kg. Have you tried to EAT more? Nutrients give you energy, it is fascinating when you try

RacingtheCanteloupe wrote:

Some people just aren't that talented or trainable. You may be neither.

I'm not elite and never will be, but I'm pretty sure I have more talent than the average joe, and my trainability isn't bad either.

Check out my progression and decide for yourself.

Age 13: I was a pretty sedentary kid, and this was the first time I put 100% effort into running a mile. Got a 7:24. I paced it better the next time I ran it and managed to run a 7:07. For reference, the 50th percentile mile time for 13 year olds is 8:06, and the 85th percentile is 6:50, according to the President's fitness challenge.

Age 14: First season running XC. Improved mile time to 6:07.

Age 17: Graduated HS. Ended up with a 5:28 mile.

Early 20's: Had my most serious injury so far (achilles tendonitis). Iced and ran through it, which only made it worse. Eventually took a complete break from running and vigorous activity for half a year. My first week back, I ran a 400 (72") and mile (6:3?) at a bit less than max effort just to see where I was at. Got my 400 time below 60 again a few weeks later.

Mid 20's: Ran a 5:15.6 mile, which is my current PR.

No - what I am saying is, he is likely not going to break 5 if he hasn't already. I ran at a top level from high school through professionally, but am now seeing that running is great for you without having to chase a time or a PR.

Running should be a lifelong activity, so my point is, he should just start enjoying running for the physical and psychological benefits, and stop flogging himself to reach some elusive goal.

By the way, I completely disagree with your 'failing' theory above. Everyone runs intervals differently, based on their strengths, mentality, leg speed, Max V02 and anaerobic threshold. No workout is a failure, just as no race is a failure.

Why not check out Tinman's advice on this? Drew Hunter just ran 3:57:xx indoors. Maybe some CV training?

I eat until I'm 90% full and never stuff myself except for a few times a year when there's some really good dessert at an all-you-can-eat buffet. On the other hand, I've never dieted to lose weight either - there's no point in doing so since I've never weighed over 115 lbs in my life.

I'll give it a try sometime this year, but 16 seconds is quite a bit of time to drop. Each second below 5:30 becomes exponentially more difficult for me to take off. The last time I've improved by more than 12 seconds a year was from freshman year in HS (6:07) to sophomore year (5:48).

I've also run that slowly when I did high mileage, but the longest I've ever held sub 5 pace was a little over 1100m. My 1500 PR is 4:52, and the fastest I've done for a rolling start, hand-timed 100 was 11.6.

The max I've run consistently was 50-55 MPW in singles for 2 months. Pace was 7:30/mile. First attempt at that resulted in achilles tendinitis, second attempt at it completely killed my speed. At one point, I took a day off, put on my spikes, ran an all-out 400, and ended up with a time that was 10 seconds slower than what I ran the previous year.

So far, what seems to work best for me is playing to my strengths by running low mileage/high intensity and relying on the altitude tent for the endurance. A typical week would be 15 MPW at 7:00 pace with strides at the end of most runs and either a hard interval workout or a time trial every 4-5 days.

elusive dreams wrote:

It doesn't show the last 40 meters of the race, but I do have a video of me running a solo 39" 300, which is approximately equivalent to a 55" 400:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhK2oM_HUQ

Excuse me. We need to stop the thread and figure out what the deal is with that bench in lane 1.

Neither of those extremes sound like good training. 'High' mileage, take 1: run too much for your body to handle. 'High' mileage, take 2: run distance but don't train speed. Current typical training: run too little, run too fast for your current level.

likeisaid wrote:

No - what I am saying is, he is likely not going to break 5 if he hasn't already. I ran at a top level from high school through professionally, but am now seeing that running is great for you without having to chase a time or a PR.

Running should be a lifelong activity, so my point is, he should just start enjoying running for the physical and psychological benefits, and stop flogging himself to reach some elusive goal.

By the way, I completely disagree with your 'failing' theory above. Everyone runs intervals differently, based on their strengths, mentality, leg speed, Max V02 and anaerobic threshold. No workout is a failure, just as no race is a failure.

I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree, especially since the OP seems to genuinely believe he will get some sort of satisfaction in breaking 5. I'd like to believe that based on his times at lower distances, he has a shot. I have been running for 15 years and I cannot get out the door to just run for health. If his goal was to break 5:20 and he did it, would you question his priorities?

Maybe "failing" was too harsh a word, but surely you must agree that it is not the purpose of pace work to run erratic paces. How does running 400 repeats at 35/40 (which I have seen) prepare you to run sub-5?

The average fit person cannot run a sub 5:00 mile. I ran 4:01.89 at peak 10 years ago. Today I struggle hard to run sub 5:30 and still run 20-27 Miles a week. The reality is once it goes it goes and there is nothing we can really do about it.

Link wrote:

Cavorty wrote:

No. He's not. I ran under 5 minutes for a mile just shy of my 50th birthday, and I never had any great talent.

His 2:11 800m is plenty fast enough to break 5 min. I'd suggest some sessions of running 1000m or 1200m at sub 5 min pace (obviously possible) with full recovery and then some fast 200s or 300s.

I know this is the canonical answer, but I don't agree. OP, try this as a weekly workout for the next month: 5xmile in 6:00 with 100 meter jog. If you can't do this, back off to 6:20 then, once you've accomplished that, down to 6:15, then to 6:10 and so on. My bet is that once you've done four consecutive weeks of this workout with 6:00 miles, you'll break 5.

I'm confused by this response. 5xmile @ 6 does not indicate a sub 5 min mile.

I can run 10 miles continuous at 6 min/mile pace and am nowhere near to breaking 5 for the mile.

Unless you are specifying this workout because you know OP is all fast twitch or something?

I have very similar pr's and found that pure sprint training actually reduced my 800 and mile times compared to when I was running around 60 mpw. Most of the aerobic work was from bike riding or two mile runs and my mile and 800 went down a lot. I would do sprint training and run an all out mile every week or few weeks. Also eat a fruitarian diet

Im 25, Ive been running for a year and 3 months now and broke 5:05 at the mile indoors at 190 lbs. my long runs are done at 8:24 progressing down to a 7:40/mi pace with most of my runs done at 8:00 or slower unless its a specific workout and I have yet to do any real speed work mostly just trying to build mileage currently averaging around 40-45 a week consistantly. Maybe try slowing down on the easy days?