I ran a 53point 400 in high school, was distance the wrong route?

*)UBcfh wrote:
To me the important question is not how little training you did to run 53 but how much training it took to run 4:33/10:02.

I usually ran between 40 and 50 miles a week on 6 days. Mondays we would do a 10 mile long run. Tuesdays were usually duel meets where I would do what my coach called "over distance intervals." Basically, I'd run the 1600 and shoot for 4:45. Then I'd run the 3200 and shoot for 10:30. Wednesdays were easy running. Thursdays were intervals (things like 8x800, 16X400, and 20X200 were all intervals we woudl do). Fridays were easy and Saturdays were invites. Sundays off. Over the summer I hit 65 miles a week which was the most I've done in my life but haven't participated in XC yet for something totally unrelated (Got bit by a snake literally right before XC started, leg is still a bit swollen).

So basically I feel in great shape and am ready to rip but think maybe 400/800 is the way to go come spring, even though I was more of a distance guy in the high school.

2012xxx wrote:
McMillan is way off then. A kid that runs a 58 would not even place in an Freshman indoor meet, while a 10:02 would put you in the seeded heat of most HS Varsity meets.
As far as compring 53 and 1:56/4:17/9:10???? Are you serious? A 53 won't get you in the top 30 in an early season HS meet in Alaska, while a 1:56/4:17/9:10 would be enough to win the state championship most years in many states and would win you 90% of HS races that are not state championship level. C'mon now. Use some common sense.

Like I already explained to the other troll, McMillan isn't saying 58 seconds is as competitive in the 400 as 10:02 is in the 3200. He's saying it's what the average 10:02 runner can do over 400. And of 2-milers who can run 53, they average 9:10. Those are very good estimates.

10:02 is the OP's high school PR, while 53 was a sophomore year time with very little training. Obviously the potential was in the 400. Especially considering the sub-2 800, which beats the hell out of a 10:02 2-mile. Not to mention 2 to 2:05 relays, which were probably solos. If he had trained for the 800 instead of distance, he'd have gone 1:56 or faster. (53/.94 + 53/.88 = 116.6)

Would you rather waste your time trying and failing to break 4:30 and 10 flat, or run 1:56 or faster over 800?

I ran a 53point 400 in high school, was distance the wrong route?

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

I ran a 53point 400 in high school, was distance the wrong route?

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.