6-minute mile and 27-minute 5k...HOW?!?!?!?

Easiest explanation is that this is the internet and you are a liar.

lack of mileage.

You jerk.

Here are links to the two races on RunKeeper. Note that they are a week apart:

https://ibb.co/XYGvP4Z

https://ibb.co/CsgHHTk

So a lack of leg endurance basically? It just seems to me that since I was playing sports and in good enough shape to run a 6 that my slow 5k time was extreme.

You were out of shape and now you're slightly less out of shape. What's the big mystery?

Conversion calculators say 6-minute mile equals about 20 minute 5k, so it's surprising to me I could only do 27 at first.

Also, my times are better than 90%+ of the population. You might be faster than me, but you just sound like a dick.

Has anyone heard of similar experiences for comparison?

Yeah and an online calculator says my IQ should be 206. That doesn't mean jack. Congrats on your progress so far.

Appreciate that. I thought it was an abnormal difference, but I guess most of my exercise was anaerobic so it makes sense if my endurance sucked.

Right now I've been training for the 400, mainly doing 60-second on/off repeats at mile pace. Any advice for that?

39clues wrote:

Ok, so when I was 16 I used to play sports with my buddies but didn't train too seriously. In gym class, we did the mile and I got 6:05 one time. About a month after that, I did a 5k in about 27 minutes...trying my hardest. For the record, we mostly played basketball and football and I thought I was in pretty good shape.

I decided I wanted to get better at the 5k, so I trained for the next week (literally just a week) and then did another 5k in 21 minutes. I'm still completely confused at what happened. How is it possible that my 5k time was originally so slow compared with my mile and how could it have improved so fast?

I had high school XC and T&F teammates who raced 55.xx 400m and 2:04.xx 800m and also raced 5K XC in 18:30 to 18:45 range. Stuff happens. We are all different. It surprises me that all sub-5 one mile runners are not also sub-62 400m. We are all different.

Could it be that you just were inexperienced at the 5k and didn't run at your best effort for the first one and then the experience from that race and from running the next week led you to run much more close to your optimal effort?

I think it's very, very common for beginners or those moving up in distance to not run at the right effort initially.