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

elusive dreams,, wrote:

~209m (0:38, 36.36" lap)

~409m (1:17, 39.69" lap)

~609m (1:56, 38.41" lap)

~809m (2:34, 38.50" lap)

~1009m (3:13, 38.44" lap)

~1209m (3:51, 37.91" lap)

~1409m (4:27, 36.60" lap)

~1609m (5:03, 36.36" lap)

Your quarter mile splits were 76.40 77.36 76.80, and 73.40, so your optimized time would have been 5:01.60:

Let's see if this still works:

Trackbot! Optimize Mile 76.40 77.36 76.80 73.40

trackbot! vdot 5:03.96 1mile

It is very interesting that his training plan runs counter to most advice you see re: upping volume as being 90% of the puzzle. I have also experienced success and durability by cutting frequency and volume and upping intensity for a prolonged stretches. But I guess I am a much larger than most runners (6'5", 220) so that might play a role as well

Another week, another PR. I ran a 10:58.75 3000 at an all-comers meet today without tapering or wearing spikes:

https://www.finishedresults.com/files/2021/Track/Los%20Al%20WQ/Results-final.html

I'm experimenting and moving away from the Easy Interval Method for now. But if my times get worse, I'll go back to that program. Last week's training:

Sunday (12/12) - 6 mile run, 2x200

M - 4 mile run, 2x200

T - off

W - 4.75 mile run, 2x200

Th - 5 mile run, 4x100

F - 4.5 mile run, 4x200

Sat (12/18) - 1 mile warmup, 2 100m strides, 3000m in 10:58, 3 mile cooldown

Total: 32 MPW. I didn't time the 200s but would estimate them to be around 800-1000m PR pace.

elusive dreams,. wrote:

Another week, another PR. I ran a 10:58.75 3000 at an all-comers meet today without tapering or wearing spikes:

https://www.finishedresults.com/files/2021/Track/Los%20Al%20WQ/Results-final.html

I'm experimenting and moving away from the Easy Interval Method for now. But if my times get worse, I'll go back to that program. Last week's training:

Sunday (12/12) - 6 mile run, 2x200

M - 4 mile run, 2x200

T - off

W - 4.75 mile run, 2x200

Th - 5 mile run, 4x100

F - 4.5 mile run, 4x200

Sat (12/18) - 1 mile warmup, 2 100m strides, 3000m in 10:58, 3 mile cooldown

Total: 32 MPW. I didn't time the 200s but would estimate them to be around 800-1000m PR pace.

I wonder what the approximate conversion is from "Easy Interval Method" mileage to "regular" mileage.

For instance, let's say you do 20 MPW consisting of 12x1200, 20x400, 28x200, a 1000m warmup, and a 2 mile race. Is that roughly equivalent to 30 MPW consisting of 21 easy miles, 5 tempo miles, 16x100 strides, a 1 mile warmup, and a 2 mile race?

It is not too hard to run a sub 5 mile. Your 400 is 2s better than my best. I ran about 20 seconds under a 5 minute mile.

If I can do it so can you.

Complete joke lol. Like someone else said, 55/2:11 already indicates sub-5 fitness.

The vast, VAST majority of young, able-bodied men with no preexisting conditions, barring any catastrophic injuries, WILL CERTAINLY break 5:00 with perseverance and consistent training.

No, it is not fast. And it does not require talent. That made up story about losing to the "you got chicked" girl was pretty funny, though.

Appreciation?? wrote:

Complete joke lol. Like someone else said, 55/2:11 already indicates sub-5 fitness.

The vast, VAST majority of young, able-bodied men with no preexisting conditions, barring any catastrophic injuries, WILL CERTAINLY break 5:00 with perseverance and consistent training.

No, it is not fast. And it does not require talent. That made up story about losing to the "you got chicked" girl was pretty funny, though.

I don't know about the OP's "you got chicked" story, but his times are legit.

I went on Flotrack and looked up videos of two of the meets he claims to have run in this year - one in Arizona in February, and the one in Boston earlier this month. It's the same guy as his YouTube videos, and they both show mile times that are slower than 5:00. Who the hell would travel thousands of miles just to run slowly on purpose for the sake of trolling?

Appreciation?? wrote:

Complete joke lol. Like someone else said, 55/2:11 already indicates sub-5 fitness.

The vast, VAST majority of young, able-bodied men with no preexisting conditions, barring any catastrophic injuries, WILL CERTAINLY break 5:00 with perseverance and consistent training.

No, it is not fast. And it does not require talent. That made up story about losing to the "you got chicked" girl was pretty funny, though.

This skepticism seems to come up fairly regularly. I know it's hard to believe, but sub 5 really is an incredibly difficult task to accomplish unless you're insanely talented.

Most of my PRs and some of my races are at:

Here's a summary if you don't want to look through the whole thing:

100 wind-aided - 11.98 in May 2017

100 wind-legal - 12.15 in March 2018

200 wind-aided - 24.66 in May 2018

200 wind-legal - 25.09 in Feb. 2018

1500 - 4:39 in April 2021

Mile - 5:03 in Dec. 2021

That link also shows four 400m times in the 56.0-56.1 range (56.00, 56.05, 56.08, and 56.10) in March-April 2019. I dipped under 56 and ran a 55.86 in an all-comers in 2014:

Secondary source - I'm in heat 2 (Event 40):

I haven't run the 800 in awhile, but here's my 2:11 800 from 2012:

Video:

Thanks for posting.

BTW, I looked at the 2012 results and thought that you had it bad in that crowded 800. And then I looked at the 1600. Holy crap, that must have sucked to run in heat 2. I get wanting to save time in an all-comers, but squeezing in 43 guys in one heat is ridiculous.

Appreciation?? wrote:

Complete joke lol. Like someone else said, 55/2:11 already indicates sub-5 fitness.

No, it doesn't. Inputting his 55.86 / 2:11.25 times into the Trackbot link that someone posted earlier predicts a mile PR of 5:04.15:

After putting in his 400/800 times, the calculator's predicted times for 100m - 1 mile are surprisingly close to his actual times:

100: Predicted 12.16, actual 12.15

200: Predicted 25.20, actual 25.09

400: N/A, used his actual 55.86 time

800: N/A, used his actual 2:11.25 time

1500: Predicted 4:39.76, actual 4:39.05

Mile: Predicted 5:04.15, actual 5:03.96

Interval Man wrote:

Appreciation?? wrote:

Complete joke lol. Like someone else said, 55/2:11 already indicates sub-5 fitness.

No, it doesn't. Inputting his 55.86 / 2:11.25 times into the Trackbot link that someone posted earlier predicts a mile PR of 5:04.15:

https://timescalculator.appspot.com/

After putting in his 400/800 times, the calculator's predicted times for 100m - 1 mile are surprisingly close to his actual times:

100: Predicted 12.16, actual 12.15

200: Predicted 25.20, actual 25.09

400: N/A, used his actual 55.86 time

800: N/A, used his actual 2:11.25 time

1500: Predicted 4:39.76, actual 4:39.05

Mile: Predicted 5:04.15, actual 5:03.96

Beating a dead horse here, but 55.86/2:11.25 means that the OP slows down by 9.765 sec/lap from 400-800. Doubling the distance and adding another 9.765 sec/lap would put him at 75.39"/lap pace for the mile.

75.39 * (1609.344/400) = 5:03.32 as a predicted mile time.

So yes, his current 1500/mile PRs are almost exactly what you'd expect from a 55/2:11 guy.

I always am interested in conversions and estimates from other distances, but would have guessed 55 would have been much faster than 5.

An interesting anecdote from Today We Die A Little, a book chronicling Zatopek. In his 14:06 5000m Olympic gold, "He had run the final lap in 58.1 seconds (within 2 seconds of his lifetime best for a single, one-lap 400m race). The final 200m took 28.3" (pg .176).

So if Askwith's research is to be trusted, this 4x Olympic Champ, 18x world record holder, and (1500m converted) ~4:10 miler never ran under 56s. Quite the outlier! Him and OP are opposites it seems.

Mr. Slowpoke wrote:

I always am interested in conversions and estimates from other distances, but would have guessed 55 would have been much faster than 5.

An interesting anecdote from Today We Die A Little, a book chronicling Zatopek. In his 14:06 5000m Olympic gold, "He had run the final lap in 58.1 seconds (within 2 seconds of his lifetime best for a single, one-lap 400m race). The final 200m took 28.3" (pg .176).

So if Askwith's research is to be trusted, this 4x Olympic Champ, 18x world record holder, and (1500m converted) ~4:10 miler never ran under 56s. Quite the outlier! Him and OP are opposites it seems.

The OP's 55" 400 converts to a 4:50 mile. They're both worth 546 points on the IAAF table. The issue isn't whether a 55 is better than a 5:00, it's whether a 55" guy who can only manage a 2:11 800 has enough endurance to run sub 5. In a mile race, I'd prefer a 61"/2:12 guy over a 55"/2:11 guy. The former would easily go sub 5, the latter would struggle like the OP.

A more accurate thread title would be "It's too damn hard for a sprinter to run a sub 5 mile". The OP isn't a 400/800 guy, he's a 100 meter sprinter who's trying to run a semi-respectable mile time. The longer the distance, the worse he gets. It's obvious even when you compare his 100 time with his 200 time and his 1500 time with his mile time.

100 - 12.15, 579 IAAF points

200 - 25.09, 550 IAAF points

400 - 55.86, 546 IAAF points

800 - 2:11, 510 IAAF points

1500 - 4:39, 456 IAAF points

Mile - 5:03, 433 IAAF points

That's pretty notable when you consider that he almost certainly doesn't have a sprint coach and probably doesn't even own a set of blocks to practice with.

No doubt wrote:

You've got plenty of speed at 55 for 400m

2:11 is a tad slow; ought to be closer to 2:04 with your 400 speed

Try focusing on the 5000 for a bit to build strength and endurance. Then go back and try the mile again.

^^^The correct response is on the very first page of the thread, a half a decade ago. OP still lacks endurance, plain and simple

Mr. Slowpoke wrote:

An interesting anecdote from Today We Die A Little, a book chronicling Zatopek. In his 14:06 5000m Olympic gold, "He had run the final lap in 58.1 seconds (within 2 seconds of his lifetime best for a single, one-lap 400m race). The final 200m took 28.3" (pg .176).

So if Askwith's research is to be trusted, this 4x Olympic Champ, 18x world record holder, and (1500m converted) ~4:10 miler never ran under 56s. Quite the outlier! Him and OP are opposites it seems.

I'm not surprised. Many elite endurance athletes are terrible sprinters, and vice-versa. Of course there are exceptions, but it's pretty rare to find someone who can run a good 100 and a good 5K.

Mo Farah's 100 time in 2012 was 12.98, which is a full second slower than the OP's 11.98. The Brownlee brothers didn't even break 14:

Yes, they had a wet track, weren't in peak shape, and probably didn't have a 2.4 m/s tailwind like the OP did. But even if you gave them a second to account for that (which is an eternity in the 100), Farah would only tie the OP, and the Brownlee brothers would still be over 10 meters behind.

On the other end of the spectrum, you've got Christine Ohuruogu, who ran a 49.41 400 and could only run a 20:27 5K after three attempts at that distance:

And don't forget Bolt, whose 800 PR (2:10) is similar to the OP's:

I live in Eastern Europe. I have trained with lots of regular guys. Even talentless distance runners could run sub 4.30 1500m with good few year training.

Like this

http://www.skriesim.lv/athletes?id=54299

He has bad running form, almost no speed(200m-27.5/400 - barely under 60).

I know few ex sprinters, who started to run long distances. Although they have body like distance runners, they struglle with small heart size. And even they can go below 5 in mile.

lvrhs1992 wrote:

I live in Eastern Europe. I have trained with lots of regular guys. Even talentless distance runners could run sub 4.30 1500m with good few year training.

Like this

http://www.skriesim.lv/athletes?id=54299

He has bad running form, almost no speed(200m-27.5/400 - barely under 60).

Talentless distance runners? The guy you posted ran a 33:58 10K, which does require some talent. Heck, I know a male D1 runner who couldn't do that.

He may not have natural speed, but he does have talent in distance running.

Be blessed with The Magic Wizard JS. He will guide you to your sub 5 ! You find him here; magic@coachjs.se