what does this mean

[pelican]

my track prs are 451 and 1031 but my 5k xc is 1759... ive been wondering for months why. does this mean i have a weak base..? :(

[Oh yeah!]

my track prs are 451 and 1031 but my 5k xc is 1759... ive been wondering for months why. does this mean i have a weak base..? :(
i dont know, you have to tell us what your base is

what was your mpw over the offseason

i mean, this could mean you are a better middle distance runner

theres a kid in my county who runs like a 17 something 5K but can run like a sub 2 800

[pcrunner17]

Sophomore year of track, I went 4:56 (on asphalt) and 10:40 (all-weather). Two weeks after the season ended, I did a 5K in 17:57. Those times aren't really that far off yours. I'm not really sure how great my base was then either though.

Anyway, just some input.

[Fanya]

I ran a 10:00 3k in the spring and trained my ass off, doing 75-80mpw the whole summer. Wound up with a fall 5k PR of 17:23.

**** happens, just deal with it and train smarter next time. There is always a reason why you didn't live up to your own expectations.

[RSkylineR34]

if you do a lot of miles that are not very fast you will have the endurance but no speed,
happened to me this past xc season
ran god knows how many miles but at a slow pace and baerly broke 1800
it sucks but i chalk it up to experience and im feeling better about it

[DCtrack]

Yes, running only slow miles and nothing fast will cause your speed to deteriorate, but it is not the fault of the miles. You can still run a lot of miles and include speed. Tempo runs, hill sprints, and lots of miles...makes for a good summer.

[Joe]

Times don't always translate, either...I'll run a sub-2:00 800 but I've never run faster than 17:26 in XC.

[laxcrunner]

that sounds about right, when i was a freshman i ran 4:53 10:36 and 18:03 that all seems about right, and i'd definitely say the 10:30 and 17:56 are signs of being a stronger distance runner than mid distance, all though they're all great times, i'd say just stick to it and not worry about what you are, run mile and 2 mile in track because you're off to a great start in those races, and kill it in the 5k

[clifbar]

that sounds about right, when i was a freshman i ran 4:53 10:36 and 18:03 that all seems about right, and i'd definitely say the 10:30 and 17:56 are signs of being a stronger distance runner than mid distance, all though they're all great times, i'd say just stick to it and not worry about what you are, run mile and 2 mile in track because you're off to a great start in those races, and kill it in the 5k
I dunno, it seems to me like your times are better towards the mile. I think a 4:53 is better than a 10:30, and a 10:30 is much better than a 17:56.


My times during XC are far worse than what I'm running now, but the main reason is that a train more now and have a deeper understanding of the sport. My 2 mile PR is faster than my 3k XC PR.

[robcuxc]

Simply put you aren't meant for the track. I can say this, because I had similar problems in high school. My PR in the 1600 was 4:40 while my 3200 was a 10:44. Both of those were run my junior year. I didn't even do distance my senior year in track, and in cross country of my senior year I ran a 16:18, which is my PR. So you and I just aren't meant to run on a track.

[XCdude24]

Everybody's different, it seems to me that you're a better mid-distance runner, but your improvement in times could just mean that you're devloping. There was this kid in our league who ran 20s for 5k during his freshman year of XC, but he improved to high 4's for freshman track, then mid 16s for sophmore XC, and now he's running under 4:30 for the 1600. Are you a freshman or are you a first year runner?

[NJ5k]

4:53 and 10:30 are almost exactly equal.