15:58 5k but a 4:11 mile, why can't I run the longer distances ?

Run more miles. 50 clearly isnt doing the trick so go up to 60->70

Run more

I mean we're all different runners of course. I was good for about a 53, 1:58, and 4:15 when I ran 14:20. Again, everyone is different.

I'm surprised that you aren't running 14:45 with that kind of speed. More mileage is probably the answer since as you say, it isn't as though you are a long sprinter type. Your 400,800, and 1600 PRs all seem very balanced to be truthful.

The key is to maintain your 52 speed as you simultaneously increase your aerobic ability. Many runners focus solely on aerobic building and lose the speed, and then perhaps PR in a longer distance, but can no longer run 52, or 1:54, etc.

Maintain the speed and increase the mileage, focus on a good high quality long run (as long as it isn't the day after a hard workout) and you'll be good.

IB4 discussion of muscle fibers. It’s likely due to your training. Run more mileage. More strength work. Tempos, hills, threshold.

100mpw or bust wrote:

IB4 discussion of muscle fibers. It’s likely due to your training. Run more mileage. More strength work. Tempos, hills, threshold.

Where do you see any indication of OP being a fast-twitch runner? If he could run a 60 dash in 6.9 or faster, yes then we could assume he has plenty of fast-twitch muscles. I doubt that however.

1) He said himself he is not fast-twitch.

2) 1:54 800, based on his 52.1 400m relay-split already tells us he has exceptional endurance/stamina. That's likely the fastest he will ever run on a 800m. Most 1:54 runners run 50-52s in a FAT 400m.

So if he has good stamina (max'ed out 800m time), why is his 5k weak? Two reasons:

* Low mileage (50 mpw is way too low to reach someone's potential in a 5k)

* Mental strength. Lots of people can run a fast 800 and mile, by suffering at 98% throughout the race. But they can't suffer at 96% for a long race like a 5k. I have seen people improve by mental coaching and lot of racing to get used to it, without improving their fitness they got their 5k closer to what they should be running based on performance in lower distances.

16 flat is a joke time for a 1:55/4:11 guy, even at 50 mpw he should be running 15 flat at least. With higher mileage, 80+ (slowly building over a few years) AND mental improvements, he can target mid-high 14s in the long-term.

Any chance it's a pacing problem?

You need longer repeats and tempos at a higher quality more often, in addition to a few more miles per week. 60-70 on its own would probably do it, but your body is programmed to turn off beyond the mile because you're not training beyond that. 3x2M is a great workout for 10k development; 8x800 (1 minute rest/jog) is a great workout for the 5000m, as are 1k repeats. More mile repeats, 5x2k, 4M tempos, that kind of thing should do it.

You're kinda coming on the forums and picking fights where they are totally not warranted.

100mpw or bust did NOT say anything about him being fast-twitch OR slow-twitch. You basically agreed with his nicely concise post. Run more. And what is a good way to build up psychological toughness? You can do a lot worse than tempos and hills.

stopitphil wrote:

You're kinda coming on the forums and picking fights where they are totally not warranted.

100mpw or bust did NOT say anything about him being fast-twitch OR slow-twitch. You basically agreed with his nicely concise post. Run more. And what is a good way to build up psychological toughness? You can do a lot worse than tempos and hills.

I agree with what he said and his recommended training - but he implied that "we", meaning those of us who believe due to scientific proof that humans have different percentages of fast-and slow-twitch fibers in our legs, would say that he is "fast-twitch" and that's why he is so much worse in the 5k.

In this case, he is aerobically underdeveloped, and might not have the same mental strength in a 5k that he has in shorter events. He probably raced a lot more 800s, 400 relays and miles than 5k races in his life.

This does not mean that physiology of muscle fibers does not exist, and that Bolt is the same as Radcliffe, just "aerobically underdeveloped" and didn't train enough mileage. Muscle fibers ARE important, but need to be fully understood and applied to different cases appropriately, not just randomly thrown around as excuses and stuff.

Have you had your ferritin checked?

Again, he said nothing about the OP leaning FT or ST. You're response is just totally proving the "IB4 discussion of muscle fibers" and how it is not necessary. And that you don't seem to know what IB4 means. So maybe just look things up and read closer before assuming so much, and responding with a snarky scientific answer.

trackislife12 wrote:

I am currently a college sophmore and I have been struggling to race anything over two miles ever since I started running. I run about 50 miles a week, coming from 30 mile weeks in high school. I have an 800 PR of 1:54.6 and a 400 split of 52.1. The part that confuses me is that I am not an extreme fast twitch runner, and I just don't see why I am not running 15:20-30 in the 5k. Has anyone struggled with a similar issue ? What did you do to change it ?

The key is to better up your lactate threshold . That was the key I didn`t know to do the best way when I was a national elite runner with 14:20/29.51 back in the -80s.

trackislife12 wrote:

I am currently a college sophmore and I have been struggling to race anything over two miles ever since I started running. I run about 50 miles a week, coming from 30 mile weeks in high school. I have an 800 PR of 1:54.6 and a 400 split of 52.1. The part that confuses me is that I am not an extreme fast twitch runner, and I just don't see why I am not running 15:20-30 in the 5k. Has anyone struggled with a similar issue ? What did you do to change it ?

If you run 1:54 and 4:11 don't bother with the 5k. Leave that for the slow twitch betas.

Snxnxjxj wrote:

trackislife12 wrote:

I am currently a college sophmore and I have been struggling to race anything over two miles ever since I started running. I run about 50 miles a week, coming from 30 mile weeks in high school. I have an 800 PR of 1:54.6 and a 400 split of 52.1. The part that confuses me is that I am not an extreme fast twitch runner, and I just don't see why I am not running 15:20-30 in the 5k. Has anyone struggled with a similar issue ? What did you do to change it ?

If you run 1:54 and 4:11 don't bother with the 5k. Leave that for the slow twitch betas.

With improved endurance he could go sub 1:50/4:00.

Lol right on cue.

Endurance + speed = best milers wrote:

Snxnxjxj wrote:

If you run 1:54 and 4:11 don't bother with the 5k. Leave that for the slow twitch betas.

With improved endurance he could go sub 1:50/4:00.

This is nonsense. He split 52s on a relay, so in a FAT he could MAYBE do 53.0-53.5. You think anyone in the world can run 1:50 or 4:00 off 53s 400m speed? That's physiologically impossible.

He would either need to cut down his 400m time, which would be super hard/maybe not even possible depending on how much speed training he already did, or he could increase his mileage and massively improve his 5k and 10k times. Listen to coach JS in this case.

I have not gotten my Ferratin checked, but I will look into it. I race the 5k and 8k because of cross country, definitely not in track. Another thing to be noted was that last season was a large jump from my high school times. I ran 4:25 and 1:58 in high school, which with an increase of 10-15 miles a week changed to my current PR’s. I don’t know if the drastic drop in time would have anything to do with the latter distances.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

This is nonsense. He split 52s on a relay, so in a FAT he could MAYBE do 53.0-53.5. You think anyone in the world can run 1:50 or 4:00 off 53s 400m speed? That's physiologically impossible.

He would either need to cut down his 400m time, which would be super hard/maybe not even possible depending on how much speed training he already did, or he could increase his mileage and massively improve his 5k and 10k times. Listen to coach JS in this case.

I think malmo's 400 (or 440) PR is around 52, and he ran 3:40 for 1500m. But he favored mileage to physiology.

Don’t listen to the haters. Train hard. Run a lot. As much as you can handle without overdoing it. Maybe your 400m time will drop but maybe not. Maybe you’ll break 1:50/4:00. Maybe not. But give it a shot. Or spend the rest of your life wondering what if.