I'm a 35-year-old hobby jogger. I run ~ 30 mpw. Which of my recent race times is better (I realize that neither is particularly impressive):
1. 39:26 10k (certified course, flat, no wind)
2. 59.76 400m (FAT, windy)
And what would you expect a mile time to be for someone with this profile?
Although online calculators may differ with me here, I say the 10k is easily better than the 400m.
Runningahead.com has a calculator where you enter two different distances to give you a prediction. It is pretty close in all my times. For you it gives you a 4:52 mile. That may be a little generous but I definitely say you could give sub 5 a shot.
Neither. They both suck. Come back when you can run 10 seconds faster in the 400 and 10 minutes faster in the 1000m. Track only, certified courses don't count.
Get Faster, Bruh wrote:
Neither. They both suck. Come back when you can run 10 seconds faster in the 400 and 10 minutes faster in the 1000m. Track only, certified courses don't count.
Very weak troll
Your 400 is more impressive
Your 400m speed impresses this fellow hobby jogger more. I'm only a couple minutes off your 10k so that looks ~feasible for me to sorta get near but I couldn't even break 60s in HS (never a runner) much less now
As a distance runner, the 400 is better. You've got enough speed to be running way faster for 10k. I knew a runner with a 57. 400 who broke 31 for 10k.
Thanks to everyone for your thoughts and encouragement. My next goal is sub-5 mile but I'm sill 10-15 seconds off.
SlowDad wrote:
I'm a 35-year-old hobby jogger. I run ~ 30 mpw. Which of my recent race times is better (I realize that neither is particularly impressive):
1. 39:26 10k (certified course, flat, no wind)
2. 59.76 400m (FAT, windy)
And what would you expect a mile time to be for someone with this profile?
Your 400 is much, much more impressive.
If you could gather the 20 in a race who ran closest to 39:26, say the 10 just faster than that and the 10 just slower than that in the 39:xx range, I GUARANTEE less than half of them would break 60" in a legitimate 400. For a recreational distance runner of that ability, you are quick.
I know masters women and senior citizen men who can race under 40 in the 10k all week long. Sub-60 400? Not so much.
With a 59s 400 you should easily be 2:08-2:09 in the 800 and get in the mix at masters meets if you're still around there at 40. A 39:xx 10k? That could be an OK marathon split for a M40 masters runner, but as an actual 10k time you are in the ladies pack :)
Really, among hobbyists, you have good speed for a 39:xx runner, and good endurance for a 59s runner. Enjoy running some mid-d while you're still youngish and with some basic speed!
Most definitely that 400m time, looks like you have more short distance speed talent than long. Should try shoot for some fast mile - 5K's.
I ran an 18min 5K the other year when I was running 1:05 road 400's, which I think is more even..
SlowDad wrote:
Thanks to everyone for your thoughts and encouragement. My next goal is sub-5 mile but I'm sill 10-15 seconds off.
You are humble. Your times for 400m and 10,000m aren't bad.
Why would you lie and post these mediocre times? I can't believe I wasted time reading and responding. 0/10
Nobody that slow knows this board exists. If you aren't d1 all American this board isn't for you.
Your 400 is WAY better than that 10K time. I ran 37:27 10K and could run no faster than 67 for a 400. Train and that 10K will drop like a rock.
If a sprinter ran those times, I'd be much more impressed with the 10k. If a marathon runner ran those times, the 400 would be much more impressive
400m. Not even close
This weekend I ran an 800 in 223 (70, 73) followed by a 400 in 63-high about 15 mins later at an all-comers meet. So some work to do on my speed endurance.