How realistic is a sub 5 minute mile on the track?

Pisco Sour

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?

gerard65

Difficult answer, bit like how long is a piece of string? Depends on age, current fitness level and unfortunely talent. But a fit, young man with a pinch of natural ability should be able for it. I did it when I was 17, my PB was 4:29, but I'd been training for middle distance for 5 years.
You need to train for the mile, this means a fair amount of fast rep. training, and intervals. Fast 200s 400s 800s and 1k's are very important. You'd need to feel comfortable running 400m in the low 60s. You don't need big mileage but leg speed is important.

myflipflops

gerard65 wrote: »

You need to train for the mile, this means a fair amount of fast rep. training, and intervals. Fast 200s 400s 800s and 1k's are very important. You'd need to feel comfortable running 400m in the low 60s. You don't need big mileage but leg speed is important.

I disagree totally with this. A 5 minute mile is 80 seconds per lap. It requires nearly zero leg speed, just a certain amount of aerobic fitness. A training plan based around running mileage would be more beneficial to the OP as (if I'm not mistaken) he is around 24/25 years of age in the initial stages.

Why do you feel he needs to be comfortable running 62/63 second 400 metres to achieve a time that requires 80 second 400 meters?

I've been reading around the training advice and logs on this forum a lot more over the previous 3 months as I have started running again and I really enjoy them and they motivate me a bit. There is a definite tendency for people to run speed sessions or repetitions without having built up a solid base before hand. It;s very much self defeating in my opinion.

I'm sure I'll be destroyed for that opinion though!



Edit: I've pt up 400 splits for a 5 minute 1500, not a mile!!! Apologies, should be 75 seconds a lap (plus a little bit). I'm a metric man at heart!!

village runner

04072511 wrote: »

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?

If i am brutally honest unless you get two new legs a pair of lungs then no chance.
To get from 5.56 to 5.40 might be doable but getting under 5.20 is unrealistic. sorry.

myflipflops

village runner wrote: »

If i am brutally honest unless you get two new legs a pair of lungs then no chance.
To get from 5.56 to 5.40 might be doable but getting under 5.20 is unrealistic. sorry.

Seriously? 5 minute miling is not quick running for a young male. WHy do you have this opinion?

If capable of 5.40 now, he probably has the ability to get sub 5 within 4/5 months max.

Pisco Sour

village runner wrote: »

If i am brutally honest unless you get two new legs a pair of lungs then no chance.
To get from 5.56 to 5.40 might be doable but getting under 5.20 is unrealistic. sorry.

Hi again

Forgot to mention I ran 5:16 for 1500m when I was 17 going on 18, after no more than 3 weeks training, so that converts to what a 5:40 mile. Granted that was in a race. Harder to do that in a TT.

gerard65

@ village runner - I think you're been a bit harsh. I don't know the OP's history in running or age but because he/she is just under 6mins atm in a time trial on his/her own dos'nt mean with training he/she can't run under 5 mins. Its like telling someone who's run 4hrs for a marathon this year they'll never run 3hrs. But sub5 should'nt be out of the range for anyone in their early/ mid twenties if they trained for it.
@ myflipflops - I came from a middle distance background and speed training was always our bread and butter so maybe I'm bias towards speed, but I still think a 60sec 400m should be within range for a MD runner.

myflipflops

gerard65 wrote: »

@ myflipflops - I came from a middle distance background and speed training was always our bread and butter so maybe I'm bias towards speed, but I still think a 60sec 400m should be within range for a MD runner.

AS did I. If he was aiming to run a 4.10 1500 then I would agree but a 5 minute mile doesn;t require that kind of speed in my opinion. I think a base of mileage would be the best way to get there and allow him to kick on past that point.

village runner

gerard65 wrote: »

@ village runner - I think you're been a bit harsh. I don't know the OP's history in running or age but because he/she is just under 6mins atm in a time trial on his/her own dos'nt mean with training he/she can't run under 5 mins. Its like telling someone who's run 4hrs for a marathon this year they'll never run 3hrs. But sub5 should'nt be out of the range for anyone in their early/ mid twenties if they trained for it.
@ myflipflops - I came from a middle distance background and speed training was always our bread and butter so maybe I'm bias towards speed, but I still think a 60sec 400m should be within range for a MD runner.

Read his log.........I dont like been harsh but its unrealistic. Maybe if the aim was 5.25 then with training he might have a chance.
I could be full of shi* and say of course you will blah blah blah.......

Pisco Sour

village runner wrote: »

Read his log.........I dont like been harsh but its unrealistic. Maybe if the aim was 5.25 then with training he might have a chance.
I could be full of shi* and say of course you will blah blah blah.......

You also said I wouldnt enjoy rotterdam and would be in for a day of hell, neither of which were true. Ran a positive split of just 4 minutes and hit no wall.

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.

TheRoadRunner

More than doable with the correct training. The amount of training you would have to do is directly proportional to your natural ability.

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

Pisco Sour

gerard65 wrote: »

@ 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.

I'll actually be in Melbourne next year (arriving end of december). I arrive half way through the track season and there are a good few graded meet mile races on until march I think. Cross country season kicks in after that. Damn the stupid southern hemisphere and its reversed seasons. Would love a full track season!

gerard65

04072511 wrote: »

I'll actually be in Melbourne next year (arriving end of december). I arrive half way through the track season and there are a good few graded meet mile races on until march I think. Cross country season kicks in after that. Damn the stupid southern hemisphere and its reversed seasons. Would love a full track season!

Patience grasshopper , you've many more years in your prime. Just keep on running and when the time is right - unleash HELL.

Pisco Sour

village runner wrote: »

To get from 5.56 to 5.40 might be doable

This is funny seen as I've already done the 1500m equivalent of a 5.40, albeit 7 years ago when i was 18.

Brianderunner

If i paced you today i reckon you could have ran at least 10 seconds faster, damn suspected stress fracture :mad:. 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

gerard65 wrote: »

@ 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.

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

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

Brianderunner wrote: »

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

04072511 wrote: »

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

04072511 wrote: »

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

misty floyd wrote: »

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

misty floyd wrote: »

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

04072511 wrote: »

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

myflipflops wrote: »

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

04072511 wrote: »

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

Sport101 wrote: »

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.

shels4ever wrote: »

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.

robinph

McMillian probably relates the level of talent required between doing a 5 minute mile and a 2:48 marathon quite well. What is significantly different between the two is the number of pairs of shoes you'll need to get through in training before being able to do the marathon one.

TheRoadRunner

04072511 wrote: »

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.

If you can run 67 seconds in shoes off no training sub 5 would be relatively easy ASSUMING you do a bit of mile specific training. Why don't you start base miles now and then race the mile meets in Australia in the new year. Timing looks perfect to me. Try and prove VR wrong. No excuses just do it

Sport101

04072511 wrote: »

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.

You should have no problem so, in fact why not aim for 2:00 800 instead ... now there's a challenge

Robin, don't forget all the physio bills.

Pisco Sour

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

If you can run 67 seconds in shoes off no training sub 5 would be relatively easy ASSUMING you do a bit of mile specific training. Why don't you start base miles now and then race the mile meets in Australia in the new year. Timing looks perfect to me. Try and prove VR wrong. No excuses just do it

VR has a habit of being wrong.

Thats a good idea, but a slight problem is I'll be backpacking for 3 months before I get to Australia. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to go running high mileage down the streets of Rio de Janeiro and Lima. In reality I wont be able to start training properly until the end of december when I get to Melbourne. Maybe the mile meets will come too soon for me but I'll give it a go.

Pisco Sour

Sport101 wrote: »

You should have no problem so, in fact why not aim for 2:00 800 instead ... now there's a challenge

Jaysus not even Sonia could manage to break 2.00. I think that one would be a tad out of reach

a_non_a_mouse

If i am brutally honest unless you get two new legs a pair of lungs then no chance.
To get from 5.56 to 5.40 might be doable but getting under 5.20 is unrealistic. sorry.

Surprised at this....going from 4.56 to under 4.20 I would view as unrealistic.
going from 5.56 to under 5.20 (or even under 5.00) would require training and determination, but is surely realistic (maybe optimistic) if the 5.56 was off no real training.


Fortune favours the brave!
Go for it!

kennyb3

04072511 wrote: »

VR has a habit of being wrong.

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.

dna_leri

04072511 wrote: »

VR has a habit of being wrong.

Thats a good idea, but a slight problem is I'll be backpacking for 3 months before I get to Australia. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to go running high mileage down the streets of Rio de Janeiro and Lima. In reality I wont be able to start training properly until the end of december when I get to Melbourne. Maybe the mile meets will come too soon for me but I'll give it a go.

I you really want to do a 5 min mile, you can.
However if you can not fit the training around your life, then you can't.
Was this a theoretical discussion or do you want to run a 5 min mile, if so when?

shels4ever

04072511 wrote: »

Jaysus not even Sonia could manage to break 2.00. I think that one would be a tad out of reach

Thats one target I had but don't think Í would have ever been capable of Could manage the pace for 400 m but the legs always packed it in after 500m..

TheRoadRunner

04072511 wrote: »

VR has a habit of being wrong.

That's fighting talk.

Getting through a marathon may be easier than hitting a very well defined track goal though. Still, it seems you could do it if you were willing to put a bit of work in. Maybe you need to change the title of this thread to "How much work do I need to put in to run a sub 5 minute mile?" or "How little work do I need to put in to run a sub 5 minute mile?"

As asked above are you actually going to try and do this or are you pondering about your potential greatness ?

RayCun

kennyb3 wrote: »

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.

I looked this up...

October: 13.50 Miles (Started 24th October) - Longest LSR - 5.75 Miles
November: 60.70 Miles - Longest LSR - 10.05 Miles
December: 51.65 Miles - Longest LSR - 13.35 Miles
January: 48.25 Miles - Longest LSR - 16.25 Miles
February: 62.35 Miles - Longest LSR - 18.00 Miles
March: 80.55 Miles - Longest LSR - 21.05 Miles
April: 19.00 Miles (Until 10th April) - Longest LSR - 7.30 Miles

Total: 336.00 Miles - Longest LSR - 21.05 Miles

You did 80 miles in your peak month, and you're wondering why MacMillan isn't predicting your marathon time well?

Gringo78

04072511 wrote: »

Thats a good idea, but a slight problem is I'll be backpacking for 3 months before I get to Australia. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to go running high mileage down the streets of Rio de Janeiro and Lima. In reality I wont be able to start training properly until the end of december when I get to Melbourne. Maybe the mile meets will come too soon for me but I'll give it a go.

What time frame are you looking at to break 5min? As myflipflops said, the average joe on the street is capable of breaking 5min for the mile with training, but the average joe on the street won't do the training so therefore are unlikely to break 5min so its all hypothetical. If you started training now and persisted at it for a number of years, at some stage you will break 5min. How long that takes depends on the quality and consistency of your training and your natural talent. If you're a reasonably healthy 24/25 year old then should be no problem.

However, the fact that you say you would not be able to train while backpacking for 3 months means you actually are unlikely to do it now since you don't seem to have the resolve or real desire to do it. Why could you not run every day while backpacking???? I have run the streets of Rio without problem. You are highly unlikely to get mugged running along the copacabana in a pair of shorts. If you have an ipod on well then you're asking for it. Don't put off till tomorrow what you can do today.

The majority of the 'talent' that runners running <5min miles and hour marathons have is getting out running rather than making an excuse not to. Then its a combination of quality of training and quantity of training as to how low you can go. I don't think natural genetic talent comes into the equation until much much faster.

myflipflops

Gringo78 wrote: »

The majority of the 'talent' that runners running <5min miles and hour marathons have is getting out running rather than making an excuse not to. Then its a combination of quality of training and quantity of training as to how low you can go. I don't think natural genetic talent comes into the equation until much much faster.

Good post, completely agree.

Pisco Sour

kennyb3 wrote: »

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.

Well he was wrong as he said I would die a horrible death in the marathon and would be in for a day of hell which wasnt true, I felt strong throughout and my pace didnt drop much. Anyway I'm not getting into petty arguments about that crap.

Yeh to be honest I just wanted to get through it and in a time of around 4 hours (I wasnt targeting 2:59 or 3:29) so I achieved my goal. In the future I'll have a higher goal and train better for it. But I prefer shorter distances and think I am better at them.

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!

dna_leri

04072511 wrote: »

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!

Ok, so this was just a hypothetical discussion, pity - would have made for a good training log, interesting topic anyway.

village runner

kennyb3 wrote: »

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

village runner wrote: »

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

village runner wrote: »

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

04072511 wrote: »

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

village runner wrote: »

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

04072511 wrote: »

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.