[village runner]

Originally Posted by kennyb3

I dont think he was wrong, while i didnt particularly like his post above, on your log he was saying you werent going about training to achieve a decent marathon time. You can run a 67sec 400m yet ran a 4.xx marathon. He may have had a point. You might of only wanted to get through it though. You both have your own ideas. I think he was trying to help on your log as were others.

Trying to help. I dont bullsh**. If you were 3 stone overweight and ran 5.56 then you would have a great chance if you did the training and lost hthe weight. I aint been personal but I just think you are been unrealistic.


I think 10 seconds for a mile is huge.I think you will get to 5.30 easily enogh but after that improvement is minimal. you have youth on your side. I wish you the best. I would like to see anyone doing it.
Bringing up what i said on your log months ago shows great maturity.
I didnt think you were putting in the miles and I was right.

67 seconds for 400 is impressive. But results in races is what its about.
Try break 2.30 for 800 metres first.

[kennyb3]

Originally Posted by village runner

Trying to help. I dont bullsh**.

Ha ha that much i know, i was largely trying to defend what you said in his log as it had some substance.

[myflipflops]

Originally Posted by village runner

If you were 3 stone overweight and ran 5.56 then you would have a great chance if you did the training and lost hthe weight. I aint been personal but I just think you are been unrealistic.

I think 10 seconds for a mile is huge.I think you will get to 5.30 easily enogh but after that improvement is minimal. .

A 10 second improvement is big for the mile if you are running 4.25 and already training hard. A big improvement from 5.56 to 5 minutes is not that huge a leap if you train hard and train smart. I think the fact that the OP seems to do very little (if any??) training is just as relevant as if he was 3 stone overweight (ironically, this is how overweight I am right now!).

If the above were true, we wouldn't any quick milers in this country.

[village runner]

Originally Posted by 04072511

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.

If you ran 67 seconds for 400 metres last sat and yet you only managed 89 seconds a lap for a mile.......Call me Niaive but it seems that its plucked out of the sky...........A lad that can run 67 for 400 metres could stop and have a pi** and still run 5.56 for a mile. 90 Seconds a lap must feel like walking as he/she is 5-6 seconds slower for every 100 metres.

[shels4ever]

Originally Posted by village runner

If you ran 67 seconds for 400 metres last sat and yet you only managed 89 seconds a lap for a mile.......Call me Niaive but it seems that its plucked out of the sky...........A lad that can run 67 for 400 metres could stop and have a pi** and still run 5.56 for a mile. 90 Seconds a lap must feel like walking as he/she is 5-6 seconds slower for every 100 metres.

I'm not sure i'd agree with that totally on a 1 off i know i'd run a fast 400m maybe not 67 second but would be under 75 seconds easy enough. But i'd find it hard to run a sub 6 min mile at the moment.

It would depend on how the runner is built I think that extra fat really come to play come lap 3-4 of a mile race , but you can almost ignor it over 400m.

When i went sub 5 my 400 reps would have been done in 69/71 pace range but what would have been only for 6-8 reps .
But 67 is quick....

[Gringo78]

Originally Posted by 04072511

With regards do I want to try run a sub 5 minute mile, yes I do want to try. Just because I dont plan on starting that ASAP/ tomorrow doesnt mean I am not going to make a serious attempt at it in the near future! I was asking a question of how realistic is a sub 5 minute mile. Does it matter whether I start the training in 1 week or 3 months time? The question is the same!

It DOES matter when you want to start training for it. The fact that you will start training for it in a few months time rather than now and also the fact that you question whether its realistic all mean that you're looking to achieve short term results - i.e you want the answer, "yes, you can do it in 12 weeks" but something else will probably get in the way of your training and you'll ditch the attempt if you're not getting close. If you had the attitude, well I'll run 20-30 miles per week between now and when I get to melbourne, I'll get 4-5 runs a week in while backpacking, I'll watch the weight, find a local race when I arrive in melbourne, 12 weeks of mile specific training and target it then I'd say, yeah, you'll probably break 5min no hassle.


If someone asked me whether they could break 3 hours in Cork marathon in June 2011 on a P&D 55mpw 18 week plan having run a 40min 10k last week, I'd say it all depends on what they do between now and Feb 2011. If the goal only becomes serious 18 weeks out from the marathon then they have less chance of success.

By the way, people would be very surprised at what they could achieve on say 4-5 years of continuous training. There are elite athletes thinking now about what they need to do to get the line in the best shape possible in Rio 2016 - an injury of 3-4 weeks during the period would have them seriously worried about their plans. Most amateurs are too caught up in short term goals, they will never achieve anywhere close to their potential because they set short term goals, they set the bar too low quitting once they acheive that, or set the bar too high for a short time frame and quit because they don't get results fast enough. Work gets results, not talent. Tigers first round of golf was not a 65, and he won his first major 15 years? after first picking up a golf club. Roger Bannisters first mile was not sub 4.

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by village runner

Call me Niaive but it seems that its plucked out of the sky............

What do you mean by this?

[VW 1]

Whats the best way to reduce a mile time? Im reasonably fit through boxing and a little running to keep up with the boxing but i havent trained in the last 6-7 weeks due to broken ribs.
Ran once or twice in the last week (only 2x4 miles at 7:30-8 mins a mile pace to ease back into things). Decided after reading this thread to see how quick i could run the mile, it was on a hilly enough road (as much down as up overall) and did it in 6min 2 secs.
For mile specific training is it reccommended to work speed or more to concentrate on building up base miles for the endurance?

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by village runner

If you ran 67 seconds for 400 metres last sat and yet you only managed 89 seconds a lap for a mile.......Call me Niaive but it seems that its plucked out of the sky...........A lad that can run 67 for 400 metres could stop and have a pi** and still run 5.56 for a mile. 90 Seconds a lap must feel like walking as he/she is 5-6 seconds slower for every 100 metres.

... and by that logic you could say that because David Gillick can run a 44.77 400m he could stop and have a pi** and still run a 4:30 for a mile. 67 seconds a lap must feel like walking when he is 5 seconds slower for every 100 metres

[Woddle]

Originally Posted by Gringo78

It DOES matter when you want to start training for it. The fact that you will start training for it in a few months time rather than now and also the fact that you question whether its realistic all mean that you're looking to achieve short term results - i.e you want the answer, "yes, you can do it in 12 weeks" but something else will probably get in the way of your training and you'll ditch the attempt if you're not getting close. If you had the attitude, well I'll run 20-30 miles per week between now and when I get to melbourne, I'll get 4-5 runs a week in while backpacking, I'll watch the weight, find a local race when I arrive in melbourne, 12 weeks of mile specific training and target it then I'd say, yeah, you'll probably break 5min no hassle.


If someone asked me whether they could break 3 hours in Cork marathon in June 2011 on a P&D 55mpw 18 week plan having run a 40min 10k last week, I'd say it all depends on what they do between now and Feb 2011. If the goal only becomes serious 18 weeks out from the marathon then they have less chance of success.

By the way, people would be very surprised at what they could achieve on say 4-5 years of continuous training. There are elite athletes thinking now about what they need to do to get the line in the best shape possible in Rio 2016 - an injury of 3-4 weeks during the period would have them seriously worried about their plans. Most amateurs are too caught up in short term goals, they will never achieve anywhere close to their potential because they set short term goals, they set the bar too low quitting once they acheive that, or set the bar too high for a short time frame and quit because they don't get results fast enough. Work gets results, not talent. Tigers first round of golf was not a 65, and he won his first major 15 years? after first picking up a golf club. Roger Bannisters first mile was not sub 4.

Very good post Gringo and I think I definitely fit the profile of short term goal seeker. Time to adjust my thinking, me thinks.

Also from reading a few of your posts of late, your starting to emerge as a philosopher of sorts
A new career path maybe?

[kennyb3]

Originally Posted by shels4ever

I'm not sure i'd agree with that totally on a 1 off i know i'd run a fast 400m maybe not 67 second but would be under 75 seconds easy enough. But i'd find it hard to run a sub 6 min mile at the moment.

It would depend on how the runner is built I think that extra fat really come to play come lap 3-4 of a mile race , but you can almost ignor it over 400m.

When i went sub 5 my 400 reps would have been done in 69/71 pace range but what would have been only for 6-8 reps .
But 67 is quick....

I can kind of see where VR is coming from though, 22 seconds a lap slower every lap for just over 4 laps. Seems like a big difference to me. Either the OP has some serious speed and need to focus on 200m - 400m or something aint quite right. 67 seconds seems a bit quick for the to be honest.

Seriously OP if you reckon you can run 65 off no training you ve wasted 3 months training for a 4.xx marathon

[TheRoadRunner]

Originally Posted by 04072511

... and by that logic you could say that because David Gillick can run a 44.77 400m he could stop and have a pi** and still run a 4:30 for a mile. 67 seconds a lap must feel like walking when he is 5 seconds slower for every 100 metres

Funny you should mention Mr Gillick. Have a look at his mile split here

[menoscemo]

Originally Posted by 04072511

... and by that logic you could say that because David Gillick can run a 44.77 400m he could stop and have a pi** and still run a 4:30 for a mile. 67 seconds a lap must feel like walking when he is 5 seconds slower for every 100 metres

I was talking to my physio about this on monday. He says Gillick can run a 4:10 mile and has done so in training many times. He himself, a former 200m-400m man could run 4:27 in his hey day.

So yes Gillick could stop for a piss and still run a 4:30 mile

Edit ^^^^^^^ RR got there before me, remember the above was back in 2003, he is faster now, and even faster on track

[Gringo78]

Originally Posted by Woddle

.
Also from reading a few of your posts of late, your starting to emerge as a philosopher of sorts

I'm a dreamer woddle, nothing but a dreamer

[myflipflops]

Originally Posted by TheRoadRunner

Funny you should mention Mr Gillick. Have a look at his mile split here

I once watched Gillick do a session of 3X600 on the track in the middle of a tough warm weather training week. He went 90, 90, 83 and wasn't pushing himself too hard. This was maybe a year before he broke through and won the 1st of his Euro Indoor titles.

There was a big gap between reps but his aerobic capacity was impressive.