Questions for all you runners out there..

I’m 35, 5’11”, 200lb, on a muscular side. Regular cyclist doing usual multi hour 50-70mile rides with no problem. Recently completed 130mile, 16k feet of climbing, 10hr bike ride (deathride) at elevation with no issues.

I never ran in my life formally, but played basketball in high school and pickup ball throughout my life and was decent sprinter in high school (12sec 100m). I can still do strides at 3min per mile pace without much trouble even at 200lb.

Just recently completed my first 5k at 24m. 7:50min/mile pace, which left me disappointed…
I trained for 6 weeks, doing about 8miles per week. I didn’t want to increase weekly mileage too much as my IT band started hurting and perhaps because I never developed running muscles.

Question is would it be possible with structured training for somebody my age and body type to ever break 18min 5k within 1 year of training, or is time like this off limits unless you also have decent amount of talent in addition to hard training?

9/19/2014 5:09:08 PM

You're probably going to need to loose at least 20 pounds to have a chance

9/19/2014 8:29:40 PM

I'm also 34 and 200 lbs. Just run and train and see where it takes you. I just ran a 5k at a 8/min after 2 months of training, and still improving consistently.

9/19/2014 8:41:24 PM

You should be able to break 19 or 20 minutes, but not 18. Once you break 18 yes, there is natural talent involved.

The kind of training it will require will take care of the necessary pounds. You'll probably be running 50 miles a week.

9/19/2014 8:55:40 PM

when i was in college i got my 5k time to around 17 minutes... on the indoor track. still pretty good for a fat kid.

9/19/2014 11:40:32 PM

Were you fat at the time?

9/19/2014 11:42:06 PM

Quote :

"You should be able to break 19 or 20 minutes, but not 18"

Yes, I heard that before from runners as well. Realistically, I would be very happy even with 20 at this point.

I'd like to lose weight, but also don't want to sacrifice upper body muscles just to gain time on 5k. I take it fast 5k runners at 200lb are not a common sight.

9/20/2014 5:01:44 AM

From my experience with running, which was pretty extensive throughout my late teens to late twenties, cracking eighteen is doable with a dedicated and disciplined 55 mile/week routine. However, once you start talking about the sub 17 and a half crowd, the majority of those guys were a bit obsessive, overly dedicated, and athletically gifted as well.

Just my two cents. Be happy with anything sub 20.

9/20/2014 4:02:17 PM

I think it is certainly realistic, especially if you shift your focus from cycling to running. A 24min first time 5k is fantastic imo.

I’m in a similar position (size/athletic ability) and have seen significant reductions in my 5k times over 4-5 months with training.

Good luck!!

9/20/2014 9:42:45 PM

Some people say 'placebo' but ive seen noticeable (positive) differences drinking Joint Juice.

9/20/2014 10:17:45 PM

Took me 3+ years in High School to break the 18minute mark, and that's when I was 140lbs and ran cross country/indoor track/outdoor track for 4 years. I lived to run. Was the team captain and fucking trained my ass off. Ran on the weekends, holidays, in the snow, etc.

I started as a freshman, being in great shape and a "naturally talented" runner, and was around 21 minutes.

Took me 3 years to break 18 minutes, but once I did, I was also able to break 17 minutes that year and advanced to 16:20 by my senior year.

With that said, you should be able to break 20 minutes with a year's worth of running maybe. But I would be surprised if you got in the 18's being at 200lbs. Obviously not trying to hate...I honestly hope you do. But I can't see it happening easily at all.

[Edited on September 20, 2014 at 11:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2014 10:59:01 PM

basically yeah.

And, you are going to need to loose about 25 to 30 pounds, and it's gotta come from somewhere... So, worrying about beach muscles is very counter productive to trying to lower your 5k time. Most guys that I knew did no upper body work, but they would do full body, self-weight exercises mixed in with stretching twice a week.

[Edited on September 21, 2014 at 7:56 AM. Reason : a]

9/21/2014 7:54:37 AM

LOL, I did 30:15 and thought I was awesome.

Granted, I was keeping 3 juggling balls in the air the whole time.

9/21/2014 10:55:47 PM

18min is definitely bordering on difficult, but @ 210-215 I was running a 21min 5k without any issues. I was definitely putting in 40-50 miles a week though running. I hit the wall at about 6:45 miles though, but I'm also a few inches taller and was 25 at the time.

9/22/2014 4:38:59 AM

Make no mistake, there are exceptions of course for the 5k when people say that you need to be at a certain weight. Once, I was going along at a great pace on a 5k that I eventually clocked in at 19:10, when at about 700 meters before the end I was totally blitz by this "heavier than usual" guy going along at a sub 19 pace. And when I say "heavier than usual", I am talking about tits a flappin' and spare tire a spinin' as he flew right by me. I wanted to find him at the end to talk to him, but he had already finished and left by the time that I was recovered.

So, there is hope for sure if you are struggling with weight, but I would say that the majority of sub 18 guys that are at your height are going to be less than 175, if not 170 pounds.

9/22/2014 5:43:36 AM

I don't want to be a dickhead here; I know everyone ITT means well, but there is some not-good advice.

First and foremost, this guy can do it. He's capable of running a 5k at a better-than-average speed. Great.

He needs to lose 20 pounds? Maybe. Guess what? Running 50 miles a week to get the time he wants is going to make him lose... 20 pounds. Beach muscles? They should become more defined wouldn't you think? If he doesn't change his diet it's not like his body is going to cannibalize them.

Weightlifting is an important part of running. I don't know why most guys you knew Banjoman did none, but what they did do (and only twice a week) sounds ridiculous. Abs are damn near as important as legs.

I'm not any worse at running over 170 pounds than I was at 130-140. I can't imagine a similar leap for a muscular/athletic guy being such a hindrance. I don't think it would take an entire year to get to the time you want either. If you start now and train hard all Fall I bet you could run in the 18s this Winter on an indoor track.

9/22/2014 12:13:44 PM

keep the trollin for chit chat.

9/22/2014 12:20:55 PM

Keep your advice confined to marriage.

9/22/2014 12:30:21 PM

dude, I did nothing but confirm what bobby said and added a story. Improving your 5k time (or marathon time for that matter) is the same as lifting, when you start out training everything goes fine until you hit a plateau, and then crossing that plateau becomes a nightmare.

9/22/2014 12:58:07 PM

Quote :

"Weightlifting is an important part of running. I don't know why most guys you knew Banjoman did none, but what they did do (and only twice a week) sounds ridiculous. Abs are damn near as important as legs."

definitely not for distance running. That is completely incorrect. Serious distance runners put in between 70 to 100 miles a week and they don't have a heavy weightlifting routine. Sprinting is something entirely different, but a 5k is not sprinting.



[Edited on September 22, 2014 at 1:25 PM. Reason : and when tha fuk did I discourage anybody?]

9/22/2014 1:25:05 PM

When 1in10^9 marries a nutbag he'll call you.

9/22/2014 1:31:45 PM

If you are primarily interested in the 5K distance, what people are suggesting here is overkill. You don't need 50+ miles a week. I would suggest 25-30 max, with your training split between longer runs and interval training for speed. You can almost certainly get by with less than that once you've become accustomed to running, because your cardio endurance is not an issue if you're doing century rides on the bike. Start out with no more than 3 runs a week, and then eventually add a 4th. You can very easily train for a marathon on 4 runs a week, so going out 5-6 days a week for 50+ miles is ridiculous; as you get older, you'll need more recovery time to avoid injury.

That said, a sub-18 5K is fast, and there's no getting around that. Don't push the mileage too hard; stick with the bike for cardio since you're comfortable with it. It's so much easier to hurt your IT band or to get shin splints or plantar fascitis when running, and any of those will put you on the sidelines for quite a while in your mid-30s. Start out by getting your single-mile time under 6 minutes, and trust that your endurance will be there as you slowly increase the miles on your feet.

9/22/2014 1:40:09 PM

Agree with everything, especially the part about not having to run 5+ days a week. However, I would like to add that realistically the best thing would be to use that plan to aim for a sub 20 first and then work on adjusting your routine to a sub 18. As you correctly said, sub 18 is very very fast.

The problem with running is that runners tend to get too obsessed with their splits and routines that it can become counter productive. For example, lots of times runners don't get the results that they want immediately and then drastically change their routines, which can lead some to lose sight of what they initially wanted to achieve. Therefore, a good thing to do (at least what worked out well for me in the end) is to just focus on hours spent running per week with at least one day in the week where you are really pushing yourself hard in terms speed. Otherwise, really just enjoy being out in the nature and using your body to beat out all of the stress within your daily life.


[Edited on September 22, 2014 at 3:01 PM. Reason : a]

9/22/2014 2:56:53 PM

Quote :

"I would suggest 25-30 max, with your training split between longer runs and interval training for speed."

Agreed. In my high school days I ran mid-18's and 19's (never quite broke 18, though). I never exceeded 40 miles a week. My long runs were 6-7 miles and only 1-2 days a week. Usually two days of interval or sprint work and a 5th lighter day to help recover.

Properly-focused weightlifting can certainly help with distance running just as it can for any other sport. If you're increasing strength and flexibility without bulking up too much you'll see benefit.

The additional miles will help more for 10K's, half marathons, etc. but aren't as necessary for 5K training.

9/22/2014 3:22:05 PM

Strength training should be a portion of any athletic regimen regardless of what "Dr." Banjomen says

[Edited on September 22, 2014 at 7:12 PM. Reason : .]

9/22/2014 7:12:07 PM

Dr. Sit-on-my-nuts-in-the-forest

9/22/2014 8:15:23 PM

Quote :

"definitely not for distance running. That is completely incorrect. Serious distance runners put in between 70 to 100 miles a week and they don't have a heavy weightlifting routine. Sprinting is something entirely different, but a 5k is not sprinting."

Actually there is a guy in Durham (a masters student at NCSU as well) who is an ultra marathon runner, iron man triathlete, and deadlifts and squats around 700 lbs. You don't have to sacrifice strength and muscle to be good at distance running, it just takes smart training.

Guy mentioned above - http://www.completehumanperformance.com/alex-viada.html

9/22/2014 8:24:12 PM

Quote :

"would it be possible with structured training for somebody my age and body type to ever break 18min 5k "

dude, I know you're athletic and all, but 18:00 would put you comfortably in the top 7 runners on most cross country high school teams

and these are kids who are built for distance running and have been doing it for years

I admire your desire to be good at everything, but I think shooting for 18:00 (at least at your age) is an excellent way to get injured.

I mean, hey, you might do it. but it takes hard work AND talent (distance-running talent, I mean) AND maybe youth, too.

also,

Quote :

"8miles per week."

not near enough, IMO. I'd say 15-20 as an absolute minimum. (Also, I ran XC in high school and ran for a large fraction of my life; I think my best 3 mile time was 17:22. So I do have some idea of what the hell I'm talking about.)


[Edited on September 22, 2014 at 11:28 PM. Reason : jjo]

9/22/2014 11:25:18 PM

Quote :

"First and foremost, this guy can do it"

Thanks y0willy0 I hope I can!

Quote :

"Weightlifting is an important part of running."

Yes, I agree core and abs are inherently built by weights and can only help. I am not a overproteinated gym rat either.

Quote :

"18min is definitely bordering on difficult, but @ 210-215 I was running a 21min 5k without any issues"

That's impressive at that weight unless you are super tall.

Shadowrunner, I definitely didn't push the mileage as I just didn't have running muscles. Heart and lungs were there, but cycling is nowhere near as hard on hamstrings as running. When IT band started hurting I rolled it and that helped, but I didn't follow that whole "increase mileage by 10% a week" I used by own schedule and used pain and tiredness as a guide if I should increase it or not. btw your advice is almost verbatim the same advice I got from a 16:xx guy at the race. Thanks.

Quote :

"dude, I know you're athletic and all, but 18:00 would put you comfortably in the top 7 runners on most cross country high school teams and these are kids who are built for distance running and have been doing it for years"

You are probably right, but a lot of high schoolers have not yet peaked in terms of strength, endurance or speed and certainly have not been doing for years.

[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 12:47 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2014 12:46:51 AM

Quote :

"Also, I ran XC in high school and ran for a large fraction of my life; I think my best 3 mile time was 17:22. So I do have some idea of what the hell I'm talking about"

Maybe you can enlighten some of us here as to your training routine back then. More specifically, how many heavy bench reps and squats were you doing on a daily bases?

Less importantly, how many miles and days per week were you running?

[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 2:44 AM. Reason : s]

9/23/2014 2:44:35 AM

who said anything about bench reps and squats dr phil?

9/23/2014 9:41:12 AM

^^
personally I was running about 4-6 a day, but that was probably slightly above average.

For me, the key factor isn't really mileage, but intensity. very rarely did we just "go for a run." if we were running 4 miles there were usually several surges (periods of really hard running) thrown in. or we'd run several mile repeats (i.e. run a hard mile, rest, repeat) in succession. or we'd be jog through a hilly neighborhood (Buckingham in Apex, usually), and run like hell up the hills.

it's somewhat easier to do these horrible things if you've got a crowd to run with. 'cuz you've got camaraderie, and the group pushes you to do things that you probably wouldn't do if left to yourself.

I mean, I don't necessarily believe that it's necessary to incorporate a lot of frills (surges, repeats etc.) into your running to get good. But it is necessary to suffer, at least towards the end of a run. OP is obviously familiar with suffering, and I'm sure he knows this; but if he wants to get better at running, he should make a point of suffering as much as possible.

Anyway, what the hell do I know. Just m2c.


[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 12:38 PM. Reason : w4eiogfweo]

9/23/2014 12:36:47 PM

Pretty much what I was thinking.

The D-I distance team at UT-Austin had a similar schedule, but they would take an "easy 14-16 mile run" every Sunday morning at a 7:35 pace . And then they would do 5 mile out and backs at an absolutely ridiculous pace. One of them was a student of mine for a year and a half, and helped me construct a marathon plan after I finished a half marathon. He advised me to take out the heavy weights and replace it with what you described as "making yourself suffer" sprinting routines. And that is how I started doing monthly 5ks and got into that crowd as a sort of training habit for the marathons. I am just giving advice based on what those guys (who were all sub 17:30 guys) and myself tried to do. I never broke 18, but that wasn't really my goal. I did, however, get my PR on the marathon after the stint with 5k training. Fifth time is the charm!

There is a lot of misconceptions out there about distance runners when it comes to muscle and appearance. For instance, the group of five guys that I was with were all chiseled statutes but never incorporated any heavy lifting or lifting at all for that matter into their routine... and they were all incredibly fast (easily under a 17:30 5k and 3 hour marathon). At most they would do core exercises with dumbbells. I discovered that a dedicated running routine will do wonders for your legs, and most supplement that with strict push-up and pull-up stuff afterwords, or dumbbells if you are in the mood. This is what I ended up doing. But, 5ks are a different beast and I can't say anymore than that. I was always heavier into marathons and distance running.

Anyways, I think the overwhelming response of this thread is to just set realistic goals and go from there. You can accomplish a lot with discipline and commitment, and a guy who is a hardcore cyclist should have an easier time with distance running. I ran a marathon with Lance Armstrong once (well I started out a couple rows behind him and then lost sight) and that dude was lights out fast. So, I definitely think that the OP can do it.

9/23/2014 2:55:46 PM

Quote :

"He needs to lose 20 pounds? Maybe. Guess what? Running 50 miles a week to get the time he wants is going to make him lose... 20 pounds. Beach muscles? They should become more defined wouldn't you think? If he doesn't change his diet it's not like his body is going to cannibalize them. "

This is completely wrong. Running for tempo and distance will not make you naturally drop weight. Interval training, which has been very well recommended in the last 20+ posts, will.

When I was marathon training for distance and pace, I only lost about 7 pounds in 6 months. If I had been doing more interval training and cross-training (which, looking back now, was a pretty big mistake that I didn't) I would have easily lost 25-30lbs in the same time period. I was running 50-70 miles a week and exercising more than an hour a day, usually 2+.

9/24/2014 5:39:45 PM

Your diet determines if you lose weight not how you exercise. If you run 20 miles but are still in a caloric surplus you won't lose weight.

9/24/2014 6:52:28 PM

Why is this thread so hung up on dropping weight? You think the only people that can run 18s are skeletal HS students?

He might and he might not. Interval training might work for him better? Sure. Or not? Everyone is different and I would hope that most threads like this would contain differences of opinion.

I like how Noen and BanjoNuts speak in absolutes. Don't do this, don't do that, etc. You don't know the OP and you don't know me. You're every musclehead in the gym chest-bumping guys who mimic your routine.

How about you let the man figure out what works for him? He has plenty of good stuff ITT to try. Except for the "this is completely wrong" Noen's post is fine. BanjoDopes crap about no weight-lifting is really the only thing to be completely discounted so far.

9/24/2014 9:10:38 PM

i made a mistake in this thread. i looked back at my old college workout logs while cleaning out my files. (i honestly had NO idea i still had them) and i was consistently around 19 minutes... not 17. my mistake.


^lol anyone who wants to drop fat should seriously look into weight lifting. that's a no-brainer. did he really suggest that you shouldn't?

[Edited on September 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM. Reason : ]

9/24/2014 9:35:29 PM

Never said anything about not lifting weights. Also, I state something as a general guideline and then provide an exception each time: No absolutes.

Not to mention the fact that the people ITT that have actually accomplished something with distance running are all pretty much saying the same thing, which puts you squarely as the guy that is out of your element.

9/25/2014 2:52:24 AM

Quote :

"Your diet determines if you lose weight not how you exercise. If you run 20 miles but are still in a caloric surplus you won't lose weight."

It isn't that simple. If you're doing distance training, you can't just eat with a calorie deficit and lose weight without significantly impacting your body over the course of several weeks. Dropping weight and distance running/biking/swimming don't work well together. You *can* do it, it's just not healthy and you're going to be more prone to injury.

Quote :

"I like how Noen and BanjoNuts speak in absolutes. Don't do this, don't do that, etc. You don't know the OP and you don't know me. You're every musclehead in the gym chest-bumping guys who mimic your routine."

I'm not speaking in absolutes at all. You stated that he'd lose 20 lbs by running 50 miles a week all by itself. I'm saying from a lot of experience that's very unlikely. And more importantly, its probably unnecessary given his goals.

^^Is spot on. If you're aiming to drop weight, static output cardio is the least efficient way to do so. Weight lifting (especially circuit training) and interval training are going to be a lot more effective and sustainable (and healthy). Mix those with longer runs and you have a good healthy mix that should all work well together

9/25/2014 7:29:05 AM

^^^ Thanks for volunteering the update. It took a lot of willpower not to call bullshit on you.

9/25/2014 10:49:23 AM

Quote :

"Not to mention the fact that the people ITT that have actually accomplished something with distance running are all pretty much saying the same thing, which puts you squarely as the guy that is out of your element."

You do know this is the Internet right? I can play that game too:

"What credibility does a drunk PhD with an illiterate wife who takes selfies in the woods wearing only a banjo have?"



Like I said, different things work for different people, and I'm still not opposed to what Noen said. Again, the only thing completely wrong is your initial outlook on weightlifting which is now being backtracked.

Quote :

"I don't want to get mad in a biblical place."

Given all the advice ITT I think he stands a helluva chance and id like him to update us in the future.


[Edited on September 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM. Reason : -]

9/25/2014 11:42:54 AM

Someone of you more experienced runners correct me if I am wrong, but from what I read so far if my goal is ONLY to improve my 5k time I don't think I ever need to run anything longer than 5-7miles during regular training?

Since 5k is not a sprint or endurance event it primarily develops Type IIa fast twitch fibers (intermediate fast fibers), so you want to focus on not going too far in distance as it becomes a battle of diminishing returns. I do realize you have to build your endurance, but 5-7mile runs should be ok distance for that?

9/25/2014 12:39:02 PM

I generally agree with that assessment. Back when I was running sub-18 5Ks, I generally did one "long" run per week, that being in the 7-9 mile range, at around 75% of race pace. On other training days, I would either run 4-6 miles or do interval training with a mixture of 0.25, 0.5 and 1-mile intervals, really pushing the pace.

You can probably cut your long runs down a bit from that because you already have a good cardio base. I was not cycling back then, though, so I don't have exactly the same experience to draw on as what you're shooting for. When I started doing century rides on the bike, I also shifted my running goals to marathons once I picked running back up, so I haven't gone back to training specifically for 5Ks.

My personal opinion is that if you are able to get your 5K that low at all, you'll be able to do it without lifting (or without changing your routine if you already lift). As a cyclist with a muscular build, you've already got whatever tools you would need, aside from the ones you'll gain naturally through the running. I did lift in support of triathlon training, but that was primarily for the swim because I'm a skinny bitch. A strong core can also help with the efficiency of your running stance, but I assume cycling is still your main priority; an overdeveloped core can slightly impede your breathing when bent over in a cycling stance, so you don't want to hurt your performance on the bike. (For the purely anecdotal record, I did not do any lifting at all back when I was running my best 5K times.)

9/25/2014 12:59:35 PM

http://www.halhigdon.com/training/50935/Advanced-5K-Training

9/25/2014 1:02:02 PM

I do long runs at a constant 70% mhr for up to 90 min regardless of pace.

[Edited on September 25, 2014 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM. Reason : wrong key]

9/25/2014 1:10:08 PM

Quote :

"if my goal is ONLY to improve my 5k time I don't think I ever need to run anything longer than 5-7miles during regular training?"

Yeah, I'd think 7 miles would be sufficient as a maximum. You'd probably benefit from going on occasional 6-7 mile runs (and anyway, they're fun.)

By the way, you SHOULD make a habit of running 4-5 miles on a pretty regular basis. Interval training is necessary, but basic distance running is necessary too (since that's what the race will consist of).

Quote :

"My personal opinion is that if you are able to get your 5K that low at all, you'll be able to do it without lifting (or without changing your routine if you already lift). "

This. Honestly, I've never heard that weight-lifting was any serious part of a long-distance runner's training. I know it's damned useful for middle distance (specifically 400m and 800m, and maybe the mile to a lesser extent), but I mean, as a general thing, distance runners are twigs. I don't know the physiological advantages/disadvantages of extra muscle mass, but I agree with ^^^ that your legs are probably already as muscular as they need to be.


[Edited on September 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM. Reason : ^]

9/25/2014 4:06:23 PM

Down to 23min 5k.... and with 7lb freaking FAT gain! 207lb now, but been running consistently 8-10mpw. I just can't help, but to overeat afterwords. Zero self control now...

11/14/2014 2:42:37 AM