[Brianderunner]

If i paced you today i reckon you could have ran at least 10 seconds faster, damn suspected stress fracture . I did 5 mins even off the back of a 2 09 800m. Its fast running make no mistake, but no reason why you cant hit your target.

[myflipflops]

Originally Posted by gerard65

@ 04072511 - if you want to go for it, well do it. Don't mind what anyone around here says. As myflipflops says - build a base of slow/steady miles - 30 - 40 miles per week for a couple of months. Then a few xc races over the winter would be good, the BHAA run a good xc season. Next summer the BHAA run a couple of mile races so you could aim for them. Get your hands on 'Daniel's Running Formula', he has some good middle distances advice.
Good luck, you never know what you can do until you try.

This post i agree with competely.

The base of miles is key. Then adding in the track sessions you first mentioned. Crossed wires between us at first.

Originally Posted by TheRoadRunner

By the way it's approximately 75 seconds a lap not 80. No wonder the countries numerical skills are fecked!

Yeah, i had corrected myself here. I always think 1500 when someone says mile! Bloody metric system....

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by Brianderunner

Its fast running make no mistake, but no reason why you cant hit your target.

That it is. McMillan equates a 4:59 mile to a 2:48 Marathon. But then again a 5:56 mile equates to a 3:20 marathon. I dont think anybody on here would ever say to a 3:20 marathon runner that a 2:48 is absolutely not possible (at least I havent heard such a thing said anyway), so why should it be different for the mile?

[myflipflops]

Originally Posted by 04072511

McMillan equates a 4:59 mile to a 2:48 Marathon.?

Is this right? This has to shed doubt on the accuracy of McMillan. The average JOe on the street came run a 4.59 without too much training. A 2.48 marathon is a different beast.

[misty floyd]

Originally Posted by 04072511

That it is. McMillan equates a 4:59 mile to a 2:48 Marathon. But then again a 5:56 mile equates to a 3:20 marathon. I dont think anybody on here would ever say to a 3:20 marathon runner that a 2:48 is absolutely not possible (at least I havent heard such a thing said anyway), so why should it be different for the mile?

what is the point in using a mile time to calculate a potential marathon time?. We all know its a completely different beast. Its pointless.

You could do the 5m/m if you prioritised your training. Sure why not.

[theboyblunder]

Originally Posted by misty floyd

what is the point in using a mile time to calculate a potential marathon time?. We all know its a completely different beast. Its pointless.

You could do the 5m/m if you prioritised your training. Sure why not.

+1 the marathon and the mile are two very different animals. A runner's time for the mile has no useful predictive value for the marathon.

The difference between a 2.48 marathon and a 3.20 is truely enormous. I think there are many runners out there who can run 3.20 without too much trouble at all but might never make 2.48.

The mile on the other hand I reckon is more malleable. I dont see why you couldnt do it if you tailored your training. You can do sub 6 so I assume you are not overweight etc, so why not?

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by misty floyd

what is the point in using a mile time to calculate a potential marathon time?. We all know its a completely different beast. Its pointless.

I know it cant be used as a way of predicting a marathon time (fast/ slow stwitch muscles etc). I was more just looking at it from an equivalent performance point of view. Not sure how accurate McMillan is but according to it a sub 5 is an equivalent performance to 2:48 over a marathon.

[RayCun]

You obviously can't expect results at very short distances to be useful in predicting very long distances. The mile time should be a reasonably good predictor of results between 100m and 5 miles, the 5 mile time a good predictor of everything between 1 mile and a half marathon, and so on. All on the understanding that these are the times you could get if you trained for them.

People take the MacMillan calculator far too seriously. Not the people who use it to predict their times - because as far as I can see everyone doing that takes the predictions with a pinch of salt, and uses comparable distances - but people who seem to object to the very idea of the calculator, and are determined to prove that it has flaws.

[ecoli]

The McMillan Calculator is not a predictor of what you will run in your current shape but rather what you can run at that moment in time in each of the distances if your training was specific to that event as such it should be taken as a very rough guide and nothing more because it does not take into account potential for improvement etc. This is why it is closer with distances in or around what you have just done because your training is fairly specific to that range of distances

[Sport101]

Originally Posted by 04072511

Today I ran 5:56 off no training really (the odd run on the track here and there. About 3 days on the track spread over the last 2 weeks or so). I used spikes and a garmin to help with my pacing. If I was in a race with faster runners around me I'm sure I could shave another 10-15 seconds off that time, but what do I have to do to get a sub 5 minute mile? How realistic is it to achieve?

What's your fast 400 metre time? if its significantly lower or close to 75, then sure, it should be well within your capability to train your endurance and/or speed to go quicker than 5mins for a mile, if its 80 then you may struggle.

I think Lance Armstong has named this as one of his goals too now that his cycling career is finished.

[StaggerLee]

Originally Posted by myflipflops

Is this right? This has to shed doubt on the accuracy of McMillan. The average JOe on the street came run a 4.59 without too much training. A 2.48 marathon is a different beast.

I'm an average Joe from the street, who enjoys running even though I have Zero talent and theres no way I would hit a 5 minute mile, even when I was at my fitest. I think the best I ever did was about 5:40 on a trail. You do need that little pinch of talent mixed with a lot of training to go below 5 mins in my opinion.

[shels4ever]

Originally Posted by 04072511

Today I ran 5:56 off no training really (the odd run on the track here and there. About 3 days on the track spread over the last 2 weeks or so). I used spikes and a garmin to help with my pacing. If I was in a race with faster runners around me I'm sure I could shave another 10-15 seconds off that time, but what do I have to do to get a sub 5 minute mile? How realistic is it to achieve?

This is something that would be possible for sure, what type of mileage/training are you running sub 6 with?

I'd like to see what you would run for a 400m at the moment with out training if you could run sub 75 then i'd say you would have a great chance over a year if your over 80 then it might take a lot more work.
It would be alot easier to do this if your part of a club group too .

[robinph]

I somehow managed to do a 5:15 mile on the track last year on no specific training for anything so guess I should be able to knock those 16 seconds off. I just seem to be getting slower though and only managed to average 5:07 pace during some 12x300 that they had me doing last night. Not sure how I actually managed to keep the 5:15 up for 4 laps before.

[mrak]

All the above is true - plus there's no point pointing out the times you have done without training and asking people what you would do if you had trained. It's just impossible to say.

If you really want to find out - get training and find a way to race a mile regularly. Find your own limits. You might have to organise the races! We used to have a mile series in the running club at work here and you wouldn't believe how many people dipped under the 5. 5 minute mile is definitely easier to do than a 2:48 marathon, but probably requires a similar amount of talent (back again to "you need to put the work in").

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by Sport101

What's your fast 400 metre time? if its significantly lower or close to 75, then sure, it should be well within your capability to train your endurance and/or speed to go quicker than 5mins for a mile, if its 80 then you may struggle.

I think Lance Armstong has named this as one of his goals too now that his cycling career is finished.

Originally Posted by shels4ever

This is something that would be possible for sure, what type of mileage/training are you running sub 6 with?

I'd like to see what you would run for a 400m at the moment with out training if you could run sub 75 then i'd say you would have a great chance over a year if your over 80 then it might take a lot more work.
It would be alot easier to do this if your part of a club group too .

Last saturday I did a 400m in 67 secs as a Time trial, but that was in road running shoes. I was told that with spikes and in a race with faster guys around me, I could probably get down to 63 seconds for 400m before doing any training to improve that time.

65 certainly anyway with spikes. They make a hell of a difference.

Shels that sub 6 was off zero mileage. I've been studying for finals so have been doing no training at all in recent months. Just the odd run on the track here and there.