This would depend a lot on the runner and if they are more of a sprinter or distance guy, and obviously the technical answer is 59.5, but it is pretty unlikely to run even splits off of a 59.5 second PR. So what time would you say one needs to be able to run a 400 in to feasibly break 2:00? Do you think it is as low as 55 or 56, or would a 58 second 400 be good enough for a young high school runner to work off of in order to get under 2:00?
55.00
Under 54.
Perhaps after years of aerobic training, you could break 2 with a max 55.xx 400m, but I don't think a high schooler could do it.
For the first lap of the race probably under 58.5 is sufficient positive split, anything slower would leave you with too much to do with a lot of lactic in your system. Concerning absolute 400m pace then a few second faster than the first lap so 55/54 no slower than that but of course depends on the type of athlete. A speed oriented athlete may need an even faster absolute 400m time.
klubkip1 wrote:
For the first lap of the race probably under 58.5 is sufficient positive split, anything slower would leave you with too much to do with a lot of lactic in your system. Concerning absolute 400m pace then a few second faster than the first lap so 55/54 no slower than that but of course depends on the type of athlete. A speed oriented athlete may need an even faster absolute 400m time.
I believe Wottle went dead even when he won gold in 1972 (just under 26.5/200m), so a 1.5 sec or greater positive split is not absolutely necessary.
I can think of some guys who can break 2 and would struggle to get under 56 (as seen in 4x4s), but I think that's because they tend to strain too hard in the first 200 meters. With a focus on learning how to run the 400, they would have a good chance at breaking 55 without any increase in fitness.
Has this hypothetical runner trained specifically for the 400?
I would guess 57 in an extreme case. 53 would probably be normal for a 2:00 runner.
On the opposite side of things I would guess the minimum mile time needed is about 5:00 with 4:30 being normal.
Back in the old days, I ran mid 54 and a lot of 2:04-05s. However, a couple of guys on the team consistently ran 1:59-2:01 but couldn't get under 56. I didn't have much distance work in me at the time, only beginning track as a junior and 1 season of cross country as a senior. So I'd say 54-55 could do it if you are strong enough.
55.5 max if you are aerobically strong.
You'll need sub 54.5 if you want to have a decent chance at sub 2.
Obviously its determined by your current buffer. However 56 high is not as uncommon, as some of the previous answers might suggest.
Sure some runners like to go even splits like Borza for example but its a gamble and usually compromises ones race but Borza won in 2004 against the great Kipketer so I cant argue. As far times go though, the best times are achieved off/of a positive split of around 2-4 seconds. We have to differentiate between time trial/record attempts and races.
Rudisha doesn't differentiate.
But 56-high? No chance in hell, unless he underperforms in the 400.
I'd say the minimum speed required is 55 mid to low. Obviously I am talking about 400m raw speed, not a true race. Cas Loxsom is surely capable of a 46 400m but he, as many 800m runners, doesn't have enough strenght to do a proper acceleration and blocks, together with reaction time, could well worsen their times. 55x2=1.50 + 10=2.00 I think it's VERY difficult to do better. Maybe, if you are a 10k guy you can lower that a bit. But running 56x2=1.52 + just 8 seconds differential is almost impossible in my opinion.
I had an athlete go sub 2:00 with a 57-high 400. He was an aerobic beast but slow as heck. He wanted to race the 100 at one of our dual meets. Couldn't break 13.
In most cases, once an athlete broke 54, I knew he had a good chance to break 2.
A 13-second 100m is decent enough for a distance runner,
and I wouldn't call him "slow as heck", especially considering a lack of explosive power for the block start.
He surely could run a 400 faster than 57-high.
the talking heads always told me 54/55 is when "the game" begins.
Horwill says best conversion rate for an adult is 4 seconds.
So faster than 56.0
Those who have beaten this have just not run close to what they can over 400m
depends obviously. I have a friend who ran 57 in the quarter but also had sub 9 2 mile speed so he could break 2 running even. I ran 50.6 in the quarter and ran around the same time as he did in the 800 (1:56ish). Id say if you aren't a good 2 miler (not sub 10) than you need at least a 53 quarter but the better endurance of a 2 miler you have the higher that number can be.
No, hypothetically a cross country runner (: