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

1) Blaming OP's difficulty on his running form is an exaggeration. Look at videos of Mark Everett, USA, running 1:43 or 1:44 800m.

2) OP at the time of post, at a minimum was psychologically most comfortable with 400m training. Maybe only one, two or three posters encouraged him to focus on 400m. Based on his 39.xx 300m, he was most likely a sub-25.50 FAT 200m person. One poster stated he should have focused on attempting sub-50 400m. I agree. [At least focus on racing sub-52.50 400m.]

3) One or more posters encouraged OP to do long workouts, 1600m repeats. Other poster(s) encouraged OP to run 50 miles per week. Long repeats and fifty miles per week are not necessary to run sub-5 for a mile. If one is going to race sub-5 for a mile, 200m/220yd., 300m/330yd. & 400m/440yd. repeats and (25 to 35) miles per week is enough.

4) OP's low weight is not the reason he did not run sub-5 for one mile.

5) OP is/was psychologically suited for 400m. OP is not the first 400m person to hate mileage. Not all sub-51.xx 400m men are able to race sub-2:00, 800m (hate mileage); not all sub-46.xx 400m men are able to race sub-1:50, 800m (hate mileage). Sport psychology is fascinating.

I ran 4:45 at 49 but I'm a badass so there's that. No track background. You need raw speed and to pair some endurance training with it to run sub 5.

Eeeiiii wrote:

I ran 4:45 at 49 but I'm a badass so there's that. No track background. You need raw speed and to pair some endurance training with it to run sub 5.

Nope.

At age 30 I ran 4:20.2 for 1500 meters, equivalent to a 4:41 mile.

My fastest 800 that year was 2;13.9 and I might not have been under 60 for 400.

That was my fastest mile since age 19.

In high school I ran 53.4 for 440, 2:01.8 for 880y, and 4:38.2 for the mile.

how did it turn out?

i managed another 5:02 again this summer before losing time/motivation to focus on the mile. maybe next year! :(

help me pls wrote:

in the last couple years i have run 5:02 and 5:01 in races and 5:01 in a solo time trial. i feel OP's pain. sub 5 is the impossible dream. i hope OP will stop by and update us. i haven't given up yet and i hope he hasn't either.

Da f*ck is it really this hard to go sub 5?

It's not that bad with quality training wrote:

Da f*ck is it really this hard to go sub 5?

Yes, depending on who you are, it can indeed be "really this hard to go sub 5," if not impossible.

I attended a powerhouse track high school with an excellent, knowledgeable coach and a positive, supportive team environment. We had three kids walk onto the team as sophomores to run mid-D. They had self-selected as runners (obviously), and already had skinny, distance runner-type physiques.

They attended all practices, did the distance work assigned to them, ran as hard as they could (relative to their abilities) in interval sessions, and faithfully followed the Summer vacation/school holidays training programs laid out for them by our coach. And you know what? By senior year the fastest of these three kids did a 5:07 mile.

It's not they lacked guts, or didn't try hard enough, or didn't want it badly enough, or didn't train; they just weren't that good, period. They didn't have "it." If three years in that kind of program couldn't get them under 5 for the mile, nothing could.

A sub-5 mile is a lot more impressive and difficult to achieve than many of the posters on here give it credit for, and the so-called "average person" can't get anywhere near it.

help me pls wrote:

in the last couple years i have run 5:02 and 5:01 in races and 5:01 in a solo time trial. i feel OP's pain. sub 5 is the impossible dream. i hope OP will stop by and update us. i haven't given up yet and i hope he hasn't either.

If you ran 5:01 solo, then you should be able to race 4:50 at least.

What were the lap splits in your races?

Right now, I'm a sophomore in high school, and I have just recently obtained the ability to run a sub 5, I've been training very hard. I had the same thoughts as you, I'm 5'6, 115 pounds. What my strategy was running about 6 miles every day to get your endurance up, then start working on speed, like 800s and running up and down hills. To get there takes alot of work. Last year I was stuck at at around 5:10, it took me a while just to knock 10/15 seconds. But honestly, in my opinion, it's the amount of dedication and mentality, start with distance then work to speed.

ironside wrote:

2) OP at the time of post, at a minimum was psychologically most comfortable with 400m training. Maybe only one, two or three posters encouraged him to focus on 400m. Based on his 39.xx 300m, he was most likely a sub-25.50 FAT 200m person. One poster stated he should have focused on attempting sub-50 400m. I agree. [At least focus on racing sub-52.50 400m.]

Yes, he did run sub 25.50 FAT for the 200:

slow bro 84 wrote:

It might also be illuminating to know your 100 & 200 PR's.

elusive dreams wrote:

100 PR's: 12.0 (hand timed, significant tailwind), 12.2 (hand timed, minimal wind), 12.49 (FAT)

200 PR: 25.17 (FAT)

Tomato Tomato wrote:

WE NEED AN UPDATE

D3 chose me wrote:

any update?

help me pls wrote:

i feel OP's pain. sub 5 is the impossible dream. i hope OP will stop by and update us. i haven't given up yet and i hope he hasn't either.

I took the advice of the posters who said I should focus on the sprints since I might be too fast-twitch to run sub 5. I don't have a sprint coach, and I don't have regular access to either blocks or the weight room. But I was curious to see what I could run for the 100, and I did manage to run sub 12 FAT a few times. Unfortunately, those times were either wind-aided or did not have a wind gauge, so my official wind-legal, electronically-timed PR is 12.15.

After my modest success in the 100, I had pretty much given up on the sub 5 mile goal and any endurance training. That is, until last September. One of my buddies had managed to snag a day hike permit to climb Mt. Whitney, which was a 22-mile adventure that started out at ~8360' and topped out at 14.5K feet. I joined him and a few others on a whim, having done no prior preparation whatsoever. I thought that my general track fitness would be enough to get me through it, but I ended up having to turn back at around 13.3K feet even though they slowed down their hiking pace for me (from 10.5K feet onward) and even helped carry some of my gear (from 12K feet onward). Embarrassed, I swore that I would make it all the way up the mountain the following year.

So for the past few months, I started rebuilding the mileage and went from around 5 MPW to 25-30 MPW. I did strides, tempos, and intervals on occasion to break up the monotony and had no intention of racing or training for a specific event. I didn't carry a stopwatch for any of my runs and have no idea what my paces were, even for the intervals. I don't know how long my rest periods were either, as I pretty much did the whole thing by feel. I ran hard on my intervals. When I was tired, I stopped to rest. When I recovered somewhat, I ran again. When I felt really tired, I stopped the session and did a cool down.

I wasn't really expecting anything much, but I hopped into a meet for fun last month and dropped a 4:46 1500 with a 73 second last lap. Seriously, WTF? Not only was it a PR that came out of nowhere, but my last lap has never been the fastest part for any of my races or time trials that were longer than a 400. A week later, I ran a 2:57 1K in a solo time trial, again with the last lap (69") being the fastest.

Anyway, here's the 12.15 100 and 4:46 1500 videos in case anyone's interested. I'm in lane 3 for the 100 and finish in 6th place (out of 19?) for the 1500.

Thanks for the update, and good luck with Whitney!

elusive dreams wrote:

live high/train low, ... I've gotten multiple pacers

5/10

you fooled quite a few people

Bad Wigins wrote:

elusive dreams wrote:

live high/train low, ... I've gotten multiple pacers

5/10

you fooled quite a few people

That's also what I thought at first, but there's been too many videos posted over a long time period for this to be a troll. Looking through the thread, we have videos of the OP running the following events during these years:

2012 - 2:11 800

2014 - 55 400, 39 300

2015 - 5:15 1600

2018 - 12.15 100

2020 - 4:46 1500

OP, do you have a 200 video? It's the only major event missing from that list.

Hahahahahahaha!

No it isn’t.

Those times only convince me even more. A 39 300 is WAAAAAY better than a 5 minute mile.

It may be true that OP has good speed but no endurance, but I'm not buying the moved-to-altitude thing. Nobody wants sub 5 that bad.

Sub sub elite wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

5/10

you fooled quite a few people

That's also what I thought at first, but there's been too many videos posted over a long time period for this to be a troll. Looking through the thread, we have videos of the OP running the following events during these years:

2012 - 2:11 800

2014 - 55 400, 39 300

2015 - 5:15 1600

2018 - 12.15 100

2020 - 4:46 1500

OP, do you have a 200 video? It's the only major event missing from that list.

25.09 200 (FAT, wind legal). I'm in lane 5:

24.66 200 (FAT, wind aided). I'm in lane 1:

Bad Wigins wrote:

elusive dreams wrote:

live high/train low

5/10

you fooled quite a few people

Bad Wigins wrote:

I'm not buying the moved-to-altitude thing. Nobody wants sub 5 that bad.

I lived in an area where you could drive from ~6K feet altitude to ~1K feet in less than half an hour. Most of the houses at 6000' were significantly more affordable than the houses at 1000', so it was also a reasonable economic decision.