I want to break 1:20 in the 600m.

There is no way you can only run 2:01 in the 800 with a 1:22 600 pr. But that being said if your prs are accurate, you clearly need to work a lot on your heart strength. You are plenty fast enough to break 120.

Chiefpeef wrote:

There is no way you can only run 2:01 in the 800 with a 1:22 600 pr. But that being said if your prs are accurate, you clearly need to work a lot on your heart strength. You are plenty fast enough to break 120.

Heart strength? I betcha any money his heart is strong.

You just need to get in the right race.

I wouldn't say I'm particularly good at the 800m, as I find it to be the most challenging distance. I feel more confident with the 600m. Are you referring to heart strength as cardio? I guess improving my aerobic fitness would be my best chance.

Intensive and extensive tempo are your keys (two different days).

1) 3x(3x60m) fast and smooth, 90 secs between reps, 6 minutes between sets.

2) 2x(3x200m) fast and smooth (

sorry,

2 mins between reps, 4 minutes between sets on that last on.

go out in 49....since you do 1:23 but 2:01 that means you lack serious in aerobic strength...you wont get that in 2 months...so go with your strengths....go 49 first 400

if you were stronger you could hope to do 26s, but that wont work. so do 24.5-24.5 and try to hold on

i had similar PRs in the 3 and 4, and usually i was 1:21-23 range for 600. but one time we had a 600 time trial, and i went out fast instead of trying to do the 26-27...did 49 low and 1:18. it hurt super bad but never got close again.

if i was to tell you any workouts to do in the next 2 months it would be geared towards your speed ability

25*100m (slow untimed jog back recovery) 12 sec for every one

2*3*200m (slow untimed 200m jog recovery) try to do these in 24

4*400m, 1st 56, 2nd 54, 3rd 52, 4th all out. rest is 4 min, 6 min, 8 min, 10min

i would do mon 25*100

tues 4*400

wed easy 20 min jog

thrs 2*3*200

fri easy 20 min jog

sat easy 30 min jog

sun rest

m!ndweak wrote:

go out in 49....since you do 1:23 but 2:01 that means you lack serious in aerobic strength...you wont get that in 2 months...so go with your strengths....go 49 first 400

Do not do this.

There is this idea that if you are a "speed" guy you should always start like a bat out of hell when racing over-distance. For some reason people think that since you must lack the strength to run more-even splits, you will somehow have the strength to not completely fall apart after running a near PR in the first half or 2/3 of a race. It just doesn't make any sense.

I don't know if you'll break 1:20, but your best bet is probably to go out in 51 mid or so through 400m.

the magic rat wrote:

m!ndweak wrote:

go out in 49....since you do 1:23 but 2:01 that means you lack serious in aerobic strength...you wont get that in 2 months...so go with your strengths....go 49 first 400

Do not do this.

There is this idea that if you are a "speed" guy you should always start like a bat out of hell when racing over-distance. For some reason people think that since you must lack the strength to run more-even splits, you will somehow have the strength to not completely fall apart after running a near PR in the first half or 2/3 of a race. It just doesn't make any sense.

I don't know if you'll break 1:20, but your best bet is probably to go out in 51 mid or so through 400m.

Yes, some world class 800 guys believe that and now they coach in college.

I agree with you that it makes no sense.

yeah cause so many fast times are from guys going out in 51....i ran 1:18 what did you guys run? when i tried to run even i ran 1:21-23

but you guys are smarter and faster right? he has 2 MONTHS.....obviously you morans failed to see that part. yes if he has a full season no F*CKING sh*t he should work on his aerobic/anaerobic threshold after a good 6 week base build up. he has the speed but lacks the specific endurance....but he has 2 months...work on what he has, not work on something that he doesnt have TIME to improve

dont listen to these clowns...they act smart, but i dont recall them claiming PRs or what runners they have coached with their infinite knowledge

or do what they say, go out it 51, die as you always do and run a 1:22

better yet, why dont you tell us what you usually come through 400 at when you run 600m, my guess is 51-52? or slower?

or do you do 26-28-31?

If you want to break 1:20 then get to work and run 1:19 and stop posting on message boards.

I don't think 48.5 and 2:01 would mean you could run sub 1:20.0.

If someone told me they ran 48.5 and 2:01, I'd guess they could run around 1:22 for the 600.

For reference my PRs were 49.1 and 1:52.6 and my best 600m was 1:21.6. A lot can be lost from 450-600m if you're not tuned into being in relatively good 800m shape.

Going out in 49 en route to a 1:20 means 30 seconds for the last 200.

m!ndweak wrote:

yeah cause so many fast times are from guys going out in 51....i ran 1:18 what did you guys run? when i tried to run even i ran 1:21-23

Ok, but 1:18/1:19 isn't that fast of a time. 51 is totally appropriate for it.

And for the record, I ran...1:18 too!

m!ndweak wrote:

but you guys are smarter and faster right? he has 2 MONTHS.....obviously you morans failed to see that part. yes if he has a full season no F*CKING sh*t he should work on his aerobic/anaerobic threshold after a good 6 week base build up. he has the speed but lacks the specific endurance....but he has 2 months...work on what he has, not work on something that he doesnt have TIME to improve

And, while I think we probably agree that 2 months isn't enough time to get done what needs to get done, focusing on doing as much as he can and then running a reasonable race is more likely to lead to at least a PR than going out in 49.

If I see a video of him going out in 49 and finishing faster than 1:25, I will gladly come back and say I wasn't totally right. If he runs under 1:20 doing that, I'll admit I was totally wrong.

Can you provide your iaaf profile?

If his 400m time is 48 point then it's suicidal to go out in 49. It will be painful and he will not run a good time. Obviously you're going to close faster when you went out in 51/52 then in 49.

Which is more efficient, 25/26/28 or 24/24/31?

I could run 1:20 and never broke 52 seconds for an open 400. Run more and run longer repeats if this is your goal.

Workouts:

3x300 @ 38 off 3 min rest

6x200 @ 25

2x4x200 off 1 min rest: 28,27,26,25 (5 min rest) 27,26,25,24

500 @ 67, 3 min rest, 200 @ 25

150s @ 18

i would if i had made it professional as a runner but i had to settle for sub 14 min 5k in trainers, just didnt have enough time to log the 110 mile weeks due to my $250k a year job and my super model wife to take running more serious....

yes numbskull even splits IS more efficient, but since your obvioulsy a f*cking moran you didnt read that this guy runs a 48 but 2:01...which means he doesnt have the aerobic STRENGTH. so yes if he had MORE TIME it would be the most logical to improve his strength to be able to run EVEN SPLITS. but the problem is he has 2 months. 2 months is not even close to gain any aerobic strength to be able to run 25/26/28...

the OP wants to drop under 1:20 in 2 months, the only way to try to achieve that is to work on what he is naturally good at...SPEED. if his 600 pr is 1:23 off of 48 speed, but his 8 is 2:01 that means he dies that last 2 REGARDLESS.

thats why i gave him that specific workouts to do for the 2 months. that way he can run 49.2-49.5 as fluid and relaxed as possible and hold on the best he can. you are trying to argue with me like im an idiot and dont know anything about running.

if he had 6 months to go under 1:20 then yes there would be workouts geared more towards his lactic threshold, aerobic/anaerobic threshold levels in hopes he would be able to do run EVEN....and then he wouldnt be trying to run 25/26/28, it would be 26/26/26.

like i asked before to the OP, on the 1:23 or any other 600s what has he come through at 400 at?

and for the bragger who says he only ran 52 but ran 1:18 im calling liar on that one. if thats true then you had to have been able to run 1:45-46 and 3:36-37 and i dont think you did that either.

but im sure all you guys know better than me, and had better coaches than me. i dont lie about my times nor make sh*t up about what i might have done. if dude has 48 speed at the slowest 50 flat...until he has more strength...but its prob in his best interest to go out that fast now and get used to it, how many times i saw guys go out in 53 high and wonder why they ran 1:49-50. top pros besides maybe yury and symmonds go out 50 or lower

m!ndweak wrote:

and for the bragger who says he only ran 52 but ran 1:18 im calling liar on that one. if thats true then you had to have been able to run 1:45-46 and 3:36-37 and i dont think you did that either.

I think you are combining 2 people here. I said I ran 1:18, and another guy said he ran 52/1:20. I will say, a 1:20 with only 52 speed surprises me a bit, but I don't see why anyone would make that up.

Anyway, again, I think better advice would be to say focus on just PRing rather than make a suicidal attempt at 1:19 by going out in 49 (as a 48.5 guy).

I think we sort of agree on a lot of things here. Maybe your advice IS the best to give him a shot at 1:19. But that shot is like 0.1%, with a 95+% chance of completely blowing up.