Sub 17 5k Advice

HybridAthleteGuy wrote:

My goal is to run a sub-17 5k in the next couple of months.

This may be unrealistic for the amount of running I plan to
do, but I’m going to give it a try. I would estimate I’m currently in 18-18:15 shape.

I plan to only run 2 times per week, with 3-4 other days of
cross-training (biking and elliptical). If everything feels great after a few
weeks, I may consider adding a 3rd day of running, but with my
lifting and history of injuries, I don’t want to go much over 20mpw.

Yes, I know more running would be ideal, but I like to lift. I get
injured easily from running, and this style of training has been working really
well for me this year.

My current goal is to maintain the strength to total 1200#
while seeing how fast I can run. I understand that if I lifted less, I could
run faster, but that’s not what I want to do right now. This strength goal will
require me to lift heavy at least three days per week, so high-volume running
won’t work.

I recently ran a 1:26:19 half marathon off of 2 days per
week (12-18 mpw) of running and 3 days of low-intensity biking, along with 4
days per week of lifting.

For the 5k training, I plan to drop the lifting to 3 days per week and do what I think is
the minimum volume I need to maintain that strength. This (hopefully) will
allow me to eventually run 3 days per week.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to run the least amount
possible. On the contrary, I plan to run as much as I think I can handle
without getting injured. But that is just much less than would typically be recommended
for someone trying to run sub-17.

My question is this: if I am only running twice per week,
would I be better off doing:
A. 1 high-intensity run and 1 long run per week or
B. Two high-intensity runs per week (intervals,
tempos, speed stuff)

If I do option A, I might add another higher-intensity
workout on the bike, rower, or elliptical.
If I do option B, I would add a long bike/elliptical (~2
hours).

Considering my current ability, do you think I would benefit
more from two high-intensity running days or from 1 high-intensity day + 1 long
run?

yessum wrote:

HybridAthleteGuy wrote:

I know running more is ideal, but if I do 4-5 days of running right now, I'll get hurt, no question.

I barely made it through 8 weeks of training for the half. I had mild shin splints and a close to serious achilles issue that caused me to cut a few runs short and miss one.

I love running, but my body just doesn't handle it well, especailly at 195#.

I plan to bike/eliptical at least 3 other days per week in addition to the two running days.

That's why I want to know what type of running I should prioritize.

Do you know that your actually less likely to get injured if you run more? - to a certain point.

When I got back in to running I got a lot of injuries initially as my body had to readapt.

You say you're 195. Gentle running will help you shed that extra weight.

You need to be consistent and not look for one killer magic session.

Get fit, run a little more, and eventually you'll hit your goal with ease.

NERunner03533 wrote:

1:26-flat is worth 18:45. Dk why sub-18 wouldn't be a good goal for you. Dk why you have to go sub-17 within the next couple of months. Running is about the process & committing to the process.

I would do a 5k now at the start of the build. You think you're in 18:00-18:15 shape then go out & set that as a baseline. That would give me more confidence to say that you're on the right track. I'm rejecting that running more automatically leads to/causes injuries. Sure, if you go from 2 runs/week to 4-5 & don't take time to get there & run too fast almost every day then you will get injured. But there's no reason you can't run more. When you want to build the mileage, cut the faster running. Take your easy days easy. For a 1:26 half marathoner that's > 8:00 pace. Maybe in the past you've just done a bunch of runs way faster than that & kept harder workouts in.

If you are committed to 2-3 runs/week I'd do the quality. No time for easy miles with your goals but, again, not ideal training & there's injury risk with this. 1 5k specific workout, 1 tempo, 1 easy long run (60-70min fine for the 5k). Hit the bike on the remaining days as a substitute for easy mileage.

dfasfsdf wrote:

HybridAthleteGuy wrote:

My goal is to run a sub-17 5k in the next couple of months.

This may be unrealistic for the amount of running I plan to
do, but I’m going to give it a try. I would estimate I’m currently in 18-18:15 shape.

I plan to only run 2 times per week, with 3-4 other days of
cross-training (biking and elliptical). If everything feels great after a few
weeks, I may consider adding a 3rd day of running, but with my
lifting and history of injuries, I don’t want to go much over 20mpw.

Yes, I know more running would be ideal, but I like to lift. I get
injured easily from running, and this style of training has been working really
well for me this year.

My current goal is to maintain the strength to total 1200#
while seeing how fast I can run. I understand that if I lifted less, I could
run faster, but that’s not what I want to do right now. This strength goal will
require me to lift heavy at least three days per week, so high-volume running
won’t work.

I recently ran a 1:26:19 half marathon off of 2 days per
week (12-18 mpw) of running and 3 days of low-intensity biking, along with 4
days per week of lifting.

For the 5k training, I plan to drop the lifting to 3 days per week and do what I think is
the minimum volume I need to maintain that strength. This (hopefully) will
allow me to eventually run 3 days per week.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to run the least amount
possible. On the contrary, I plan to run as much as I think I can handle
without getting injured. But that is just much less than would typically be recommended
for someone trying to run sub-17.

My question is this: if I am only running twice per week,
would I be better off doing:
A. 1 high-intensity run and 1 long run per week or
B. Two high-intensity runs per week (intervals,
tempos, speed stuff)

If I do option A, I might add another higher-intensity
workout on the bike, rower, or elliptical.
If I do option B, I would add a long bike/elliptical (~2
hours).

Considering my current ability, do you think I would benefit
more from two high-intensity running days or from 1 high-intensity day + 1 long
run?

What are you basing your current fitness on? I don't think you're running enough to break 17, but sub 17 isn't that fast so I guess you never know.

take a nickel, take a dime wrote:

HybridAthleteGuy wrote:

I ran 18:46 in March off of 1 day per week (400 and 800m intervals) and 3-4 days of Z1 biking. If I had run a half in March, there's no chance I would have broken 1:30.

I know standard race equivelency calculators say 18:46 and 1:26 are "equal," but they aren't for me. I'm fairly heavy (195#) and naturally much better at shorter distances than longer. The fact that I was able to run a HM in 1:26 means, for me, that I can run significantly faster than 18:46 right now. At minimun 18:15 and there's a good chance I'd be under 18 right now.

I second the idea of running a 5k to start your training block. As others have said, if you run what you think you're capable of it will reaffirm that you're on the right path and give you accurate starting point for your workout paces. if you run slower then it'd give you real clarity for what kind of goals are realistic for an 8 week training block. I'll also say, even if you're in 17:50 shape (being pretty optimistic) dropping 50+ seconds off of at maximum 24 runs over 8 weeks is just an extremely tall order. I'm an above average runner talent wise (broke 16 for 5k in high school off of medium/low mileage, ran low 1:50s for 800m in college), and I made the jump from 18:10 to 16:48 in almost exactly 1 year while running 25-30 miles a week for months at a time (during the season). not only that but I weighed 60lbs less than you do and most of my improvement could be attributed to ongoing puberty, an advantage you won't have. '1:26 for a half off of 1 run a week' shows talent and potential. I'm just doubtful it means you're 'sub 17 off of 2 runs a week at 195lbs' talented.

Roger meyers wrote:

HybridAthleteGuy wrote:

I understand that. I am being consistent, I'm just building up my running volume very slowly.

And I'm very lean and have very little weight to lose. I can't lose much or I will lose some strength and right now, I don't want to do that because that's part of the challenege for me; try to run fast while still being very strong.

Do you know there's a difference between Gym Strong and Running strong?

They are a related but there's also a difference.

Gym strong is bench big weights etc..

Running strong is able to hold, or run faster, your speed and form in the final part of a race.

While the gym is certainly useful there is nothing like a tempo run to make you running strong.

A couple of extra days a week running will serve you well.

You can achieve your goal simply by getting fitter alone.

NERunner03533 wrote:

I tend to think you take your short distance time & do the work to run the equivalent long distance time. Idk if the 1:26 is indicative of something a lot faster than 18:46, when they do align. I would still say to set some sort of baseline so you can then set a 5k goal. I wouldn't fixate on something arbitrary like 17:00. I think it's going to be incredibly hard to run that fast off of limited mileage. Again, I think you do the work to run more mileage without getting hurt rather than saying the increased mileage is getting you hurt. Maybe try a coach. Maybe think about what got you hurt. It's not the mileage, alone, when you've got people who can handle 100+ mpw. You have to have a lot of natural talent, unless we're all being trolled, to run 18:46 off of 1 run/week, with some cross training. Seems like you could be very good at running if you want to put in the (running) consistency.