Goal of sub 20 5k (Read 13664 times)

amarrin1


    you cross train. or run a tempo every week and limit your self to short walk breaks.. or just run at a steady pace that equals sub 20


    Why is it sideways?

      I guess my point was that there is no correlation between the number of miles per week a person is currently running and the race times they are able to achieve, especially in a short race like the 5k.

       

      We see faster runners, ask them what they are doing to run that time, and they say: well, I've been running 35 miles per week in 5 runs. Or 15 miles per week in three runs. And I'm able to run a 19 minute 5k. But this means almost nothing, you see. No conclusions can be drawn from this information. Just resentment. Or pride. Or envy. Small bursts of feeling that will be gone within the hour.

       

      We want running to be what life is not. We want there to be a straight line between the work that one puts into their training and the times that result from that work. But there are no straight lines in nature. It's all curves and blind corners. Accidents and dreams. It's out of these raw materials that the runner is built.

       

      I'll tell you the secret right now: being the runner that you want to be takes uncovering the rarest of combinations: the patience to work through injuries and sickness, in cold rain, across silent mornings, and beneath winter moons relentlessly towards your goal,  and the almost reckless extravagance to reap what you have long sown in the right instant, at the Moment of Truth. It takes the confluence of chronos and kairos to ride the razor's edge, to run the perfect race, to be that guy--the runner. That's what it takes, no more and no less.

       

      And yet here we find ourselves once again. We wring our hands like worried farmers gazing over dry fields. We chart the correlation between race times and weekly mileage, looking for some hidden truth. Believing perhaps that if we worry hard enough over it, God will have mercy, the drought will end, and the big heavy drops will start to fall.

      JimR


        We want running to be what life is not. We want there to be a straight line between the work that one puts into their training and the times that result from that work. But there are no straight lines in nature. It's all curves and blind corners. Accidents and dreams. It's out of these raw materials that the runner is built. 

         

         

          It has to be curves.  Otherwise I'll run smack dab into a tree, or a fence, or Mack truck...


        Right on Hereford...

          I guess my point was that there is no correlation between the number of miles per week a person is currently running and the race times they are able to achieve, especially in a short race like the 5k.

           

           

          When comparing different people, I agree. But on an individual basis, I believe there is a correlation between weekly mileage and race performance.

          Eric Holmberg


            i personally believe that the more miles you put in the faster your race will be, especially if you were to push yourself during workouts, that is what i have been doing and i ran a sub 18 at my first ever 5k, after less than 3 weeks of running

              I came across an running times article which introduces a pretty decent runner called Jenkins.  I thought it was interesting since many of us here discussed about high vs low miles.  Even gifted runners like Jenkins couldn't have improved much when they were young because of poor coaching which relied upon low miles and lots of intervals

               

              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               

              "Templeton teens attend Narragansett Regional High School, which serves Templeton and nearby Phillipston. Narragansett is where Jenkins began running competitively. In seventh grade, he signed up for cross country to get into shape for basketball, and by eighth grade he was hooked. In the mid-1990s the Narragansett cross country team was a regional power, and Jenkins was part of a squad that won Division II state titles in 1995 and 1996, his freshman and sophomore seasons. In the spring of his freshman year, he ran 10:18 for 2 miles during track, which made him one of the top underclassmen in the state. Over the next two years, however, he seemed to stagnate. Jenkins' coach followed an Emil Zatopek-type training plan filled with intense interval sessions and low mileage, a style of coaching that gets young athletes into shape quickly but also often fails to develop them in the long term. After Jenkins' junior year, his 2-mile best had improved only modestly to 10:04 and, by then accustomed to a certain level of success, he was disappointed."

                And the next paragraph is even more interesting:

                 

                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                In what has become a major theme of his career, Jenkins was willing to do whatever it took to improve. He was at the limit of his ability to run more intervals, though, so he began experimenting with higher mileage. With spare time during the winter break of his senior year, he ran 70 miles a week. Over a one-week vacation in April he ran 95 miles -- an unusual amount of mileage for a 17-year-old, and, as Jenkins reminded me, he did this during the 1990s when mileage-based programs were unpopular in the U.S. In June, his senior spring, he ran 9:47 for 2 miles and placed fifth at the state divisional meet. It was enough to convert Jenkins into a full-time high mileage runner.

                I came across an running times article which introduces a pretty decent runner called Jenkins.  I thought it was interesting since many of us here discussed about high vs low miles.  Even gifted runners like Jenkins couldn't have improved much when they were young because of poor coaching which relied upon low miles and lots of intervals

                 

                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 

                "Templeton teens attend Narragansett Regional High School, which serves Templeton and nearby Phillipston. Narragansett is where Jenkins began running competitively. In seventh grade, he signed up for cross country to get into shape for basketball, and by eighth grade he was hooked. In the mid-1990s the Narragansett cross country team was a regional power, and Jenkins was part of a squad that won Division II state titles in 1995 and 1996, his freshman and sophomore seasons. In the spring of his freshman year, he ran 10:18 for 2 miles during track, which made him one of the top underclassmen in the state. Over the next two years, however, he seemed to stagnate. Jenkins' coach followed an Emil Zatopek-type training plan filled with intense interval sessions and low mileage, a style of coaching that gets young athletes into shape quickly but also often fails to develop them in the long term. After Jenkins' junior year, his 2-mile best had improved only modestly to 10:04 and, by then accustomed to a certain level of success, he was disappointed."

                  gcklo, I read that article in Running Times too and found it very interesting.  They have it online here.  Nate Jenkins has a training blog on the Running times website as well.

                   

                  He runs very high mileage though, unusually so even for an elite runner. The article describes him as attempting "to run a world-class marathon essentially by force of will."

                     I think he might be forcing a little bit.  Besides running a very high volume training, he also runs a very high intensity plan with lots of speedwork and hillwork.  His mind may be ok with the high volume/high intensity training but his body may take a toll

                    gcklo, I read that article in Running Times too and found it very interesting.  They have it online here.  Nate Jenkins has a training blog on the Running times website as well.

                     

                    He runs very high mileage though, unusually so even for an elite runner. The article describes him as attempting "to run a world-class marathon essentially by force of will."


                    Why is it sideways?

                      Yeah, Nate Jenkins runs 130 miles per week (sometimes). Geb runs 120 (sometimes). Lagat runs 50 (sometimes). Bekele runs 90 (sometimes). I run 80 miles per week (sometimes). You run __ miles per week (sometimes). Trent runs 60 miles per week (sometimes).

                       

                      So? What conclusion should we draw from this? That Nate should run 150? That Geb should run 130? That Lagat should run 70? That Bekele should run 100? That I should run 120?

                       

                      Miles per week, miles per week. Everyone knows the secret, right? It must be miles per week!

                       

                      Miles per week is paint. Running fast is art.

                       

                      And Dakota, you have to understand what I am saying before you can disagree with me.


                      Right on Hereford...

                        Yeah, Nate Jenkins runs 130 miles per week (sometimes). Geb runs 120 (sometimes). Lagat runs 50 (sometimes). Bekele runs 90 (sometimes). I run 80 miles per week (sometimes). You run __ miles per week (sometimes). Trent runs 60 miles per week (sometimes).

                         

                        So? What conclusion should we draw from this? That Nate should run 150? That Geb should run 130? That Lagat should run 70? That Bekele should run 100? That I should run 120?

                         

                        Miles per week, miles per week. Everyone knows the secret, right? It must be miles per week!

                         

                        Miles per week is paint. Running fast is art.

                         

                        And Dakota, you have to understand what I am saying before you can disagree with me.

                         

                        Jeff, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. Then again, maybe you're right and I don't have a clue what you're saying.

                         

                        There is obviously much more to running fast than miles per week. However, I do think there is a basic correlation between weekly mileage and race performance for most runners. In other words, I think most runners would race better if they ran more.

                        kcam


                          Yeah, Nate Jenkins runs 130 miles per week (sometimes). Geb runs 120 (sometimes). Lagat runs 50 (sometimes). Bekele runs 90 (sometimes). I run 80 miles per week (sometimes). You run __ miles per week (sometimes). Trent runs 60 miles per week (sometimes).

                           

                          So? What conclusion should we draw from this? That Nate should run 150? That Geb should run 130? That Lagat should run 70? That Bekele should run 100? That I should run 120?

                           

                          Miles per week, miles per week. Everyone knows the secret, right? It must be miles per week!

                           

                          Miles per week is paint. Running fast is art.

                           

                          And Dakota, you have to understand what I am saying before you can disagree with me.

                           

                          No one has disagreed with you that running 70,80,90, 100 or whatever miles per week will get someone a given result in a 5K.  The point of the last two pages of this thread has been that we are all different and we respond differently to training.  Some of us require very little to no training to break 20 minutes in a 5K, some require a lot of training to break 20 minutes, some will never break 20minutes  For all three groups training more will usually result in a faster 5K.  Paint, art and Truth has little to do with it.

                          mikeymike


                            I'll tell you the secret right now: being the runner that you want to be takes uncovering the rarest of combinations: the patience to work through injuries and sickness, in cold rain, across silent mornings, and beneath winter moons relentlessly towards your goal,  and the almost reckless extravagance to reap what you have long sown in the right instant, at the Moment of Truth. It takes the confluence of chronos and kairos to ride the razor's edge, to run the perfect race, to be that guy--the runner. That's what it takes, no more and no less.

                             

                            Wait.  Does this mean you're back from PY or are you getting all Jeff-like on us from the southern hemisphere and via dialup?

                             

                            Either way, nice.

                            Runners run

                            Trent


                            Good Bad & The Monkey

                              Jeff has a strong training cycle culminating in a bad race, retreats to another hemisphere and then shows up with THE ANSWERS as if he has found Jesus.

                               

                              Alright Jeff.  Miles didn't help me either when I got to the starting line tired and on a hot day.  But here is the thing: I like running.  I want to run the miles.  I am NOT flogging my body.  I am running.  And I am trying to believe.


                              Prince of Fatness

                                Miles per week, miles per week. Everyone knows the secret, right? It must be miles per week!

                                 

                                I'm one of the guys that thinks that mileage is a big factor.  It's not everything, but it's a great starting point.  Everything else builds upon it.  I think that I alluded to that earlier in this thread ........

                                 

                                This was my third monthly race of the series.  I have one left August.  So far I have gone 21:04, 20:46, and 20:31.  I think part of the success is due to a bunch of 50 mile weeks.  But I also think that familiarity with the course has something to do with it.  Tonight I really couldn't push much at the end.  It was more like I was hanging on.  I'm very pleased with my progress so far.  Sub 20 is no longer a pipe dream.

                                For me 5K's are tough to learn how to run them right.  How can I hit that early pace that my training allows me to sustain?  How much discomfort can I deal with?  Etc.  Those times show that I am learning this stuff.  I believe that the base mileage is what got me into the classroom, though.

                                 

                                Is that what you are trying to say, Jeff?

                                Not at it at all.