Goal 6 minute mile (Read 6285 times)

RunAsics


Person of Interest

     

    I have dabbled on the track a little bit and I am pretty slow...for me its difficult to break 77 in the 400.  I dont think I could go sub 6 on the track at this point...to me the treadmill, even at 1% grade, is easier.

     

    I'd disagree that it's harder on the track.  Also, I run a mid 18s 5k and would struggle to get to much below 77 secs for 400m on the track.  So, you are not slow, rather lack endurance. 

     

    TM running is simply different where the whole "wind resistance" thing is a double edged sword.  My personal experimentation showed that it starts easier but gets harder as you have a lack of cooling from no air movement. I repeated a test of running 8mpm outside and on the TM while recording my HR.  The faster the pace the sooner my HR went higher than for an equivalent pace outside.  As such, I always run with 0% or at most 0.5% (aside from hill work).  Anything more just doesn't feel normal.

    "Only a few more laps to go and then the action will begin, unless this is the action, which it is."

      MF, this is an interesting thread that you started.  My guess is you and I are close as far as current 5k times although your PR (mid 19s?) is much better than mine (21:17).  I am 44, been running about two years and never ran track in my younger days.  Thus, I have probably never run a 6 minute mile. 

       

      I would guess that my 5k is around 21 or high 20s right now based on a trail 5k race from last week in which I ran a 22:22...a couple of the guys that placed ahead of me said that they were about 1:30 or so slower on this course compared to a road 5k they ran a week earlier.

       

      So anyway, this morning I tried to go sub-6 on the treadmill at the gym.  I set the speed at 10.0 and just tried to hold the pace.  Finished in 5:59 (bumped the speed to 10.2 for the last 1/10th of a mile to ensure I was under 6).  Also, I had the elevation at 1% to make up for wind resistance.

       

      I have dabbled on the track a little bit and I am pretty slow...for me its difficult to break 77 in the 400.  I dont think I could go sub 6 on the track at this point...to me the treadmill, even at 1% grade, is easier.

       

      Regarding your treadmill challenge, I think you should just lock the pace on the treadmill at 10.0 and hang on rather than bumping faster as you go along.  Otherwise, as h2 stated, you will end up having to hit 10.5 or 10.7 in the last quarter to accomplish your goal which to me sounds a little dangerous for someone trying to break 6..

       

      Also, you are adjusting the elevation up on the treadmill to help simulate outdoor conditions?  

       

       

      I could probably run a 5k in just under 22 minutes if I tried one today.

      To run a 6 minute mile the McMillans calculator estimates you should be able to run a 5k in 20:47.

      So you appear to be right at the 6 minute level now.

       

      I ran a 5k in under 20 minutes on the treadmill years before I did so outdoors. The reason is my treadmill was set at 0 grade then. Also outdoors 5k races usually have hills and wind that slow you down.

      A track is flat but still has wind resistance and you have to learn how to run the curves as that is not normal for someone who

      hasn't done it often. Also the treadmill keeps my effort the same since I can lock the speed. Outdoors I must guess what 10 mph is and then try to keep the speed the same throughout.

       

      It is hard to run on the track for me since I run alone and am hung out to dry for the whole world to see.

      I believe a few reps though will get me used to it. It is a mental thing.

       

      The past few days I have kept the mileage down as flatfoot knocked some sense into my head.

      I am close to sub 6 now but that is no reason to prove I am tough and keep running hard to beat it.

      I can let my injury heal (and I am trying to use exercises to help the injury as well) and still try to beat 6 by Oct. 31

      If I don't beat 6 it is not the end of the world.

       

      Oh yeah my treadmill today is automatically set at 1.5 percent grade to mimic outdoors times.

        Many/most treadmills aren't accurate. Hate to break it to you guys.

          Yes.  I am aware of that.  I figure it was close to a sub 6...maybe a little over maybe a little under.  I am captive to a treadmill on Saturday mornings (my kids have classes at the gym) so I like to do something on the treadmill rather than slog out 7 boring miles indoors.

            Here's one for the treadmill comparison...

             

            I did a 4 mile tempo in 29:35 yesterday - 7:24 per mile - outside on a course that has several decent hills especially between 0.5-1.5 miles to take all the spring out of your legs.  The temperature was nice at 55 but it was a steady drizzle and a decent 10-15mph breeze.  On the treadmill at 0% grade (my incline is broken) I would have a lot of trouble getting that much under 31 with the same effort.  I know I pushed the run just a little yesterday but that's still a significant difference.  I honestly think my treadmill speed runs 5-10 seconds faster than actual running pace and what it says on the output...unless its really hot or I'm running through snow I will be faster outside. I get a similar sensation on other treadmills I've used (2 of my friends have them and I used to belong at a gym).   I've used GPS and measured several courses, all are accurate, I end up running faster on all of them than I do on the treadmill.

             

            Sometimes your body may just react better to being outside.  I am trying to do more of my runs outside especially now that it isn't summer anymore.


            HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

              I've run different times on different tracks. I'm not sure the differences were a result of my being at a different track, however.

               

              (Not that this is necessarily relevant.)

              It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                I've used GPS and measured several courses, all are accurate, I end up running faster on all of them than I do on the treadmill.

                 

                Not to stray too far off topic but keep in mind that a GPS will always over-estimate your distance.  It does this because of the error in measuring your position.  The Garmin watches are pretty good on accuracy but that only pin-points you to about a 15 meter radius.  Over the length of your run the error in the direction of travel will approximately average out to zero (about as many points measured behind you as in front of you) but the side to side error will make the GPS think that you are running with a slight zig-zag motion and thus report a distance longer than you actually ran.  This is why so many runners think they are running faster than they actually are and then complain when they get to the end of a USATF certified course and think that the 3.2 or 3.3 miles they read on their watches is accurate.

                 

                The GPS is good for giving you an approximate distance but don’t take the number it gives you too seriously.  A calibrated wheel measurement is the best way to determine the actual length of your course.

                  I've run different times on different tracks. I'm not sure the differences were a result of my being at a different track, however.

                   

                   Maybe you had the world watching at one of the tracks and you just can't handle that kind of pressure (sorry couldn't resist).  

                   

                  Me however have run vastly different times at the same track.  Not that that is relevant either.


                  HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                    Not to stray too far off topic but keep in mind that a GPS will always over-estimate your distance.  ..

                     

                    Usually.

                    It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                      Usually.

                       

                      I just bought a GPS (I know, horrors), and I am kinda shocked by how inaccurate it is. I run the same course almost every morning, and it has measured it from 4.8 mi to 5.3 mi. It's pretty awesome for going out and soloing runs without having to map them or whatever, but really it feels more like a toy than a training tool.

                        I just bought a GPS (I know, horrors), and I am kinda shocked by how inaccurate it is. I run the same course almost every morning, and it has measured it from 4.8 mi to 5.3 mi. It's pretty awesome for going out and soloing runs without having to map them or whatever, but really it feels more like a toy than a training tool.

                         This doesn't seem right.  I never have anywhere near that % variation with my 305.  If you have a Garmin, (at least with mine) there is a data recording setting called "smart recording" which ups  the polling interval from 1 second to 5 seconds, greatly improving the overall distance accuracy.  The only time I set it to poll every second is when running a winding trail.

                           This doesn't seem right.  I never have anywhere near that % variation with my 305.  If you have a Garmin, (at least with mine) there is a data recording setting called "smart recording" which ups  the polling interval from 1 second to 5 seconds, greatly improving the overall distance accuracy.  The only time I set it to poll every second is when running a winding trail.

                           

                          I do not have a Garmin--it's a Nike Tom Tom. I don't think I can adjust the frequency of sampling. This is a normal road loop (some bike path), not very winding. I think I am supposed to wear some sort of foot pod with it, but I haven't been doing that.


                          Spring- wishful thinking

                            Not to stray too far off topic but keep in mind that a GPS will always over-estimate your distance. 

                             

                            Uh no.  Try running in dense woods, under bridges, etc.  GPS will have a weak signal and under-estimate distance.

                              Just looked up a run I've done 3 times in the last month.

                              305 measured 10.66, 10.57 and 10.59.

                              Due to the lack of accuracy at each poll, it is just about useless for "real-time" pace (though I doubt you would need that with your level of experience). It is great to be able to just go out and run and not be tied to a set course, or have to spend 20 minutes plotting it out and hoping you remember where you ran. 

                               

                              MF...sorry for the hijack.

                              xor


                                Yes, having GPS being short on trails has been my general experience as well.  It isn't just the dense woods.  Tight switchbacks and steep elevation changes get fouled up too.