Will I be able to run 25, sub 55 and 2:00 one day?

First off, those times are not even close to equivalent. 2:00 >>>>> 55 > 25.

Second, I'm inclined to say hell no on 2:00 in the next three months; 55 and 25 might be possible given that you've done no true speed development, but working on base right now won't help you there. I'd probably look to hit 2:00 a couple years down the line assuming you improve both your pure speed and your base significantly over the next few years.

Sub 5 mile is probably achievable in the next three months given that you're currently in 2:20 800 shape.

How old are you?

800 meter man: thanks very much for the help and insight, i forgot to remove 2:00 out of there when I mentioned the next 3 months, I definitely get that 2:00 is a much much tougher time than I made it sound in my post and that going from 2:20 to 2:00 is not a short term progression at all. Would you say 24.xx-25 low/53/54 are more reasonable equivalents? And another thanks for the sub 5 mile encouragement, will definitely have to work on my endurance for that in the next few months.

Troll_reply: thanks for taking the time to help/post. I'm 24 :)

Actually 55 and 2 flat are quite nearly equivalent.

RunSprintRun wrote:

Actually 55 and 2 flat are quite nearly equivalent.

No they're not. Not even close.

For reference, IAAF tables put 55 as equivalent to 2:07.5. 2:00.00 is given as equivalent to 51.69 and 23.26.

Mercier tables (which I tend to find slightly better than IAAF comparisons) have 2:00.00 as equivalent to 51.33 and 22.83. These tables have 55.00 as equivalent to 2:08.69 and 25.00 as equivalent to 2:13.44.

I'd consider 2:00 as an equivalent performance to about 51.5 / 23.0.

Build up endurance and you'll probably see all your times drop. 27.6 for a 200 probably puts you in just over 60 flat shape for a quarter, and just increasing your baseline fitness will probably cause you to drop some time there. I think you should realistically aim for sub 5 and sub 2:15 in the next couple months if you train seriously.

Good luck!

your best bet is to forget about the 25/55/2:00 goals for a couple months and get the mileage up to around 40 mpw. do some faster runs in there and maybe a 5k race here and there. you'll end up getting faster all-around without even doing speedwork.

800 meter man wrote:

RunSprintRun wrote:

Actually 55 and 2 flat are quite nearly equivalent.

No they're not. Not even close.

For reference, IAAF tables put 55 as equivalent to 2:07.5. 2:00.00 is given as equivalent to 51.69 and 23.26.

Mercier tables (which I tend to find slightly better than IAAF comparisons) have 2:00.00 as equivalent to 51.33 and 22.83. These tables have 55.00 as equivalent to 2:08.69 and 25.00 as equivalent to 2:13.44.

You are comparing apples to oranges, 800 specialists to 400 specialists. Those tables aren't for comparing different times for the same individual.

This is easily proven by looking at the pb's of female elites. Only the very best, like Semenya, achieve 51.xx, and she runs 1:55 and probably is capable of much faster. Ajee ran 53.mid in 2014 when she was already doing 1:57's and 1:58's. 1:59 ladies typically run around 54.

It is a moot point anyhow as OP's 200 is not likely to reach 25 in 3 months, especially through distance training, and without reaching 25, 55 is out of the question.

I wouldn't recommend Jack Daniels for long term success. It's a short-lived, high quality plan that will have a non-elite runner hit their times and then plateau. Now that's out of the picture, your volume. Jack Daniels is very low-mileage even at the earliest stages (like 30 mpw) and if you've never ran at least that with 2-3 workouts per week you're in trouble. The thing people have trouble with is the steps you need to take to get back on track. Everyone wants to be fast, but quitting the exhausting speed training for volume is what makes anyone better. Take 4-6 months off, work up to 50 mpw with a tempo and long run. When you've got that, work down to 30 mpw. You'll feel fresh and energetic. Speed training, tempo, intervals, PRs. I went from a 5:30 mile all-out to running 5:30 pace for the 5k just because I increased my volume.

Bad Wigins wrote:

800 meter man wrote:

No they're not. Not even close.

For reference, IAAF tables put 55 as equivalent to 2:07.5. 2:00.00 is given as equivalent to 51.69 and 23.26.

Mercier tables (which I tend to find slightly better than IAAF comparisons) have 2:00.00 as equivalent to 51.33 and 22.83. These tables have 55.00 as equivalent to 2:08.69 and 25.00 as equivalent to 2:13.44.

You are comparing apples to oranges, 800 specialists to 400 specialists. Those tables aren't for comparing different times for the same individual.

This is easily proven by looking at the pb's of female elites. Only the very best, like Semenya, achieve 51.xx, and she runs 1:55 and probably is capable of much faster. Ajee ran 53.mid in 2014 when she was already doing 1:57's and 1:58's. 1:59 ladies typically run around 54.

It is a moot point anyhow as OP's 200 is not likely to reach 25 in 3 months, especially through distance training, and without reaching 25, 55 is out of the question.

Agree.

The biggest obstacle is in getting the sprint times down

runsprintrun: interesting, I could see that with people that have tremendously developed endurance but I feel I'm relatively speed-oriented, although that might not be fair since I haven't really trained my endurance rigorously. Thanks for the input!

800meterman: thanks for listing the tables, I'll check them out. I feel like I'd have to at least be able to get down to 53 to have a shot at running 2:00 since going out in 58 with a pr like that and positive splitting by 3 seconds or so would be my ideal scenario/strategy and even that would be tough! But that doesn't matter, I'm as you rightly pointed out years away from that if I'm even capable of it. Will definitely focus on endurance and do some strides/weekly alactic sprints to at least maintain my speed. Thanks again for the advice friend!

reed: Thanks for chiming in, I'll definitely be raising the mileage, I hope to at least hit 25-30 for a few weeks but I don't want to overdo it since I lack a history with anything over 15 mpw :/. I'll definitely try racing a 5k and adapt my training more to it in the base period and time leading up to the introduction of specific training, since it heavily stresses endurance anyway

bad wigins: I had never thought of this before, 1:57 off 53 is amazing; I guess this reminds me of that paper indicating that 800m derived 66% or so of its energy demand from the aerobic side. All the more reason not to piss around and run some respectable mileage (at least according to what is realizable for me). Thanks for the insight!

banterman- very solid point! reading this I find it compelling to lengthen my base period and get my mileage up higher; thanks for the good points and that is a massive improvement you had wow

Thank you very much friends for taking the time to help this hobby jogger out haha 8). Would appreciate any more advice if there is any left to give, this was great stuff, I appreciate it!

uk coach- That's a relevant concern that I keep thinking about, but from what I've read here, strides after easy runs and a weekly session of alactic sprints like 8-12 second hill sprints or flat sprints like 5-6x60-80/100m or flying 30s would be sufficient to maintain your raw speed and even enhance it until your specific training starts. Am I right with this approach? Thanks for taking the time!

I ran about a 2:19 the first time I ever tried an 800 as a sophomore in high school after pretty standard March training. I was able to get it down to about 2:13 by the end of the season, so going that sub 2:15 in the short term that someone mentioned seems reasonable.

I never went sub 2. The importance of running cross country or off season was never really explained to me and I had some injuries in my last two years (not surprising given weak base) so I probably never hit full potential, but I likely would not have gone sub 2 anyway. People whom I know that ran sub 2 did not start in the 2:20s post 9th grade.

Bad Wigins wrote:

You are comparing apples to oranges, 800 specialists to 400 specialists. Those tables aren't for comparing different times for the same individual.

This is easily proven by looking at the pb's of female elites. Only the very best, like Semenya, achieve 51.xx, and she runs 1:55 and probably is capable of much faster. Ajee ran 53.mid in 2014 when she was already doing 1:57's and 1:58's. 1:59 ladies typically run around 54.

It is a moot point anyhow as OP's 200 is not likely to reach 25 in 3 months, especially through distance training, and without reaching 25, 55 is out of the question.

I agree with all of this, but I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

51.5 is a roughly equivalent performance to 2:00. Most 2:00 800 specialists will not be able to run 51.5, just as most 51.5 quarter milers will not be able to run 2:00, but the two performances will place two athletes at similar levels of competitiveness and are times of the same caliber. I've seen plenty of guys (and a few women) run 53/2:00/4:30

, and i think it's a pretty good line to aim for as a half miler with a slight lean to the aerobic side. I've also seen plenty of 52.x/2:00/4:40 athletes. I'd firmly put the requisite speed for sub 2:00 at sub 55 for most athletes who are still working on aerobic development, and most athletes in the 1:58 - 2:00 range are going to run between 51.5 and 54 seconds for a quarter.

All the tables do is give performances that are comparable. They do not claim that because an athlete is capable of one performance he will be capable of the other (i.e., you can use them to determine what the "equivalent" marathon performance is to your 400m--doesn't mean you'll be able to run both).

Should be able to if you have the strength and all the events, especially the 400m and 800m are spread out enough. Enough time for the lactic to dissipate.

In the 5k, 10k and half maybe.