How is a 9:38 3200 equivalent to 4:35 1600?!?

Tinman and McMillan calculators put 9:38 equivalent to 4:31 to 4:32 for what that's worth.

That seems better, but still seems pretty slow. I feel like 4:25-27 is more honest.

If you split a 4:40 on your way to a 9:38 you went out too hard and could have probably ran a faster 3200 with better pacing.

Danny Bandana wrote:

If you split a 4:40 on your way to a 9:38 you went out too hard and could have probably ran a faster 3200 with better pacing.

Probably. If HS runners didn't get a big dick on the first lap...

You used a crap calculator. IAAF gives 4:35 = 9:52

Thats funny I could run a 4:31 but I could barely run 10:00 as a senior in HS.

I was also doing 800m training to be fair.

I Ran 4:25 and 9:35 a week apart

For a high schooler, 9:38 is worth a 4:27-4:30 1600

4:30 is worth 9:45-9:50. End of discussion.

For Real? wrote:

I never focused on the 1600, but looking at my HS PR converted to 1600, it is only worth a 4:35ish. How is this possible? my first 1600 I usually split right around 4:40, you're telling me I couldn't run more than 5 seconds faster?

You can not just make an accurate calculator for this. I know a HS kid with a 9:13 3200 PR who has only run 4:25. I know another kid with a 4:11 1600 PR with a 3200 PR of 9:39. You can find these all over the place...huge ranges. Some of that has to do with not running one of the races when in peak form, but not all of it is that. milers aren't necessarily 2-milers and vice versa.

Someone who knows wrote:

For Real? wrote:

I never focused on the 1600, but looking at my HS PR converted to 1600, it is only worth a 4:35ish. How is this possible? my first 1600 I usually split right around 4:40, you're telling me I couldn't run more than 5 seconds faster?

You can not just make an accurate calculator for this. I know a HS kid with a 9:13 3200 PR who has only run 4:25. I know another kid with a 4:11 1600 PR with a 3200 PR of 9:39. You can find these all over the place...huge ranges. Some of that has to do with not running one of the races when in peak form, but not all of it is that. milers aren't necessarily 2-milers and vice versa.

This.

When I calculator-ize my PRs, which all came when I was 17-21, nothing makes sense. Part of that is that I wasn't running all-out miles at 20, and not quite strong enough at 17 to challenge my future self at 10K, but still. Depending on what time you start with, these barely make sense.

I always thought it was something like this:

2:00 800

4:30 1600

10:00 3200

16:00 5k

34:00 10k

1:16 half

2:42 marathon

more like 9:45-9:50 for that 3,200...others looks OK

Beautiful Day wrote:

I always thought it was something like this:

2:00 800

4:30 1600

10:00 3200

16:00 5k

34:00 10k

1:16 half

2:42 marathon

i think besides the 8/16 this is inaccurate. for example there are far fewer high schoolers (which i'll assume we're talking about because no one else runs the 16/32) who break 16 than break 10.

Within 22 months:

2:01

4:27

9:54

16:15

32:52

1:17.11

4:25/9:40/16:11 although I believe my 3200 and 5k we're soft.

It is always amusing to watch high schoolers struggle with statistics.

I think what you see with high schoolers is that it's pretty easy to run fast short distance-wise, then harder as you go up because MOST just aren't strong enough yet.

The best high schoolers are not just faster at high school distances (1600, 3200), but also faster as the distances climb for this very reason.

The lesson to current high schoolers being, be strong, and get strong by RUNNING MORE.

Fwiw I ran 9:38 and 4:27 in high school, I would say the are roughly equivalent, though I was much happier with the 4:27