Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How realistic is a sub 5 minute mile on the track?
Options
Comments
-
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
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
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. 0 -
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.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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?0 -
-
... 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 :rolleyes:
Funny you should mention Mr Gillick. Have a look at his mile split here 0 -
... 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 :rolleyes:
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 track0 -
-
TheRoadRunner wrote: »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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement