Sub 5 indicators?

Sub 3:00 for 1k

Sub 10:40 for 3200

6-8x300 @56 w/ 1 min rest

MustardMan wrote:

Sub 3:00 for 1k

Sub 10:40 for 3200

6-8x300 @56 w/ 1 min rest

Those 300's are lame.

I've seen 4 Min 1500m runners do 8 in 43xx. Off your 'predictor' they were sub 4 milers.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

MustardMan wrote:

Sub 3:00 for 1k

Sub 10:40 for 3200

6-8x300 @56 w/ 1 min rest

Those 300's are lame.

I've seen 4 Min 1500m runners do 8 in 43xx. Off your 'predictor' they were sub 4 milers.

You're comment comes off as very snide; bu thank you for the response.

I’ve generally used these as indicators for overqualified athletes trying to return to fitness (i.e. a 4:40 miler during base training).

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I truly believe a majority of feats in running are nothing more than a matter of psychological confidence, obviously that isn’t what your 1500 runners were objectively training for.

Bruh I was running 2:59 in a workout and I still couldnt break 5.

RejectRunner wrote:

Bruh I was running 2:59 in a workout and I still couldnt break 5.

Agreed. When I was 2:59 for 1km I couldn't break 5. I'd say 2:55 would be a better indicator.

RejectRunner wrote:

Bruh I was running 2:59 in a workout and I still couldnt break 5.

3:00 is 72 seconds per lap or 4:48 1600 pace. You likely won’t break 5 just off of that, but shouldn’t be too far off afterward. Like I wrote earlier, it’s all about confidence, and if you’re like me knowing you can comfortably split 72s does the job. How close did you end up?

Well I ran 5:10 full mile solo in the summer and I did the workout during xc season so months into training. I ran 2:58 in my last rep of 5x1k reapeats @5k pace, last one was "comfortable hard" I've always been a mid d guy so it's easier for me to run those types of distances. Come to think of it, you're not that much off. But I know for sure, I could've ran well under 3 when i did my tt. My endurance used to be abysmal(like completely non existent) so I could see someone breaking 5 if they were in good condition.

MustardMan wrote:

Sub 3:00 for 1k

Sub 10:40 for 3200

6-8x300 @56 w/ 1 min rest

As I recall the first time I ran 10:45 for an actual 2 mile run, that I eventually ran under 5 minutes for a full mile on the track a few months later. It's possible that might be an indicator.

So, I ran a 1200m solo time trial yesterday in 3:43.8. My splits were 77.2, 75.1, 71.5.

A week before I ran 8x400 with 1:1 rest. Reps were 75, 74, 75, 75, 72, 74, 75, 72.

Am I in sub 5 shape? My weekly mileage is 30 with long run of 8 mile and two day off each week.

4x400 in 75 with 0:00 between each rep. Reps 2-4 you get a flying start

Some people have an issue where they can’t focus for long enough to reach their full potential. I’ve got a friend who can run 2:13, 5:05, but can only do 19:30 in XC.

MustardMan wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Those 300's are lame.

I've seen 4 Min 1500m runners do 8 in 43xx. Off your 'predictor' they were sub 4 milers.

You're comment comes off as very snide; bu thank you for the response.

I’ve generally used these as indicators for overqualified athletes trying to return to fitness (i.e. a 4:40 miler during base training).

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I truly believe a majority of feats in running are nothing more than a matter of psychological confidence, obviously that isn’t what your 1500 runners were objectively training for.

I didn't mean I as anything negative towards someone running those times.

But endless predictor posts with inaccurate sessions are annoying. Why would someone be doing these sessions in base training anyway?

Who Let The Dawgs Out? wrote:

So, I ran a 1200m solo time trial yesterday in 3:43.8.

Don't thinks so. You could likely run a sub-3 km (barely) or a 3:00 flat, but would likely be looking at somewhere around 5:07-5:08.

I remember when I was in the exact same shape - maybe a tiny bit faster. I could run a 2:58 km and a 5:06 mile.

waltertompatton wrote:

MustardMan wrote:

Sub 3:00 for 1k

Sub 10:40 for 3200

6-8x300 @56 w/ 1 min rest

As I recall the first time I ran 10:45 for an actual 2 mile run, that I eventually ran under 5 minutes for a full mile on the track a few months later. It's possible that might be an indicator.

I disagree here. I think that 10:40 is much harder than 5:00. It probably depends on the person, but I have run 5:04 and never broken 11:30 or 18 in the 5k. (Although I'm sure I could run in the low 11's right now, if not under and I could break 18 on a track) (the 5:04 was much more recent than any 2 mile race and all my recent 5ks are xc)

ukathleticscoach wrote:

MustardMan wrote:

You're comment comes off as very snide; bu thank you for the response.

I’ve generally used these as indicators for overqualified athletes trying to return to fitness (i.e. a 4:40 miler during base training).

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I truly believe a majority of feats in running are nothing more than a matter of psychological confidence, obviously that isn’t what your 1500 runners were objectively training for.

I didn't mean I as anything negative towards someone running those times.

But endless predictor posts with inaccurate sessions are annoying. Why would someone be doing these sessions in base training anyway?

Fair enough.

However, you just shouldn’t read into it that much. I guess base was a poor choice of wording, I guess I’ll just explain.

A friend of mine did the last workout a few weeks ago while getting ready for the upcoming indoor season. He managed the workout with very mild difficulty and said it made him feel confident afterward.

Now that I’ve explained, I think I’ve justified my means and don’t feel the need to defend them much more.

My listed times are for any struggling 8/16 runner and are meant to improve overall strength and pacing in relation to running a 5:00 mile.

My high school track PR’s were 5:02 for the mile and 10:41 for the 2 mile so I would say a 10:40 2 Mile would be close to a 5:00 mile.

If you want to know how fast you can run a mile, go run a mile and find out. Predictor workouts make sense for the marathon because you obviously can't just run an all-out marathon any time you want without seriously disrupting training. That issue doesn't apply to the mile.

instructions: 1) start watch, 2) run mile, 3) stop watch wrote:

If you want to know how fast you can run a mile, go run a mile and find out. Predictor workouts make sense for the marathon because you obviously can't just run an all-out marathon any time you want without seriously disrupting training. That issue doesn't apply to the mile.

What time do you need to hit in a time trial in order to expect to break 5 in a race?

alabama runner wrote:

Some people have an issue where they can’t focus for long enough to reach their full potential. I’ve got a friend who can run 2:13, 5:05, but can only do 19:30 in XC.

Cross Country times often do not mean much. Where and when did he run the 19:30?

Track & Field and CC are different sports, and he/she also may have not been ready for CC.

Lots of factors come into play although you certainly could be right that he is better at the shorter distances. Perhaps in CC he needs to do more 3 X Mile workouts to get ready for the longer race?