Would the "typical" person with 57 speed be capable of 4:30 Mile?

obviously you were quicker than 4'30 with a 4'26

if all races were best possible, in same form

57.0/4'26 ->2'03.1 , 4'06.2 , 8'46.5 , 15'19.2 , 32'31.9

your 31'48 is outstanding & an anomaly ( assuming not misprint of 32'48 )

either you were in better shape for that race or your 800 - 5k were serious underperformances ?!

The 10000m in 31:48 was the last, peak race of the season, under the stadium lights, in the rain. One of those magical races where it felt easy and everything clicked.

The 800, mile, and 3000 were from indoor, the :57, 4:09, and 5000 were from early outdoor, and the 10000 was from the last race of the season. I never thought of it as that much of an outlier, though. Thanks for the info, v.

A 57 second 1/4 equates to a 4:31/4:32 mile if you can convert it through lots of aerobic training. That also equates to about a 2:04.0 half mile.

common wrote:

Yes, without a doubt. I never cracked 57 in an open 400, but I ran mid-4:20s with no problem. I ran the 57 point in an open 400 at the peak of my fitness in college, as a 5K/10K runner.

Hmm, you can do it so therefore everyone else could do it? Fairly poor reasoning.

When I hear about 4:30 mile, I think, man that's pretty fast. A 57 second 400 is pretty damn slow by comparison. I just don't want anyone thinking 57 is a good 400 time, it's not.

Yeah, that was the entirety of my reasoning, jackass.

Here's my reasoning. A male human with max 400m speed of 57.x is either 1)morbidly obese, or 2)a slow twitcher. If you're a fatty, all bets are off. If you're a lean, 130 pounder, naturally inclined to endurance, you've got a lot of speed endurance and aerobic power to develop in the difference between 57/400m (roughly your anaerobic maximum), and 67.5/400m. It would be very unlikely that an appropriately trained runner could not hit 4:30 for a mile given 57 second 400m speed.

Is it possible that the reason a 57 second 400m runner can break 4:30 for the mile is that he has an undertrained 400m potential (raw speed)? Sure. Is it possible the 55 second guys can't crack 4:30 because they are undertrained aerobically? Absolutely. Does one person's stat line make a rule? Of course not. Are you a jackass for asserting that that was what I meant by posting my anecdotal evidence? Most definitely.

Have a nice day.

justsoyaknow wrote:

When I hear about 4:30 mile, I think, man that's pretty fast. A 57 second 400 is pretty damn slow by comparison. I just don't want anyone thinking 57 is a good 400 time, it's not.

agreed...430 is WAY more impressive than a 57.

I'd say that 51.5 to 52 is about equal in my mind to 430.

Ventolin, can you hit me up with a line of best possible performances from 800-Marathon, based on the 31:48 10000m? Just curious.

Thanks

3) They have serious form issues

Having poor form could certainly inhibit the faster end of things, making for a weak 400m even if in theory they might be possible to be running faster.

I would like to offer a single isolated anectodal data point and say that I never broke 57 for 400 yet I ran 4:06 for the mile.

How did I mis-underestimate anything? I asked a question. Unless of course you think the question was so absurd as to require a significant lack of understanding about speed/endurance.

In any event my main reason for asking the question to because it's fairly common to see the 400m time + 8 quoted for upper limits of mile times. No one really discusses whether that +8 is a talent think in and of itself or whether average Joe has that capacity for endurance assuming he is willing to do some training.

If 57 was your true best (which would be hard to imagine) that would be some ungodly endurance. Thats more the lap difference you might expect for an 800m runner and his 400.

Who the fvck are you...Todd Williams? hahahaha

common wrote:Ventolin, can you hit me up with a line of best possible performances from 800-Marathon, based on the 31:48 10000m? Just curious.

Thanks

that calculator is only good for track ( because road races have completely WILD wind/tightness/hills/etc )

i can offer some track possibilities

( & i'll throw in some 1/2M & M for ridicule of it - go ask barrios the 1st sub-60 guy in '91 & 27'08wr in '89 & the kenyan who broke 25/30k & won chicago of injury )

this took me 7'20.66 of hard work/time to elucidate, as you have such vagaries :

i just don't think you had same speed in your late season "peak" :

here is prelim :

57.5 / 2'02.75

->

4'03.4 , 8'35.8 , 14'55.3 , 31'27.4 , 1"10'03 , 2"26'53

I knew lots of 'fast twitch guys' in high school who could crank out around :57 but no where near 4:30, but were sub 12 100m. On the flipside I knew a lot of guys in high school who could crank out :57 run 4:30 but could barely sub 14 in the 100m. What I'm saying is that the 400m is a bad distance to make any sort of comparisons as saying someone has "57 speed" doesn't tell you anything as there are fast twitch guys with that speed and slow twitch guys with that speed.

Alan

this thread is just an thinly veiled excuse for the standard "I couldnt break 60 in the 400 to save my life but my mile PR is 4:01" stuff.