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

LOL, even flails his right arm on the second curve like the OP (not as bad overall though, keeps his turnover and looks down the track).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rg6oDy0Mus

elephino wrote:

Y'all have never seen Neil Braddy?

The OP is trying to say that a sub 5 mile is really hard and only achievable by a very small percentage of the population because he, a slightly-above average guy, can't do it.

I think he's inadvertently proved the opposite. If someone who has terrible form, is underweight, doesn't have a coach, and does suboptimal training can run a 55" 400, pretty much anyone can. Most middle distance guys with that speed have run around 4:10 in the 1500. Multiply that by the standard 1.08 conversion factor, and you get a mile time of 4:30.

A better thread title would be "It's easy to run a sub 5 mile if you know what you're doing. Most people can run 4:30 or faster if trained."

Racerator wrote:

Also what were your splits in those miles? If you are going out in low-70's and running 5:20s then you are not respecting the event.

Judging from:

elusive dreams wrote:

Video of me running a 55" 400. I'm in lane 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfREJYQXU_M

It doesn't show the last 40 meters of the race, but I do have a video of me running a solo 39" 300, which is approximately equivalent to a 55" 400:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhK2oM_HUQ

Video of me running a 2:11 800:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDUW7qXVn3k

Video of me running a 5:15 1600 (converts to a 5:17 mile):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptyxPoVIJNU

.

400: 1:15 / 75" lap

800: 2:35 / 80" lap

1200: 3:57 / 82" lap

1600: 5:15 / 78" lap

Not ideal, but not bad either. I've seen plenty of guys run splits that were way worse than that.

I couldn't handle high mileage if I did speedwork beyond a few strides a week or one interval session at ~90% effort. Anything more than that, and the overtraining symptoms started accumulating. I was tired but couldn't sleep well, my resting HR went through the roof, my appetite went down, I started getting minor colds, etc.

My average and most common pace was 7:30/mile, but it would be slower for longer runs and faster for shorter ones. I did do doubles on days I did speedwork, because that was the only way I could get the energy to run more than two continuous miles that day. Typical high mileage week:

M - 8 miles (7:30/mile pace)

T - 5 miles (7:30/mile pace), or day off (every other week)

W - 11 miles (7:45-7:50/mile pace)

Th - 7 miles (7:20/mile pace)

F - 5 miles (7:00-7:10/mile pace)

Sa - 8 miles (7:30/mile pace)

Su - AM: 10x300 in 57" or 8x400 in 76". PM: 6 miles (7:20/mile pace)

I did a similar, easier workout last year. My version was 4xmile in 6:20 with a 100 meter walk (took about 75"). I couldn't even hit 6:20 on that last mile repeat (ran something like 6:27), and it felt like one of the toughest workouts I've ever done. Much harder than something like 8x400 at current mile PR pace with equal time rest.

I agree with you that I'll break 5 if I can run that 5xmile in 6:00 workout, but I don't think I'll even get to 4xmile in 6:00.

Passherby wrote:

Seems like you might over think things a little to much and to much pressure on yourself in races and back fires. That is only reason I could see not being able to run under 5

Racerator wrote:

If you are going out in low-70's and running 5:20s then you are not respecting the event. The key is progression from where you ARE, not battering away at an arbitrary numerical goal every time you race.

I've gone into races with just the goal of running under 5:10 for the mile or even 5:12 for the 1600 (78" per 400, 39" per 200), but I have yet to achieve either of those times. I almost never run the first lap under 74.

Also, I've done some solo 1200 time trials in racing flats, and the best I could do was 3:48. If I were always a second or two away from a sub 5, it would be a case of not handling pressure well, but I'm just too far off.

Ok good to know.

It seems like you had some good aerobic base under your belt. It seems strange that you have good 800m ability but get injured doing speed work near this base. Either the schedule is wrong or, more likely, something about your physiology and training is off. I think you have to spend time working on your balance, biomechanics and muscular strength and control. Does that sound like an accurate diagnosis? See a pT through your health insurance if they cover it. Otherwise it might be really expensive but come back on here and I can pass on some knowledge they've given me, as tools for running, plus more. This is a project and discussion/thread in and of itself. It should be exciting too! You should visualize racing and running while doing it. A lot of first time injured runners and amateurs look down on it, but all the best runners do it.

Back to running training,

It seems that you are instead, lacking in training at and ability to mobilize/control gears in the 5:30-6:30 per mile range.

what are your training venues like?

Hills, grass, trail, outdoor or indoor track, roads, etc?

have you run any 5k road races or xc style races In recent times?

What do you think of a 3 by mile workout, on a tightly measured road/trail/grass loop, or indoor or outdoor track? 4-10 minutes rest between repeats. Have you already done something like it?

For someone like you struggling as you are, the four by mile at six plus pace with only a 100m walk rest , IMHO is too difficult and likely to sacrifice confidence and strain for little practical gain. Besides, we can settle a related question to that workout by knowing your 5k ability.

Finally depending on where you live you should get a competent proven coach with a local club, and find some mates to train with. Hopefully not expensive. Free maybe.

I think your first priority should be getting yourself to a healthy weight (at least 118-120 lb). Since you're so light you may not have enough muscle fibers/mitochondria to carry out a mile race to the end.

Apps like MyFitnessPal are super helpful for gaining/losing weight. The extra calories may even help improving your workouts/recovery.

I'm no expert, however, so this is all just my opinion. I was 5'8" and 130 lb thru HS and did 2:05/4:32/9:53

The OP is on the autistic spectrum and will not listen to advice. I'm out.

elephino wrote:

Axed wrote:

I have never seen someone run a 55 second 400 who weighs under 110 lbs. Guess you learn something new every day.

Y'all have never seen Neil Braddy?

Neil braddy is not under 110 lbs.

wqqqqqqqq wrote:

elusive dreams wrote:

It doesn't show the last 40 meters of the race, but I do have a video of me running a solo 39" 300, which is approximately equivalent to a 55" 400:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhK2oM_HUQ

Excuse me. We need to stop the thread and figure out what the deal is with that bench in lane 1.

Don't be hatin', the track's got some resurfacin'.

elusive dreams wrote:

Every once in a while, there'll be a thread here that debates whether the average person, most people, or almost everyone can run a sub 5 mile given sufficient training. A lot of people say yes, but my personal experience indicates otherwise.

I've tried every possible way short of doping in my quest to get that sub 5 mile - low mileage, high mileage, live high/train low, live low/train high, training barefoot/in flats/in heavier trainers, different diets, etc.

This right here, at the beginning of the first post, is at the root of your inability to break 5 minutes. You only THINK you have tried everything. I pretty much knew you had not tried everything when I read those first few sentences of your post, and the rest of your posts have confirmed it. While you may have dabbled in those elements you listed (did you by an altitude tent, or did you actually move/commute to get both altitude effects?!) - you have not fully explored them, at least not enough to rule out their long term efficacy.

However, that doesn't mean you can't improve. I was the same way in high school (thinking I was training to the fullest extent), but luckily, I kept on pushing. I ran 5:07 as a freshman, and while I got down to 10:19 in the 3200 as a senior, I never broke 5 in high school. The biggest single element was a mental block, which prevented me from getting my mind around the mile. I could run an 800 in 2:12 in my senior year, which should have indicated my mile would be around 4:50.

Luckily I kept on running in college, and dropped my mile time down to 4:42 my freshman year (while my 800 time only dropped to 2:08). Once you get your head out of the way you currently think about the mile, you will be able to improve. I kept on improving in college, getting my mile time down to 4:20 (and even faster after college).

The key is finding out WHY your various training strategies are not working. You think you break down with high mileage, but it is pretty naive to think you have tried everything. I got hurt in high school when I did more than 40 miles per week, but instead of accepting that as my limitation, found a way to work up to 100 miles per week - it took 5 years after graduating high school. I got hurt when I was at 50 miles per week, backed down and pushed back up, got hurt at 70 miles per week, re-grouped and pushed higher.

Watching your races, I would recommend hills and cross training (both weights and time on the bike and in the pool). Your form needs work, and is the root of a lot of your problems. That was the same for me in high school. I could run a halfway decent 3200, but if I had to race the 1600, I just got into the same stride and couldn't go any faster. You don't have a miler's rhythm at all, but that is something that can be improved. If you can work on your stride, making it efficient and powerful over the course of a mile, it wouldn't shock me to see you drop 30 seconds in a year.

Your pace is too fast for a 5:10 miler trying to build mileage. That's why you are breaking down, feeling tired, and getting sick. You should probably be somewhere around 8:30 or about 70-75% HRM. You might even be a 9:00 or worse mile pace. That's ok. It will improve.

Running slow might also help your form, because, frankly, it's terrible. Your arms flail all over the place, and you are running too up and down when not sprinting. The result is you are spending too much energy not going forward.

Once you can run 50 miles a week or more without breaking down, you are ready to start picking up the pace and adding back in some speed work. However, still make sure you run slower after your faster workouts.

I don't see any reason why you could not break 5:00 if you worked on these things - better form and better aerobic capacity.

The OP has neither the attitude nor the slow twitch muscles for a good mile. Besides, a 5:00-5:10 mile or its 1500 equivalent is good for DFL at pretty much any respectable meet.

Forget it, OP. Train like a 200/400 sprinter, hit the weights and hills, fix your form, and make breaking 50 your new goal. Not only is it more impressive than a sub 5, but you might have a shot at finishing mid-pack in an open/collegiate race and possibly breaking 2 in the 8.

Axed wrote:I have never seen someone run a 55 second 400 who weighs under 110 lbs. Guess you learn something new every day.

108lbs, 51.75.

In my humble and non-expert opinion....you need to gain weight and improve your form.

Eat more.

If you're feeling that "overtrained" and low on energy running 50 miles a week, you need to eat more and gain some weight.

Jesse_Crackhorn wrote:

Ok good to know.

It seems like you had some good aerobic base under your belt.

I don't think so. At his aerobic fitness, those training paces were too fast. It's like someone fit trying to run at least tempo effort for everything. At that effort level, you get run down and tired quickly, and then injured if you try to push through. The effort level is too much for best aerobic adaptation.

I think the OP is one of those people that thinks that everyday runs need to be run with a good effort - that they need to strain when running. In reality, you should run relaxed for most of your training. I don't think HR monitors are necessary if you know how to train, but using one would be a reality check for a guy like him - he's probably pushing 85% of his maximum heart rate or so for his everyday runs. His hard workouts are barely faster. Without a HR monitor, I'd suggest to keep his everyday runs at what feels like a jog to start, totally relaxed, no matter if it's 9-10 minutes per mile. Keep it up for several weeks, and that same effort will get faster and faster, even as you build mileage.

elusive dreams, read wejos article "Why I sucked in college":

OP would you just tell us your 5k pr, already? C'mon.

The real issue has nothing to do with the OP trying to run a 4:59 mile, 5:10 mile, or any other arbitrary time. The issue is finding an explanation for why his mile time is so bad compared to his 100-800 times. Most of the points brought up don't address this.

Bad form - wouldn't this affect his sprints just as much as his mile? His form in the 400 is arguably worse than his form in the 1600.

Underweight - same thing, wouldn't this also affect his sprints? Good underweight male sprinters are practically nonexistent; good underweight distance runners are a dime a dozen. The BMI difference between him and Bolt or Gatlin is twice the BMI difference between him and Farah or Ritz.

Poor training - his training may be bad for the mile, but it's absolutely horrendous for the sprints. Ever had a sprinter do 50 MPW?

If those problems were fixed he might break 5 and be a 52/2:04/4:59 guy. But the underlying problem would remain. Personally, I think that he and a lot of slow distance runners are simply fast twitchers who would find more success and happiness running the sprints than slogging away to achieve a mediocre time.

Yes, maybe he should move down in distance. And yes, like someone mentioned before, more relaxed running is a very recommendable aspect of a training program and preventing injury. But his form absolutely should improve, i.e. focus on biomechanics, muscular awareness and intelligence, etc. in whatever running he focuses on. Sprints, middle distance, long distance.

The biggest problem I see is that, reiterating what you said (chops under the mile, in spite of his lack of musculature) and combining it with his ability to log all those miles at reasonable paces and having had those miles under his belt, he should be faster in the mile. He is not doing something right as far as training goes just above the mile increment. Like mile repeats, and ability to summon in the 5:30-6:30 pace range. It doesn't make sense that he would only do track intervals in increments way below the mile and then medium-long runs/long runs. I'll double check details in the thread but there's a big lack of information (like his 5k pr) and then that one horrid workout, a 4 by mile over six minute pace without enough recovery (so it sounds) that doesn't seem to accomplish much anything. With a pr like that, if he can do a 3 x mile workout on an indoor or outdoor track, with 5-10 minutes rest in between, with each mile between 5:30-5:40, then that's a start. Get better at that and in control and comfortable and he should be at the doors of 5:00.