800m equivalent to a 4:40 1600

When I was in 4:40 shape, my PR was 2:06. I consider myself lacking in speed, so probably 2:05 is the general answer.

rabatiesu wrote:First time I'm racing the 800 in my life, any tips/ what should I hit for a 4:40-4:50 1600m equivalent?

this info may not be of much use to a youngster with under-developed endurance &/or speed, but mathematically, the exact conversion for a 4'40 1600m is

2'10.00

for the record, these are mathematical = for 800/1600

1'42.00 = 3'44.00

1'43.00 = 3'46.00

1'44.00 = 3'48.00

1'45.00 = 3'50.00...

2'00.00 = 4'20.00

2'01.00 = 4'22.00

2'02.00 = 4'24.00

2'03.00 = 4'26.00

2'04.00 = 4'28.00

2'05.00 = 4'30.00

mathematical means this is theoretical, from 1st principles, with no stats lists involved

if you don't like maths derivations, ignore above

however, if this is of any help to anyone, glad to be of service

ventolin^3 wrote:

mathematical means this is theoretical, from 1st principles,

I like math. Let's hear the imaginary first principles behind your magic numbers.

Your first principle is to hide your methods to protect them from criticism. That's what quacks do. Prove you're not a quack for once.

need more info wrote:

What is your 400m pr, or have you not raced that yet? Even a little training info would be nice. Even a 3200 would be helpful.

I have known 4:40 guys that could never get past 2:08, and others that could push 2:01. It's all a matter of what kind of running you're geared towards.

I completely agree with this. I had friends who could run in the low 2:00s and never break 4:40 or 10:00. On the other hand, I ran 4:40 a few times, could never quite break it, but ran 2:08 on the last repeat of a workout once. I ran 9:33 for 3200 over a mile above sea level and eventually ran 4:36 in a relay late in the season. My best guess is I could've maybe broken 2:05 but nowhere close to 2:00.

So, the short answer is, it is very individualized. I think estimates of 2:10+ as a 4:40 equivalent are slow though. Nobody was slower than me. Of course, I really didn't focus on being in 800/1600 shape as it was not my wheelhouse. I never ran an open 800.

Bad Wigins wrote:I like math. Let's hear the imaginary first principles behind your magic numbers.

Your first principle is to hide your methods to protect them from criticism. That's what quacks do. Prove you're not a quack for once.

i've posted the principles enough times

perhaps you shoud read before talking nonsense :