Minimum 400m speed needed to run a 4:10 mile?

Yes

NCAA D2 > NCAA D1 wrote:

Is 53-54 enough?

Probably not. I'd say 52 at least

I've been doing everything to get speed but I'm stuck at 53, I'll just see how the season goes.

51-52 but depends on your training. Aussie 17 kid over here has run 4:01 and his best 400 would be probably 53, but he runs an has been running extensively since the age of 7.

55.0

PrZ wrote:

NCAA D2 > NCAA D1 wrote:

Is 53-54 enough?

Probably not. I'd say 52 at least

I call major bs on that. My brother ran 4:06 and his 400m pr was 55.

I on the other hand could run 50 flat and only manage a 4:28...

We were similar at the 800m, his pr was 1:58 and mine was 1:57.

Obviously, he was a strength guy, but the op asked for a minimum 400m time to break 4:10 in the mile. I'm going to assume that a 56 400m pr for a really strength based guy would be enough to run 4:10. They would have to run it even though, because any uneven laps will result in more inefficiency than somebody with more speed.

Salazar never ran under 57 in his life and ran 4:15 pace for 5000 on a track.

I thought this was a myth?

1:02.5

RejectRunner wrote:

I thought this was a myth?

I don't think so. I was around in the 80s and I never saw any evidence the dude could turn it over any faster. I read articles in those days which said his best 400 was 57 and no one doubted it.

We may have gone through this another thread recently, but I think it's a myth. He ran 3:45 or so for 1500, despite that not being a primary race for him. I can't believe that a guy who could average 60.x couldn't break 57.

I'd say 53-54 is enough.

You ought to be able to go 1:57 or faster in the 800 to go 4:10 or 3:52 in the 1500.

In order to be 1:57, you should be in the 53-second range.

Depends on the level.

Mile/4.8 is a good estimate of requisite 400 capability.

A future 5000 kid can use 4.7 in that equation; a wimpy

800 kid should use something close to 4.9

Sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

They would have to run it even though, because any uneven laps will result in more inefficiency than somebody with more speed.

Based on what?

62.1

Issz wrote:

Sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

They would have to run it even though, because any uneven laps will result in more inefficiency than somebody with more speed.

Based on what?

This is likely based on the additional work required for acceleration/deceleration (F * d; etc). There are quite a few partial differential equations that show evenness of pace throughout 'race' sports such as rowing maximize efficiency of energy use.

*maximizes

When I was running under 4:10 more or less consistently, I could turn in 52.low on the 4x400 relay when doubling back afterward. I figure that'd be worth what, 53.0-53.5 in an open 400 from a standing start? I also kind of thought the fact that I was doubling back and had terrible acceleration indicated something pretty close to 52.lo in a real 400, but never ran one.

Agree that a 1:56 800 is probably a better relevant "minimum" figure to think about 4:10. A lot of milers don't get to run a 400 all out all that often. That being said, I think it's better not to worry too much about "minimum" capability. If you want to run 4:10, it's more important to able to run a nice evenly-paced ~2:36-7 for 1000m without feeling like death. Then you kick like an angry mule and feel very much like death. Voila! And I promise the officials won't DQ you after if they find out you didn't file the minimum 400/800 requirements.

Issz wrote:

Sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

They would have to run it even though, because any uneven laps will result in more inefficiency than somebody with more speed.

Based on what?

Imagine you have incredible endurance. Like my brother, you can now run 61.5 per 400m for a full mile, despite having a best 400m of 55. So you're within 12% of your max 400m. If the race goes out in 59, now you're within 8%. That is a big difference in efficiency.

If however, you're more speed based, say, 50 flat best 400m, but still capable of exactly the same mile as my brother, it is a different situation. Now, that 61.5 average pace is within 23% of your maximum. Increasing to a 59 opening lap doesn't have the same deleterious effect since you are only going up to 18% off of maximum 400m pace.

It still isn't ideal, but it doesn't put you as much into the hole as it does for the other guy who is running it on endurance.

Take it to the extreme: both runners go out in 55. The strength based runner is going to come to a walk while the other runner can just slow down to 65s and suffer through the race and finish maybe 10 seconds off his PR.

Anyway, I stand by my post that 56 is my best guess for minimum 400m speed to run 4:10 in the mile. I have trouble imagining a runner slower than that in the 400m still managing to run 410, no matter how strong they are. There are limits to what lack of speed aerobic strength can overcome.