Comparing 400m and 800m times

I should add that I'm basing this off an analysis I did of some top HS runners who seemed to finish as high in 400m races as they did in 800m races; their best 800m times were around 17.5-18.5% higher than twice their best 400m times, and my son's 800m time was about 18% higher than twice his 400m time until the last meet's PR dropped it to 17% higher.

Your son is neither. His times are too slow to excel at either race. What you need to encourage is higher mileage than he is doing now and a cross country season. With his current speed he could possible be a 2 miler if he trained for it.

NWrun wrote:

Your son is neither. His times are too slow to excel at either race. What you need to encourage is higher mileage than he is doing now and a cross country season. With his current speed he could possible be a 2 miler if he trained for it.

That is a little harsh. Sounds like this is his first season ever running track. His times are not very fast, but he could conceivably drop 4-5 seconds in the 400 and 8-10 seconds in the 800 if he puts in some good training.

OP: sounds like you're super into your son's track racing, given that you did all those calculations and took the time to post here. I'll give you some good advice.

1. Find out how committed your son is to getting better.

2. If he really wants to improve, then he should join the xc team in the fall. That will help him develop the aerobic fitness to improve in the 800 and even the 400. He may even discover that he's better at the longer events. Then in the winter he should do indoor track if he can. The key to improvement in running is consistency. You have to be committed to getting better. If he starts training in March, he won't improve much over this year.

3. You asked whether he was better suited for the 4 or the 8? Did he run the 200 this year? What does he typically split for his first 200 of the 4? If he runs 28-29, then he's probably a distance runner. If he runs 26-31 or something like then, then he might be a 400 guy.

His 400m times are better, by quite a bit relative to his peak potential. If he sticks with it he could probably take at least 5 seconds off his 400m time and about 20 seconds off his 800 time if he's a somewhat average boy who possesses well above average work ethic and consistency.

His 1600m time shows he lacks fitness, which is great in that he has tons of room for easy improvement.

for someone who focuses on 800, it should take about 2.2 times as many seconds as their 400, or slightly less. 60 seconds should be worth about 132, or 2:12. 57.25 should be good for 126.5 or 2:06. 130.5/57.25 = 2.28 which is high.

Based on that, and the 5:41, he's better at 400.

Those times were pretty similar, I'd say the 400m time was SLIGHTLY better but that's not surprising given that it's his first track season and it looks like he didn't do much pre-season training (start of the season times were CLEARLY better for 400m, and a much bigger drop-off for 1600m, indicating a lack of aerobic fitness). If you're looking at what he should be considering next year, I'd say his 800m is probably going to improve more (assuming he actually trains during the winter), so that might be the event to look towards next year.

What watchout said is good advice, but get him to train once a week with the sprinters. And avoid junk miles (long slow running for the sake of it).

Thanks to all. Integrating everyone's responses, sounds like it's not clear yet either way given how little preparation/training he had before the season, but that he might even be better at the 400m and certainly shouldn't discount it yet.

He came out for track pretty much at the last minute, and hadn't been training beforehand; now he really wishes he'd come out his freshman year. He often mentions how much he loves track, and he's already looking forward to running XC in the fall and indoor in the winter, so those recommendations are covered.

bonkers, he didn't run the 200, at least not in any meets, and I don't know if the coach tracked mid-lap times (I hadn't tried). I suspect, though, that 28-29 is more likely than 26-31; in both 4x400m races I saw, the runners closest to him ran faster over the first half, and he made up the lost ground over the second half. I didn't see him race the 400m but imagine it would be similar.

try here for some mathematical equivalency tables ( absolute value of 1 dustance v another )

https://2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard.shutterfly.com/filecabinet

go to "Ventolin worksheet"

for 57.26, the mathematical equivalent is

2'08'52

your son is currently better at 400 than 800 which is no surprise for a youngster

Bad Wigins wrote:

for someone who focuses on 800, it should take about 2.2 times as many seconds as their 400, or slightly less. 60 seconds should be worth about 132, or 2:12. 57.25 should be good for 126.5 or 2:06. 130.5/57.25 = 2.28 which is high.

Based on that, and the 5:41, he's better at 400.

You can best that 2.2 conversion & get down to 400m + 4 x 2 seconds so 2:08 off 60 although as a junior he will not be managing that yet

He is better right now at 400m but will be eventually better suited to longer distances

ventolin^3, thanks for that link! Looks like a lot of interesting stuff in there.

So far it sounds like we might have both been right - me in that his 400m really isn't worse than his 800m (to say the least), but him in that the 800m will eventually be a better distance for him than the 400m. Although if he just showed the minimum improvement by next year that bonkers mentioned, he'd get on his high school's top ten list in _both_ events - 10th in the 400m, 9th in the 800m (it's a midsize school that hasn't had many elite runners).

Next step, I guess, comes when he finds out what the track and XC coaches have in mind for summer workouts.

NWrun wrote:

Your son is neither. His times are too slow to excel at either race. What you need to encourage is higher mileage than he is doing now and a cross country season. With his current speed he could possible be a 2 miler if he trained for it.

Bingo. Focus on building a huge base and running longer races. Those aren't competitive times, and as a junior, its probably more than just a lack of strength. ive seen tons of freshman start around those times, and drop 10-15 secs per yr thereafter, for 800m. as a junior, that should have already happened. Even as a 2 miler, if he chained 4 of his BEST 800m times together, he'd barely be breaking 10 mins for the 2 Mile.

maybe his sons a little chunky

A long time ago, I took Coe's progression and graphed out his 400/800 table. It's just one guy's data, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2w7pj6g.jpg

He never ran track at all before this year, so I'm not sure when or how you think that would have happened. Before this spring, his "competitive sport" was mathematics. He had no idea he'd like track, and only tried out for the team because the coach convinced him to (which paid off for the team - he may be the slowest runner on the 4x800 and 4x400 relay teams, but it's not by much, and he's significantly better than the next best choice for the 4th guy for either one).

His times actually are marginally competitive in our school's local track league (he has two third-place finishes in the 800m and one in the 400m), but that's not really his focus - in this one season, he's come to love track and wants to be the best he can at it, whatever level that best turns out to be.

Hardly :-). He's about 6'1", just shy of 145 lbs. And he was nearly ten pounds lighter than that before he started training with the team. Now, if you were talking about ME, you'd be on target.

From personal experience, I think he'll do fine in the 800m. I'm a sophomore and I run a 55-56 400, a 2:08 (hopefully 2:05 by season end), and a sub-5 mile. That being said, I also did XC for the first time this fall and this is my 3rd year of track. The 2:14 being exactly double the 57 seems interesting to me, but the 5:41 mile contradicts that thinking. No expert here by any means, but I think he looks good for the 800. Wish him luck!

To Bad Wigins and ukathleticscoach:

OK, but some 400-800 people NEVER get down to 2.2 and it doesn't mean they have not trained properly. Do you really think Juantorena could have/should have done under 1:38 for the 800?

It definitely sounds like a strength thing. His explosiveness and top speed must be what's seriously lacking, and I promise you that short hill repeats, bounds, and weights will be extremely beneficial for him. He can only run so close to his top speed with a limited aerobic base, so increasing his top speed will make the aerobic base he does have go a lot further.

Its all about strength wrote: I promise you that short hill repeats, bounds, and weights will be extremely beneficial for him.

Thanks for the tip. I looked up hill repeats, and looks like a 150-200m hill section less than 100 yards from our house would be perfect. I know he's already doing some weight work, but I'll see if he's "winging it" or if he got some direction from the coach on what exercises to do. And with his younger brother thinking about joining him on the XC team, and me needing to lose some weight, I'll have to see if we can make some of these into fun father-sons times as well as good workouts (how many times can you boys lap your dad on the hill?).