5:00 mile possible?

http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/Running%20University/Article%201/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm

Try using the above calculator to get a ballpark estimate of what you can shoot for.

I typically only get in 3 - 5 track/speed workouts per marathon training session and the rest is either long runs or some tempo runs.  I averaged around 30 - 35 miles per week in my Boston run-up and in the 40 - 50 range when I went for my BQ.  With that alone I have gotten into the 5's.

My last 5k (last monday) I opened with a 5:31 on a course with an uphill in the first mile.  Sunday I opened with a 5:43 on a downhill in my 10k.

So the short answer is ..... Yes, probably you can hit it if you throw your mind out the door and just let it hurt for the whole time.  You won't hit low 5's, but you could probably break into the high 5's ....... by the time your HR catches up to your effort, you'll be done.

I think his calculator is off b/c it said I should be able to run 22.9 100m and a :45 200.  I know I can easily outdo those effots.  I think he calculates on the safe side. 

What did you input to get those times?

Is it possible?  Anything's possible.  What's the likelihood?  Slim.

I'm not downplaying any of your ability, but I'm going to assume that you've never run a 5:00 mile (at least not within the last year).  Also, from your post, I gather that while you have done an amount of aerobic training, you've probably done no real speed training.

I will say this.  When I was in HS, I ran the mile and never got all that close to 5:00.  Hate to be a naysayer, but I'd bet on the cautious side. 

I don't think he is talking about running a 5 flat, I think he is talking about breaking INTO the 5's (like 5:59 or so).

I doubt even that I could run a 5 flat even with all my mileage ........

I put in my 10k time from Saturday's race (56:00), and selected "10k" from the options.

As for my mile time, I know I'll have no problem breaking in to the 6:xx range, and could possibly break in to the 5:xx range, if all goes well.  I was actually asking about a 5:00 mile, but after reading your responses, I see that I was dreaming a little beyond my abilities.    So maybe a 5:xx would be awesome!  Heck, anything under 6:30 would be sweet.

22.9 for a 100 and 45.9 for a 200?  Why is that not believable??

And for reference ...... the "calculator" is a much better indicator of longer distance stuff, not sprints.  Those are just thrown in there for sh-ts and grins.

It IS believable, that's the problem.  I can easily go close to 15 for 100m and can probably crank out a 32-33 200m if necessary.  I know HS was a long time ago, but I ran a 10.9 for the 100m (once) and averaged low 11's.  A 22.9 100m seems (to me) sluggish.

OK.  He MIGHT go sub-6.  But I think that if he's lacking any sort of speed or sharpening training, then the likelihood goes down. 

1.  Don't hurt yourself.

2.  Good luck.

3.  Even for people who do 10-20 mile LSD training runs, an ALL OUT SCREAMING EFFORT is going to be verrrrrrry hard to maintain for the whole thing.  You'll be suprirsed how long a mile is, especially without  having practiced it.  It's gonna hurt.

4.  You may not have time or energy to spare to look at a watch.  Just pick a rabbit and chase it.  And if you are in front run like I'm chasing you.  On my bike.  With a stick.

I would maintain that if you're capable of running even a single sub-6 mile you're significantly underperforming at the 10K distance. Conversely, if you input an underperformance, the calculator is going to give you seemingly conservative times, especially at shorter ditances.

i.e., Garbage in, garbage out.

Thank you for all your responses.  I will definitely warm up and stretch like normal.  I hope to break in to the 6:xx range, so we'll see.

Bear - regarding my 10k effort, I felt like it was a pretty true race effort - my HR was above 200 when I finished and I was breathing every step on the last 1/2 mile.  Could I do better with more training?  Sure, but right now, that was my best.

smilford - 2007-06-05 4:17 PM Not sure what your normal warm-up is, but you may want to warm up a bit more then normal. As this is a short but violent effort on your part.

I typically use about a 1/4 mile jog to warm up before I stretch.  For short runs like this, I'll probably jog close to a half mile, just to be good and loose before I punish my body.

No doubt you gave it your all, by underperformance I didn't mean you were sloughing on your effort, just that you are capable, as you said, of of doing significantly better if you are properly trained. Input your conservative estimate of a 6:30 mile into McMillan and you get an "equivalent performance" 10K of 46:47, nearly ten minutes faster than the 56 minutes you posted. Input 6-minute mile and that drops to 43:11.

Thus, if you put in the undertrained time of 56 minutes, you are going to get what you called conservative times at the shorter distances.

smilford - 2007-06-05 4:17 PM Not sure what your normal warm-up is, but you may want to warm up a bit more then normal. As this is a short but violent effort on your part.

run at least 10-15 min, and add some strides building gradually to an all out effort + active stretch