Sub 20 minute 5K

tappae

There's some great info and advice on this thread! Sub-20 was my goal until I actually started running a lot. Now 23:15 is my goal. When I started back running in 2010 I could barely manage 30 minutes, but it came back fast. I beat my old PR and got down to 25. This year, I've broken 24.

creature275

yea that not too hard when your thinking about it from an athletes point of view, 5k is what 3.1 miles right so even at something as slow as a 6:30 pace gets the job done with that, I run one mile in 5:12 so im assuming I could crank that out in about 18 minutes or so but ive never timed 3.1 miles always either 1 - 3 - 5 - 10 - or 13.1 point is just train up and you should knock that out just fine

thanks Superman. now tell us again about the time you stopped the earth from rotating and saved us all.

all Im sayin is that if you train seriously for it then it shouldnt be an issue, obviously the guy has it in his sights so im assuming hes a decent runner, I dont even consider myself a great runner, good sure but great not by a long shot I wouldnt even be able to compete at a college level those guys are ****ing insane runners. but a sub 20 isnt an act of god it just takes a little work and thats all im saying. as for saving you...eh not necessarily save but I do work in special ops and I am in Afghanistan right now so while your there being a ****ing douche-bag im over here, so your ****ing welcome for your freedom and safety

GaryRussell123456

yea that not too hard when your thinking about it from an athletes point of view, 5k is what 3.1 miles right so even at something as slow as a 6:30 pace gets the job done with that, I run one mile in 5:12 so im assuming I could crank that out in about 18 minutes or so but ive never timed 3.1 miles always either 1 - 3 - 5 - 10 - or 13.1 point is just train up and you should knock that out just fine

thanks Superman. now tell us again about the time you stopped the earth from rotating and saved us all.

all Im sayin is that if you train seriously for it then it shouldnt be an issue, obviously the guy has it in his sights so im assuming hes a decent runner, I dont even consider myself a great runner, good sure but great not by a long shot I wouldnt even be able to compete at a college level those guys are ****ing insane runners. but a sub 20 isnt an act of god it just takes a little work and thats all im saying. as for saving you...eh not necessarily save but I do work in special ops and I am in Afghanistan right now so while your there being a ****ing douche-bag im over here, so your ****ing welcome for your freedom and safety

I'm 42 and only started running 9 months ago, previous to that it was PE in High School. I'm also not genetically gifted so for me it is a huge deal.

creature275

yea that not too hard when your thinking about it from an athletes point of view, 5k is what 3.1 miles right so even at something as slow as a 6:30 pace gets the job done with that, I run one mile in 5:12 so im assuming I could crank that out in about 18 minutes or so but ive never timed 3.1 miles always either 1 - 3 - 5 - 10 - or 13.1 point is just train up and you should knock that out just fine

thanks Superman. now tell us again about the time you stopped the earth from rotating and saved us all.

all Im sayin is that if you train seriously for it then it shouldnt be an issue, obviously the guy has it in his sights so im assuming hes a decent runner, I dont even consider myself a great runner, good sure but great not by a long shot I wouldnt even be able to compete at a college level those guys are ****ing insane runners. but a sub 20 isnt an act of god it just takes a little work and thats all im saying. as for saving you...eh not necessarily save but I do work in special ops and I am in Afghanistan right now so while your there being a ****ing douche-bag im over here, so your ****ing welcome for your freedom and safety

I'm 42 and only started running 9 months ago, previous to that it was PE in High School. I'm also not genetically gifted so for me it is a huge deal.

just train hard my friend all it takes is heart and dedication if you have those two things and push yourself every run you will get that sub 20 and have that under your belt forever

nwhitley

You are readying for a marathon, not a mere 5K.

Mere 5K????:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I know some insanely talented runners (a couple of whom qualified for Boston) that will tell you a fast 5K is a very hard race......

It takes guts to run a hard 5K! I know a lot of veteran runners who stay away from them because that all-out effort is so brutal.

Exactly!! A 5k is no joke! Whoever said it is wall to wall pain is right! That's why I prefer longer distances, they are much easier for me. My 12 year old son runs track and cross country on a high school team. His PR last year was 19:19 for a 5K. He wasn't even in the competitive range. As the top times were sub 16. Try running 3- 5 min miles. That is no joke and I definitely can't do it. My best 5K time is a 22:10 and that was a full out sprint and I almost passed out at the end. Never again. Give me a 15K or half any day!!

Di3012

You are readying for a marathon, not a mere 5K.

Have you ever actually ran a 5k by any chance?

Di3012

A well raced 5K is wall to wall pain. 95% of max heart rate = OUCH!

Thank God for that, I thought something was wrong with me.

Everytime I run a 5k race, my heartrate is right up there in the 170s - by the last 800m, I damn well feel as though I am about to burst LOL!

Ironman2be

Try Marine Corps Boot Camp....lol.. Jokes.. but yeah.. i ran it in 19 minutes in bootcamp.. well 3.0 miles....haven't been close since!

mikeyrp

Its one of my goal for this year as well.. And it is Dammed hard.

I don't agree about it being about the mileage though - try reading 'run less, run faster' which basically says you are better off doing fewer but more focused, high quality training session where you run (3 per week: Pace, interval and long) and do complimentary training such as cycling.

The best runners in my club all cycle and they all claim that cycling has improved their running speed: the important thing is to cycle at a high cadence rather than using power to get speed: the cadence carries over to your running.

This type of training puts your body under a lot less stress as you have greater recovery time between runs whilst still keeping your endurance training levels high.

FYI I am coming down from Marathon training and my long runs are 12-15 miles, Pace run is a hilly 10 K and intervals are on a track whenever possible.

Azdak

yea that not too hard when your thinking about it from an athletes point of view, 5k is what 3.1 miles right so even at something as slow as a 6:30 pace gets the job done with that, I run one mile in 5:12 so im assuming I could crank that out in about 18 minutes or so but ive never timed 3.1 miles always either 1 - 3 - 5 - 10 - or 13.1 point is just train up and you should knock that out just fine

thanks Superman. now tell us again about the time you stopped the earth from rotating and saved us all.

all Im sayin is that if you train seriously for it then it shouldnt be an issue, obviously the guy has it in his sights so im assuming hes a decent runner, I dont even consider myself a great runner, good sure but great not by a long shot I wouldnt even be able to compete at a college level those guys are ****ing insane runners. but a sub 20 isnt an act of god it just takes a little work and thats all im saying. as for saving you...eh not necessarily save but I do work in special ops and I am in Afghanistan right now so while your there being a ****ing douche-bag im over here, so your ****ing welcome for your freedom and safety

I'm 42 and only started running 9 months ago, previous to that it was PE in High School. I'm also not genetically gifted so for me it is a huge deal.

just train hard my friend all it takes is heart and dedication if you have those two things and push yourself every run you will get that sub 20 and have that under your belt forever

Unfortunately, genetics have a way of making a mockery of your last statement.

IIRC, even Florence Griffith-Joyner could not run a sub-20:00 5K.

I think the general discussion assumes that someone has the inherent ability to run a sub-20 min 5K, and is looking for some specfic training methods to help achieve that goal.

CarsonRuns

I don't agree about it being about the mileage though - try reading 'run less, run faster' which basically says you are better off doing fewer but more focused, high quality training session where you run (3 per week: Pace, interval and long) and do complimentary training such as cycling.

This is a minority opinion. I think that you would find that if that time put into cross training was used running, the times would be even better. For someone who can't stay healthy running 6 to 7 days a week (and I question why...to much too fast, bad mechanics, etc.), this may be a way to see some good improvements. The general consensus in the running community, from recreational levels to world class is that in order to run your best times, you have to run a lot.

Until I see a world class runner start using FIRST, or running in VFF, and start making podiums, I'm going to stick with what is known to work. Thank you Arthur Lydiard.

DrBorkBork

I haven't achieved it, but the fastest time I've ever seen for a 5k is 14 mins. It was a downhill course. Still, 14 mins is INSANE!

CarsonRuns

just train hard my friend all it takes is heart and dedication if you have those two things and push yourself every run you will get that sub 20 and have that under your belt forever

This is not how you train smart. There are many miles that should be run in a "don't push it" pace. Pushing it every run will get you to the physical therapist faster than it will get you to sub 20.

AZKristi

What is your 5K time now?

My first 5K was in 2005. I ran 29:xx. That was on 12 to 15 miles per week. I made rapid improvements when I upped my mileage. 40 miles per week got me into the 23s. There is a HUGE difference between 23s and sub 20. It requires a lot more mileage and you have to have a balanced training program that includes tempo runs, interval/fartlek sessions and an LSD. My last 5K I ran in 19:36 on a very hilly course (probably 19:20s shape on a flat course right now). My training consists of 55 to low 70 miles per week with all of the above elements incorporated. If you are interested in details, there is a link to my training log on my profile.

With all that being said, setting a goal of a specific time is all well and good, but you can't just pick an arbitrary time and run your workouts to that pace in hopes that you'll get there. You should run your workouts at the paces prescribed based on your current level of fitness. This is how you improve. Plug your latest race time into the McMillian running calculator. That will tell you what pace your workouts should be.

http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/index.php/calcUsage/calculate

Thanks for posting this link to the running calculator! I am a running newbie and this looks like it could be very helpful!

j_courter

wow, so the general consensus seems to be run longer, slower miles to run a great 5k? this goes against everything i would have thought... i figured to run a fast 5k you'd need to do more intense intervals and sprints. interesting.....

scottb81

wow, so the general consensus seems to be run longer, slower miles to run a great 5k? this goes against everything i would have thought... i figured to run a fast 5k you'd need to do more intense intervals and sprints. interesting.....

Before my last 5k I averaged around 8:00 to 8:15 on easy run miles, around 8:30 to 8:45 on long run miles, and 9:00 to 9:15 for recovery miles and was running an average of 70 miles per week for 3 months. My only speedwork was a fast mile about once a month. I ran the 5k at a 6:30 pace. You can run a lot faster in a race than you do in training if you build a big aerobic base. Once that base is in place you can get somewhat faster with speed training. Most of your racing ability though comes from the aerobic capacity built through lots of easy miles.

Trail_Addict

yea that not too hard when your thinking about it from an athletes point of view, 5k is what 3.1 miles right so even at something as slow as a 6:30 pace gets the job done with that, I run one mile in 5:12 so im assuming I could crank that out in about 18 minutes or so but ive never timed 3.1 miles always either 1 - 3 - 5 - 10 - or 13.1 point is just train up and you should knock that out just fine

thanks Superman. now tell us again about the time you stopped the earth from rotating and saved us all.

all Im sayin is that if you train seriously for it then it shouldnt be an issue, obviously the guy has it in his sights so im assuming hes a decent runner, I dont even consider myself a great runner, good sure but great not by a long shot I wouldnt even be able to compete at a college level those guys are ****ing insane runners. but a sub 20 isnt an act of god it just takes a little work and thats all im saying. as for saving you...eh not necessarily save but I do work in special ops and I am in Afghanistan right now so while your there being a ****ing douche-bag im over here, so your ****ing welcome for your freedom and safety

I'm 42 and only started running 9 months ago, previous to that it was PE in High School. I'm also not genetically gifted so for me it is a huge deal.

just train hard my friend all it takes is heart and dedication if you have those two things and push yourself every run you will get that sub 20 and have that under your belt forever

Unfortunately, genetics have a way of making a mockery of your last statement.

IIRC, even Florence Griffith-Joyner could not run a sub-20:00 5K.

I think the general discussion assumes that someone has the inherent ability to run a sub-20 min 5K, and is looking for some specfic training methods to help achieve that goal.

I was hoping someone would say this.

Genetics and background play a significant role in whether the average 35 year old man/ women can train hard enough for a sub 20. I seriously question the "just work hard, and you'll get there" concept. If it were only that simple.

CarsonRuns

wow, so the general consensus seems to be run longer, slower miles to run a great 5k? this goes against everything i would have thought... i figured to run a fast 5k you'd need to do more intense intervals and sprints. interesting.....

Before my last 5k I averaged around 8:00 to 8:15 on easy run miles, around 8:30 to 8:45 on long run miles, and 9:00 to 9:15 for recovery miles and was running an average of 70 miles per week for 3 months. My only speedwork was a fast mile about once a month. I ran the 5k at a 6:30 pace. You can run a lot faster in a race than you do in training if you build a big aerobic base. Once that base is in place you can get somewhat faster with speed training. Most of your racing ability though comes from the aerobic capacity built through lots of easy miles.

My training paces are even slower than yours. Easy runs are between 9:00 and 9:45, recovery between 9:45 and 10:15. I do more up tempo stuff than you do. Probably why my easy is slower because I'm doing more quality workouts. I run easy days at whatever the pace my legs feel like running that day. I notice that when I take some time off from quality (like this week), my easy run pace creeps into the 8:30 range, which sort of validates my previous statement, for me anyway.

Azdak

I don't agree about it being about the mileage though - try reading 'run less, run faster' which basically says you are better off doing fewer but more focused, high quality training session where you run (3 per week: Pace, interval and long) and do complimentary training such as cycling.

This is a minority opinion. I think that you would find that if that time put into cross training was used running, the times would be even better. For someone who can't stay healthy running 6 to 7 days a week (and I question why...to much too fast, bad mechanics, etc.), this may be a way to see some good improvements. The general consensus in the running community, from recreational levels to world class is that in order to run your best times, you have to run a lot.

Until I see a world class runner start using FIRST, or running in VFF, and start making podiums, I'm going to stick with what is known to work. Thank you Arthur Lydiard.

World class runners have different bodies than 99% of the population. That's the first necessary ingredient to becoming world class. Another characteristic is the ability to tolerate high volume training loads. People often talk about running 60-100 miles a week as though that is something that anyone can do. History is full of runners who had world class talent, but could never fully realize it because, for whatever physical reason, they were always injured. (It's not always training mistakes).

Perhaps a world-class competitor who is trying to squeeze out the last 0.05% of his genetic talent might need to do high levels of mileage to fully realize his potential. Just my opinion, but I think that, for the average runner, trying to push above the 40-50 miles/wk level, or trying to run 6-7 days/wk, tends to result in a substantial increase in injury risk without the same increase in performance. For anything above 5K, I would tend to agree with you.

Again, I think part of the discussion has to look at the "ideal vs real" comparison.

j_courter

wow, so the general consensus seems to be run longer, slower miles to run a great 5k? this goes against everything i would have thought... i figured to run a fast 5k you'd need to do more intense intervals and sprints. interesting.....

Before my last 5k I averaged around 8:00 to 8:15 on easy run miles, around 8:30 to 8:45 on long run miles, and 9:00 to 9:15 for recovery miles and was running an average of 70 miles per week for 3 months. My only speedwork was a fast mile about once a month. I ran the 5k at a 6:30 pace. You can run a lot faster in a race than you do in training if you build a big aerobic base. Once that base is in place you can get somewhat faster with speed training. Most of your racing ability though comes from the aerobic capacity built through lots of easy miles.

wow. amazing difference! congratulations! thanks for sharing. :-)

j_courter

wow, so the general consensus seems to be run longer, slower miles to run a great 5k? this goes against everything i would have thought... i figured to run a fast 5k you'd need to do more intense intervals and sprints. interesting.....

Before my last 5k I averaged around 8:00 to 8:15 on easy run miles, around 8:30 to 8:45 on long run miles, and 9:00 to 9:15 for recovery miles and was running an average of 70 miles per week for 3 months. My only speedwork was a fast mile about once a month. I ran the 5k at a 6:30 pace. You can run a lot faster in a race than you do in training if you build a big aerobic base. Once that base is in place you can get somewhat faster with speed training. Most of your racing ability though comes from the aerobic capacity built through lots of easy miles.

My training paces are even slower than yours. Easy runs are between 9:00 and 9:45, recovery between 9:45 and 10:15. I do more up tempo stuff than you do. Probably why my easy is slower because I'm doing more quality workouts. I run easy days at whatever the pace my legs feel like running that day. I notice that when I take some time off from quality (like this week), my easy run pace creeps into the 8:30 range, which sort of validates my previous statement, for me anyway.

thanks for sharing this too.

grex1949

My wife ran a 17:45 when she was 40 years old. She's slowed down a step since then, however. I still can't keep up with her, of course.

Guardien

At 36 years old and about 200 pounds, I ran a 5k in under 24 minutes. I'll shoot higher next year. I am also training for my 1st triathlon which happens this coming Sunday 3 June. My only goal for that is to survive it.

Trail_Addict

I'll state up front, I am not a runner right now, but I do know about how the body adapts and energy systems.

What I would do if i was in your shoes (i don't even know how much time you have to prepare). First I'd measure my RHR when I woke up for a few days and get the average. I would do something similar to this. Find out the pace. Which is 6.45mins per mile. If you maintain that pace it will be 20mins for 3.1miles. You want slightly under that. So I'd shoot for 6.35min per mile, this is 1.5mins per 1/4 mile.

What I would do now is... Run at that pace, until the my performance drops. Lets say I can run 3 laps on a track at 1.5min per lap. Then on lap 4 for it takes me 1.7mins. Shoot for total on time of 20mins. So i'd rest, recover and repeat untill total on time is 20mins. That would conclude my workout. This is where the RHR comes in to play. Every morning I'd check my RHR, if it's higher then normal, I wouldn't run that day untill my RHR is the same.

20:00 5k = 6:26 mpm.... not 6:45.

It takes quite a bit more than this to get to that goal. But intervals on the track is part of the formula.

Trail_Addict

I'll state up front, I am not a runner right now, but I do know about how the body adapts and energy systems.

What I would do if i was in your shoes (i don't even know how much time you have to prepare). First I'd measure my RHR when I woke up for a few days and get the average. I would do something similar to this. Find out the pace. Which is 6.45mins per mile. If you maintain that pace it will be 20mins for 3.1miles. You want slightly under that. So I'd shoot for 6.35min per mile, this is 1.5mins per 1/4 mile.

What I would do now is... Run at that pace, until the my performance drops. Lets say I can run 3 laps on a track at 1.5min per lap. Then on lap 4 for it takes me 1.7mins. Shoot for total on time of 20mins. So i'd rest, recover and repeat untill total on time is 20mins. That would conclude my workout. This is where the RHR comes in to play. Every morning I'd check my RHR, if it's higher then normal, I wouldn't run that day untill my RHR is the same.

20:00 5k = 6:26 mpm.... not 6:45.

It takes quite a bit more than this to get to that goal. But intervals on the track is part of the formula.

ha, i almost made that same mistake. I didn't say it's "6:45 mph" i said "6.45mins per mile" It's 45% of 1 minute. 45% of 1 minute is 27 seconds. So in time it would be "6:27mpm"

I see now. Most runners speak in min:sec per mile, not percentages of a minute. Carry on.

scottb81

I'll state up front, I am not a runner right now, but I do know about how the body adapts and energy systems.

What I would do if i was in your shoes (i don't even know how much time you have to prepare). First I'd measure my RHR when I woke up for a few days and get the average. I would do something similar to this. Find out the pace. Which is 6.45mins per mile. If you maintain that pace it will be 20mins for 3.1miles. You want slightly under that. So I'd shoot for 6.35min per mile, this is 1.5mins per 1/4 mile.

What I would do now is... Run at that pace, until the my performance drops. Lets say I can run 3 laps on a track at 1.5min per lap. Then on lap 4 for it takes me 1.7mins. Shoot for total on time of 20mins. So i'd rest, recover and repeat untill total on time is 20mins. That would conclude my workout. This is where the RHR comes in to play. Every morning I'd check my RHR, if it's higher then normal, I wouldn't run that day untill my RHR is the same.

The primary energy system used for a 5k is aerobic. You can build the aerobic system much quicker and higher through volume with some speedwork such as you described topping it off.

When I say volume that doesn't mean just a whole bunch of slow running. Some is slow, some is medium, and some is at the best aerobic pace. It all contributes to building aerobic capacity which has to be in place before the speedwork will make any significant difference in race times.

The more volume one can run, without injury or overtraining, the faster and higher the aerobic capacity can be built as per Arthur Lydiard.

Just as in weightlifting, the principal of progressive overload applies. A volume that would kill someone today will be easy next year if that person keeps at it and consistently builds.

lesle1

There's a 71 year old lady in our running club that runs a 27:11 5K. There's also a 52 year old lady out here that runs a 21:23 5K.

CarsonRuns

I'll state up front, I am not a runner right now, but I do know about how the body adapts and energy systems.

What I would do if i was in your shoes (i don't even know how much time you have to prepare). First I'd measure my RHR when I woke up for a few days and get the average. I would do something similar to this. Find out the pace. Which is 6.45mins per mile. If you maintain that pace it will be 20mins for 3.1miles. You want slightly under that. So I'd shoot for 6.35min per mile, this is 1.5mins per 1/4 mile.

What I would do now is... Run at that pace, until the my performance drops. Lets say I can run 3 laps on a track at 1.5min per lap. Then on lap 4 for it takes me 1.7mins. Shoot for total on time of 20mins. So i'd rest, recover and repeat untill total on time is 20mins. That would conclude my workout. This is where the RHR comes in to play. Every morning I'd check my RHR, if it's higher then normal, I wouldn't run that day untill my RHR is the same.

The primary energy system used for a 5k is aerobic. You can build the aerobic system much quicker and higher through volume with some speedwork such as you described topping it off.

When I say volume that doesn't mean just a whole bunch of slow running. Some is slow, some is medium, and some is at the best aerobic pace. It all contributes to building aerobic capacity which has to be in place before the speedwork will make any significant difference in race times.

The more volume one can run, without injury or overtraining, the faster and higher the aerobic capacity can be built as per Arthur Lydiard.

Just as in weightlifting, the principal of progressive overload applies. A volume that would kill someone today will be easy next year if that person keeps at it and consistently builds.

Bingo.

Pu's suggestion is a one way ticket to disappointment and disaster.

There have already been many scientific studies on this subject by people with a lot of letters after their name and the formula is volume first, adding quality later. And it takes time. Not weeks, or months. Years of cumulative mileage produce results.

scottb81

I'll state up front, I am not a runner right now, but I do know about how the body adapts and energy systems.

What I would do if i was in your shoes (i don't even know how much time you have to prepare). First I'd measure my RHR when I woke up for a few days and get the average. I would do something similar to this. Find out the pace. Which is 6.45mins per mile. If you maintain that pace it will be 20mins for 3.1miles. You want slightly under that. So I'd shoot for 6.35min per mile, this is 1.5mins per 1/4 mile.

What I would do now is... Run at that pace, until the my performance drops. Lets say I can run 3 laps on a track at 1.5min per lap. Then on lap 4 for it takes me 1.7mins. Shoot for total on time of 20mins. So i'd rest, recover and repeat untill total on time is 20mins. That would conclude my workout. This is where the RHR comes in to play. Every morning I'd check my RHR, if it's higher then normal, I wouldn't run that day untill my RHR is the same.

The primary energy system used for a 5k is aerobic. You can build the aerobic system much quicker and higher through volume with some speedwork such as you described topping it off.

When I say volume that doesn't mean just a whole bunch of slow running. Some is slow, some is medium, and some is at the best aerobic pace. It all contributes to building aerobic capacity which has to be in place before the speedwork will make any significant difference in race times.

The more volume one can run, without injury or overtraining, the faster and higher the aerobic capacity can be built as per Arthur Lydiard.

Just as in weightlifting, the principal of progressive overload applies. A volume that would kill someone today will be easy next year if that person keeps at it and consistently builds.

That's my view, it's about progressive overload regardless. What i am confused about is you saying that 5k is aerobic. In my mind, it would be on the verge of breaking your LT. I know sometimes terminology gets mixed up. So I will use energy systems for example, so there is no confusion.

Fat oxidation
lactic buffering
creatine phosphate.

I would assume 5k pace is between the LT zone and the creatine phosphate system.

It should be run somewhat above LT. The only way someone can run for 3 miles at that level is with a strong aerobic capacity since there is not a single intensity where aerobic stops and anaerobic starts. Both contribute. The creatine phosphate system is exhausted in less than 30 sec ( I think) and only is relevant for sprints.

The aerobic system has to be built so that lactate can be buffered allowing the body to continue to run at that intensity. When the aerobic capacity is low lactate will continue to build to the point that energy conversion is shut down and the intensity has to be lowered. Another way of looking at it is that a person can only incur so much oxygen debt when running above LT before they have to slow down.. A strong aerobic system allows them to run at a faster pace before they reach LT and begin to incur oxygen debt.

froeschli

Are you guys quoting time per mile or kilometre? I mean, I feel seriously slow, having achieved my first 8k training run in 60 minutes. my 5k's run anywhere between 40-45 minutes.. .guess i still have a ways to go. I only started end of February this year, and I run on trails, which can seriously slow me down too...

I'll be happy to get into the 25-30 minute range for a 5k... but i haven't actually started speed training yet. First I want to get more reliable on my distances and actually making it through...