An I more speed based or distance based

Male or Female?

Male and I am 17 years old. I coach myself because the coach at our highschool is a great guy but not much of a coach.

Gmtirds wrote:

I want to know if I am distance oriented or speed oriented

I have pr's of

5k 17:27

3200 10:38

1600 4:55

800 2:08

400 55.78

100 12.13

I think the 800 has always been my best event with me running 2:14 with a 1600 pr of 5:19 but I want some LRC inpUT on the matter

You"re definitely more speed based. There is a huge drop off after 3200 meters. Your 5k should be around 16 mins or around 15:45/15:50.

I would assume that you do low mileage, and do a lot of speed workouts. If you want to improve your time in the longer distances, then you are going to have to increase your mileage, especially your long run. You have the speed, you just need to strengthen your speed endurance so that you can maintain it.

The thing is I almost never do speed work and focus more on long runs. Once a week I do a couple 400m intervals but that is about it in terms of speed. I am 5'11 and 130 pounds so I am trying to gain some muscle but not to much

How do you feel after running 2 miles?

That is usually the test to find out what type of runner you are in the 5k-10k. Fast runners ( (who lack aerobic power)start to hit a wall, because they don't have the aerobic power. Aerobically strong runners tend to increase their speed around that mark, and their 3rd mile will be faster than their first 2 miles. And they will continue to get stronger as the race goes on.

I assume that you start to tire quite considerably going into the 3rd mile, because you do that mile in 6-7 mins. ...that is a huge, huge drop off to me, because you are 4:50 miler

Example ( this is what your times should be based on the vdot calculator):

what you run in the mile : 4:50

predicted performances:

3200: 10:16 ( You're not that far off from that, which is good)

5k: 16:36 ( 3 Mile: 16:00)

So after the 2nd mile you sorta fall off of a cliff.

You are speed-based. I had the same 400 PR, but 2:05 800 and I couldn't break 13.0, and I am on the speed side anyway. You should work on sub-53/2:00 for next year.

I would not say you're more speed-based, like most of these posters. I would actually say you're more distance-based, for where you are in your life (high school).

I ran pretty much the EXACT same times as you in high school. I ran, specifically

1600 - 4:55

3200 - 10:39

5k - 17:30

and was +/- 1 or 2 seconds from your 800 and 400 times, and imagine I ran the 100 at about the same speed.

If you are being compared to marathoners who have run through college, then, yes, you are maybe more "speed-based," but judging you on high school terms (against fellow high school athletes), you definitely fall on the distance side of the spectrum. Going from 4:55 in the 1600 to two 5:19s in the 3200 is holding it pretty well.

Distance for sure. I ran 4:55 and 10:55 this year and I'd say I'm more distance based since my 800 is awful.

As for my pr's my mile was the first race of the season with a 27 last 200m while it was 35 degrees fahrenheit with competition. The next week I ran the 3200 and got 10:38 completely solo as second place ran 12:59. Then I got injured and never had a real shot to pr in the mile or two mile. Next best 2 mile was 12:48 and ran 5:03 for 1600 twice. The 800 was the event I chose to focus on with a pr of 2:08( splits of 59,69) I tried the 400 and 100 for a bet at a small meet. Ran the 4x800 which we got 12:24 for it ( I split 2:20 as we were lapped and no point in straining to much) then ran the 100 without blocks in 12.13 followed soon after with a 55.78 400m. The next best person on my team is a 6:21 miler so I didn't really have anyone to train with which made it hard in practice to push myself

Clean up those 800 splits and you'll be 2:03-4. That is your event right now.

No, a 4:55 miler does not equate to a 15:45 5k which is 5:04 mile pace.

No runner who does 10:30s for a 3200 run low 16s of sub 16....they would be much faster than that. Many runners who are Sub 16 do 9:30s for 3200m.....shorter distance races are gonna be at a faster pace, it's common sense. Many low 17 5k runners run between 10:00 -10:40

your 100 time is the most impressive on that list tbh

I posted this thread a while back just to get a general opinion if I was distance or speed based and wanted to come back and have some people check my form and critique it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQV8uYLygdU

That is the link. It was like a 1:05 lap with a good last 100m effort not all out the whole way

I posted this thread a while back just to get a general opinion if I was distance or speed based and wanted to come back and have some people check my form and critique it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQV8uYLygdU

That is the link. It was like a 1:05 lap with a good last 100m effort not all out the whole way

My analysis based on literally almost nothing, you look like an 800 runner.

Allabouy wrote:

I posted this thread a while back just to get a general opinion if I was distance or speed based and wanted to come back and have some people check my form and critique it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQV8uYLygdU

That is the link. It was like a 1:05 lap with a good last 100m effort not all out the whole way

All Bird Oh wrote:

You are speed-based. I had the same 400 PR, but 2:05 800 and I couldn't break 13.0, and I am on the speed side anyway. You should work on sub-53/2:00 for next year.

Agree

800m should be ops distance

As others have said, your best distance event is the 800m. If you were younger I'd say you have time to improve those distance times but at 17, I'd say your ideal events to race are the 800m, 1600m, and 400m (in that order).