I ran a 12.1 100m (well measured on the track). What can I run for 800m in 6 months?

Last year during indoor, I ran a 2:43 in the intrasquad 800m. Two weeks later in the first outdoor meet, I ran 11.28 in the 100m.

If I run a 20.37 per 100m in the 800, simple math says you would run 21.85 per 100m as a 12.1 guy. This puts you at a final 800m time of..

2:54.8

Jay Z, that's not always true. Fast twitch muscles aren't the only thing that can make you run fast.. there are other factors involved.

I was always average in speed up until my sophomore year of high school. Freshman year, I ran 13.1 and 27.5. Sophomore year, I ran 11.8 and 24 flat. I'm in the 11.2-11.3 and 22.3 range now as a sophomore in college. It's called a growth spurt, and people get them at different times.

chuckie d wrote:

Jay Z, that's not always true. Fast twitch muscles aren't the only thing that can make you run fast.. there are other factors involved.

I was always average in speed up until my sophomore year of high school. Freshman year, I ran 13.1 and 27.5. Sophomore year, I ran 11.8 and 24 flat. I'm in the 11.2-11.3 and 22.3 range now as a sophomore in college. It's called a growth spurt, and people get them at different times.

That is a lot different (and normal) then 62 to 48 in 2 years.

62 is decidedly average, it is somewhere between wr 5k and 10k pace. Many high schoolers can run 62 with even a little training.

48 is very good, it is pretty much word class speed for 1500-10000m track guys.

haha wow wrote:

When you're fast, you're fast. The little kids who win field day at age 10 when everybody is skinny and pre-pubescent are the same kids who are the fastest once everyone matures. No one magically goes from slow twitch their entire life to fast twitch at age 20 suddenly off of two weeks of training.

Either the timing was wrong, or you're exaggerating, or you're misremembering, or you're lying.

Nope not lying, not forgetting, the timing wasn't wrong, although my hunch is that I probably could have gone faster than 62 my senior year if I had not been running mostly distance. I was starting to get more coordinated.

What you are talking about in terms of recognizing speed early IS the norm. But, there are always exceptions.

I was pretty tall, awkward, and uncoordinated as a teen and didn't do much sports until running. Still tall but I'm more coordinated now. I seem to recall reading that Jim Ryun was very awkward and wasn't a speed burner when he first started running. Granted he got pretty fast by the end of HS but I do think some people mature even later. I think I was one of them.

Also, while decent, I don't think a 48 is necessarily indicative of mostly explosive fast twitch. Most milers are faster.

jay z shout em out wrote:

That is a lot different (and normal) then 62 to 48 in 2 years.

62 is decidedly average, it is somewhere between wr 5k and 10k pace. Many high schoolers can run 62 with even a little training.

48 is very good, it is pretty much word class speed for 1500-10000m track guys.

By the way, it was 62 to 48 in 3 years not 2. I was 17 when I graduated from HS.

I did almost no running for 2 years after HS. I did a bit of jogging starting in the summer when I was 19 but that certainly doesn't count for 400m work. I would occasionally play pickup basketball and football (and I noticed I got better at that too). I had a tough summer job doing lots of manual labor for a couple summers too. Maybe that made me stronger. But, I really think most of it was simply maturation.

Folks he's sticking to this impossib...er improbable story so just humor him.

I don't know, Haile Genreselassie ran a marathon at a young age in like 2:40, and now he is the world record holder.

62--->48 is a similar improvement in percent faster as 2:40:00 to 2:03:59.

jay z shout em out wrote:

I don't know, Haile Genreselassie ran a marathon at a young age in like 2:40, and now he is the world record holder.

62--->48 is a similar improvement in percent faster as 2:40:00 to 2:03:59.

Apples and Oranges. This is sprinting - over just 3 yrs - and the 62s was at an age when innate sprinting ability is nearing peak.

So, we're to believe that you ran sub 15 5k in h.s.. Yet never had an hint of speed potential while presumably doing some intervals that involved 2,3,4 6,800m s at one time or another ?

Were you drafted by the Baltimore Ravens ?

Movie to follow ?

Allyson Felix could run 10.9 in the 100m and most probably can run 1:49 WR in the 800m.

There is a guy that I've seen that is sort of interesting. I don't know this guy personally. I saw him race the 400m at an invite before sub districts and was impressed that he ran 50s with a standing start and looked him up after. It would be interesting to know what his story is. To respect his privacy, since I don't know him, the hundreths on these times have changed.

9th grade:

800m: 2:16

1600m: 5:03

10th grade:

200m: 24.28c

400m: 53.63a

800m: 2:01.95a

1600m: 4:55

3200m: 11:16

11th grade

400m: 49.70a

800m: 2:05 (It appears he tried doubling with the 800m after the 400m in three meets with the last being a 49.92a, 2:06.99a at the last meet before state)

For 400m, he has been under 52s six times (a 51, three 50s, two 49s). He ran the 49.70a at the state meet with a standing start and got third. It's on the internet. It will be interesting to see what he does his last year. And whether he will use blocks. This year (grade 12) his best XC 5k result was just under 18, with most results being 18 minutes. The previous two years he got his personal best of a couple seconds under 17, with most results being in the 17mins.

Just tell me what I can run for 800m in mid May, DAMMIT!

Sub 15 minute 5k no longer wrote:

Just tell me what I can run for 800m in mid May, DAMMIT!

You can't project 800 meter times from 100 meter times, DAMMIT!