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.