Say someone runs a 27.6 second 200m and a 59.0 sec 400m. If someone with these pr's focused only on endurance, what could they potentially run for 5k? 10k?
Say someone runs a 27.6 second 200m and a 59.0 sec 400m. If someone with these pr's focused only on endurance, what could they potentially run for 5k? 10k?
Bompton
200m - 27.6 (given)
400m - 59.0 (given)
800m - 2:08 ((400m time + 5) *2)
1500m - 4:16 (800m time * 2)
3000m - 9:00 (1500m time + 14) * 2
5000m - 15:33 (3000m time + 20) * 5/3
10000m - 32:06 (5000m time + 30) * 2
I am not sure for anything over 10000m, these predictions are usually very accurate when dealing with people who are endurance based.
One note is that this persons 200/400 prs might improve while they train for endurance.
Cubism Cubed wrote:
200m - 27.6 (given)
400m - 59.0 (given)
800m - 2:08 ((400m time + 5) *2)
1500m - 4:16 (800m time * 2)
3000m - 9:00 (1500m time + 14) * 2
5000m - 15:33 (3000m time + 20) * 5/3
10000m - 32:06 (5000m time + 30) * 2
I am not sure for anything over 10000m, these predictions are usually very accurate when dealing with people who are endurance based.
One note is that this persons 200/400 prs might improve while they train for endurance.
800m doubled is not a good 1500m predictor. Maybe for a certain range it works but not in this case. I think 4:16 is much tougher than 2:08.
My guess for OP is that there is probably somebody even on LRC that cannot break 27 for 200 who can run 14:20s.
Aight, Thanks.
Not-so-speedy Demon wrote:
Say someone runs a 27.6 second 200m and a 59.0 sec 400m. If someone with these pr's focused only on endurance, what could they potentially run for 5k? 10k?
If they focused only on endurance then those sprint times might get even worse, thus further preventing any fast distance times.
reed wrote:
800m doubled is not a good 1500m predictor. Maybe for a certain range it works but not in this case. I think 4:16 is much tougher than 2:08.
Why isn't it a good predictor in this case? How can one be tougher than the other?
reed wrote:
Cubism Cubed wrote:200m - 27.6 (given)
400m - 59.0 (given)
800m - 2:08 ((400m time + 5) *2)
1500m - 4:16 (800m time * 2)
3000m - 9:00 (1500m time + 14) * 2
5000m - 15:33 (3000m time + 20) * 5/3
10000m - 32:06 (5000m time + 30) * 2
I am not sure for anything over 10000m, these predictions are usually very accurate when dealing with people who are endurance based.
One note is that this persons 200/400 prs might improve while they train for endurance.
800m doubled is not a good 1500m predictor. Maybe for a certain range it works but not in this case. I think 4:16 is much tougher than 2:08.
My guess for OP is that there is probably somebody even on LRC that cannot break 27 for 200 who can run 14:20s.
Obviously, the times get better as they get longer. He said endurance-focused. You think 4:16 is as hard as 32:06?
reed wrote:
800m doubled is not a good 1500m predictor. Maybe for a certain range it works but not in this case.
Any calculation involving addition or subtraction of a constant number of seconds will have limited applications.
But the number 2.2 works for nearly every double below 3000m.
27.6 x 2.2 = 60.7
59 x 2.2 = 130 = 2:10
130 x 2.2 = 286 = 4:46
After 1600m, a transition towards 2.1:
286 x 2.15 = 615 = 10:15
For 5000 to 10000,
12:40 = 760 x 2.1 = 1596 = 26:36
60m HM 3600 x 2.1 = 7560 = 2:06 marathon
more generally, since log2(2.2) = 1.14, you can convert any distances below 1600 with the formula
new time = old time x (new distance/old distance) ^ 1.14
ex you can run 500m in 75, then your
800m = 75 x (800/500)^1.14 = 128 = 2:08.
Between 3200 and 5000 the rate of increase with doubling is between 2.15 and 2.1. 2^1.08 = 2.128 so that's probably close to the growth rate there. Then, based on that 10:15 3200,
5000m = 615 x (5000/3200)^1.08 = 995 = 16:35.
Above 5000m, the exponent is 1.07. This makes it very easy to convert any two distances from 200 to 1600 meters, and any two above 5000 meters. And any two between 1600 and 5000 by estimating the exponent. 200 to 5000 takes several steps since this is a piecewise method, but it is simple and accurate. That is, assuming you are willing to become a skinny with stick arms, and can train just as well for that distance. Conversions are only reliable between similar distances.
This is very useful because you don't have to think about doubling things at all. 800 to 1500, 800 to 1200, piece of cake. Ran a 600m TT in 1:37? Worth a 2:14 800. How fast should your 300 be to go 56? 40.34. Ran a 40:00 10k? 1:28:21 half mary. Not in-your-head stuff, but just a few clicks on a calculator. Easy.