Pace calculators don't work

Bad Wigins wrote:

No calculator can accurately give equivalents between mid-d and 400m because the energy systems used are so different.

These calculators aren't attempting to give equivalents.

Jundo wrote:Ok, I ran 1:51.1 and 3:54.5 both in July this year. I also raced the 400m a couple of times throughout the year and the best I managed was 51.2. I also did a few relays and at best just broke 51. My 5km is 16:10 from a road course in January. I did far less aerobic work and far less mileage after February than in the period from September to Jan.

These are my honest efforts, I recognize my 800m is my best distance but I didn't run any of the other races with sub par effort. I threw up after one 400m race!

you need to look at all your efforts carefully

you say you just dipped into 50s in a relay, which means 50-low open

later post you say you could never break 49

let's say your peak 400 was 49.0 - 50.0 in perfect race

your 800 should be about 1'50-mid with ideal 2s +ve splits

let\'s try some numbers

1'50.5 with

51.0 ->3'41.7 , 13'51.1

50.0 ->3'45.1 , 14.24.2

49.0 ->3'48.5 , 14'57.2

you said you ran a 3'54+ which probably with ideal splits/drafting to bell, etc wouda been ~ 3'52

my suggestion is that you are somewhat weaker at 1500 than 800 which is no shock as you train primarily for 800

i reckon you are 5 or 6s slower over 1500 than you would be if you were equally strong at 800 & 1500

don\'t be surprised :

why would you expect your 1500 to be within a handful of seconds of it\'s theoretical value if you admit 800 is your best event & you train primarily for it ?!

Bad Wigins wrote:No calculator can accurately give equivalents between mid-d and 400m because the energy systems used are so different

no

if you have best possible 400 & mid-distance or even longer-distance you can

You can run 400m all-out on heavily anaerobic power and deal with the acidosis afterwards. But to get past 50 seconds and still go fast, you need aerobic power. You can't tell the calculator whether that 1:51 was split 55-56 or 53-58. The latter would suggest a lot of anaerobic power and a faster 400

no

you woudn't be using 1'51 for the latter

that 53/58 woud be more like 1'50 off 2s +ve splits

if it was 58/53 it woud be more like 1'48+ off 2s +ve splits

ventolin^3 wrote:

that 53/58 woud be more like 1'50 off 2s +ve splits

if it was 58/53 it woud be more like 1'48+ off 2s +ve splits

What are you talking about? 1:51 is the OP's stated 800 time, not a prediction. Without knowing the splits, you can't begin to extrapolate a 400m fitness.

OP did mention later the splits were 55/56, which suggests a more aerobic-oriented runner and a slower 400, like a Symmonds. If it had been 53/58 you'd expect a much faster 400 like a Juantorena or a Montano. But even then it's just a wild guess.

The average 800/400 ratio is about 2.2. OP's nearly even splits suggest it's less, so a lower bound for his 400 time would be 111.1/2.2 = 50.5. With a Symmondsesque 2.14 it could be as slow as 51.9, about the same as OP's stated relay times. Even for the average 800 runner it doesn't indicate sub 50, though they might do it anyway.

Sorry Ventolin, I know more or less what I'm capable of from my training, the training I am able to do. I am not going to run sub 14:30 anytime soon, even sub 15 would be an amazing feat based on my training. I couldn't hold 15:00 pace for 1k reps. My 5km ability is solidly in the 15:30+ region.

Likewise there is no way that I could break 50, just not gonna happen I don't have the speed.

Is it not possible that the mathematical model used by the calculator just doesn't fit my physiological profile. Maybe I can just hold my 800m pace well but without having the endurance to run a great 5km. Everyone is different after all.

'Can you run 1ks at the calculator given 5k pace with equal recovery?'

What pace does it give for that as I could do that session miles faster than race pace. Its aslo a poor session for 5000m runners as the recovery is much to long. We were doing this session nearly 30 years ago don't bother with it its only of any use for a 1500m runner and that's debatable

Jundo wrote:

. I know from training I wouldn't be able to break 49.

He didn't say break 49. He gave you a range of 48-high to 49-low. If you can run a 22-23 second 200m, then you should be able to run 49.xx for 400m. Like he said, your issue in the 400 is probably pacing. You shouldn't be throwing up. You are probably going out way too fast.

Depends on what you mean by "work".

Pace calculators are the same, it's the people that are different.

Every calculator has assumptions, and limitations. For best results, you need to understand both, and when the results apply, or don't.

i didn't even bother to comment on your 5k

if you are 5 or 6s out from from your predicted 1500 off 400 / 800, it is completely nonsensical to even bother to predict a 5k ( which i threw in for completeness )

you could be minutes above theoretical 5k if you primarily train for 800

someone later mentioned you ran 22+ ?

i assume 1-off, peak, rested 200

you shoud be capable of even 48+ if you have open 22+ speed & not female

no

i have tried it on lotta guys & watched their races

the only time ever i thought it may not work was Paula who ran 8'22 / 30'01 in '02 & had listed 4'05PB

the calculator said you can't run 8'22 off 4'05

it has to be ~ 4-flat

so i assumed Paula was exception that "broke" the calculator

then i saw her book in library & she states : ~

"after millennium, i ran a 4'01 TT"

calculator was not wrong

it was that Paula's 4'05PB was nonsense value for her 1500 ability when running 8'22

i suggest that detracts down to "great 1500"

i'm being honest, not critical

you are 5 or 6s shy of your potential 1500 ability

your 1500 is nowhere near as strong as your 800

it is nonsensical to even talk about 5k when your 1500 is far way short of your 800

i have even done mathematical tables for = value, which i believe are best possible :

go to

"Ventolin worksheet"

& see what 1'50/1'51 = for 1500, let alone 5k

IMO, the iaaf tables are utter crap, trying to make 10K WR have similar strength/value as the 1500

it is complete nonsense

believe it or not, at top end for any given talent level, it isn't !!!

clueless

i wasn't talking about him but a general "1'51"

to talk nonsense about aerobic, etc, drivel is innane without knowking how 1'51 was run for anyone

yeah

then why are you talking 55/56 case specific then waffling on about 53/58 ?!

i said never take any 800 time at face value until you know splits

clueless

this fallacy about nick needs crushing

he ran 47+ in cold, windy dublin off no starters blocks & standing start few weeks before games in '12

he tweeted later that year he expects to be faster at games for 400 when peak

he was in likely 46+ shape in games which is same as any other 1'42+ guy woud expect

if you have any doubt :

tweet him & ask him what he reckoned his 400 shape was at games

that is why i said never take a 800 at face-value

get a clue

nick's 400 at peak of suggested 47+ is nonsense

the OP, if he has 22+ rested, open 200, shoud be running 48+, as he has immensely more endurance with 1'51 then all the 22+ women in history, none of which have run 1'51, including kratoch & she ran 47+/1'53 !

I have never run anywhere near 22 seconds for the 200m, I don't know where this has come from sorry. I have run 23.7.

I can't even hit 22 second pace in 150m reps in training.

I mentioned the 5km because you wrote some predictions down ranging from roughly 13:50 to 15:00. These are way outside my ability I was just making that point and was also unsure what you were showing anyway.

Your calculator and Stats Gangstas are two different mathematical models, I can't apply to both. This suggests one or both are not accurate, and they can't be used on the same athlete and get the same results. And I think truthfully I don't apply to either. All models have their limitations.

I appreciate you and Stats Gangsta trying to educate me on using the calculators accurately, but I don't agree with the over estimates you are making. My 51 400m is not worth 48+ ever. I ran my PB for the 400m and 800m within the same month and both were rested, one off efforts.

I don't see how you can be certain that the calculator is always right an applies to everyone?

ventolin^3 wrote:

that is why i said never take a 800 at face-value

Which is exactly what I said, and you long-windedly disputed. At least you didn't resort to insults the first time.

The calculator was like $1.60 I don't need a refund lol.

Interesting to see you have now got angry over the fact that I disagree with the times it's spitting out. I'm assuming this calculator will never be updated and refined because you think you got the magic formula the first time.

Also interesting that you are actually arguing with me over what my PBs are and what I could run. I'm not new to the sport. I know 22 and 48 are out of the question. I know for certain now that the times you guess for the elites are straight out of your ass.

You got some attitude that's for certain.

Not sure why this thread was deleted but it's back by popular demand. Please don't berate individual posters that you disagree with. Moderators don't like uncivil tones.

no offence, but i don't think you know how to sprint

23.7s for 200 is very slow for a 1'51 guy

my tables get that as = to 1'57.9

23.7 = 51.9 for 400, so even that 200 is weak compared to 400

most guys like yourself have no idea about how to sprint a 400

it has to be approached same as an elite, with ~ 1.0s +ve splits for 200s, not "even" pace as most non-sprinters run it

learn to read

you are a 800 guy & are already good handful of secs off from predicted 1500

you are likely to be off from your predicted 5k by best part of a minute.

not if user input is properly considered

go ask your coach what he reckons your 1500 woud be if it was as strong as your 800

then use that 1500 with 1'50/1'51 for a 400

like i said

i don't think you know how to run a 400

it certainly woudn't be 48+, but it shoud be significantly better than 51.2

it does if you put in proper input

in your case, ask your coach what he thinks your 1500 shoud be if it was as good as your 800 & use that to estimate a 400

no

despite me pointing it out repeatedly, you can't seem to comprehend that using a "weak" 1500 time with your 800 is not going to get a realistic 400 estimate

depite this being told to you, you keep using same flawed method

if a 1'42 guy has a 4'00 mile as his pb, it is nonsense to use 1'42 / 4'00 to predict his 400

you are repeatedly making same mistake

it is

you have to use it properly

very much so

but i said they shoud be significantly faster than 23.7 / 51.2 as most mid-d guys don't know how to sprint

utter nonsense

i quoted paula's 1500tt from her book of 4'01

the calculator said her 4'05pb was nonsense & shoud be around 4-flat

i suggest you go buy/borrow her book before talking drivel

then i stated what symmonds said he reckoned his 400 speed wouda been at games

he reckoned lot faster than 47-low/mid which he ran in dublin few weeks before games

the implication being 46+, which is exactly that expected of a 1'42+ guy

go tweet him

I've yet to see a calculator that reveals the math that supposedly exists behind the numbers it spits out, nor one that is honest about the limitations of converting between MD, LD and sprints.

With "equal training," times increase exponentially over distance (log ~1.135) from 600m to mile as I wrote before, but that's not precise, and it doesn't carry over to 400 or 5000 because there is no metric for how much anaerobic or aerobic ability is there to carry over. In 20/20 hindsight I deduced your 400 ceiling from your 800 splits, but that was just lucky. Another 55/56 runner might run a 49 easily.

Suffice it to say your thread title is mostly correct.

Bad Wigins wrote:With "equal training," times increase exponentially over distance (log ~1.135) from 600m to mile as I wrote before, but that's not precise, and it doesn't carry over to 400 or 5000 because there is no metric for how much anaerobic or aerobic ability is there to carry over

nonsense

paula in '02 shape had virtually 100% accurate predictions for 1500 - 10k providing you saw her races or read her book

she had no 800 to go on nor 400 for '02, but the predicted 400 for her in '02 was very, very close to her ancient pb

a prelim line of fit for her in '02 :

58.5 / 2'02.8 ->

4'00.11

8'21.97

14'23.34

29'59.18

paula was as close to a "machine" as you will ever get & her 400 - 10k looks very predictable

Observation wrote:

Jundo wrote:

Ok, I ran 1:51.1 and 3:54.5 both in July this year. I also raced the 400m a couple of times throughout the year and the best I managed was 51.2. I also did a few relays and at best just broke 51. My 5km is 16:10 from a road course in January. I did far less aerobic work and far less mileage after February than in the period from September to Jan.

These are my honest efforts, I recognize my 800m is my best distance but I didn't run any of the other races with sub par effort. I threw up after one 400m race!

Your 400 seems pretty slow compared to your 800. I've always equated a sub 1:52 800m with a sub 50 400m. You're really getting a lot outta that 51!

I was a similar runner. 1:51.42 but with an open 400m PR of 51.x and a relay split of 49.x ( x = it was 16 years ago and I don't remember).

Jundo, I think that you might actually be a distance runner in disguise. I know I was. I thought I was an 800m specialist because my freshmen year in college I ran 1:53.6 and XC felt like hell. By my senior year, with enough aerobic conditioning, my 8K time fell to 24:08, but my 800m only cam down to 1:51.42. And my 800m time didn't suffer from lack of anaerobic training. My coach had us doing sprint work from January to May. All winter I raced 400's, 500's and 600's and all spring I ran 400's, 4x400's and 800's. I think I was simply not acknowledging that I was actually a distance runner with good speed rather than a true middle-distance runner. True middle-distance guys can run sub :50 and that gives them the economy to run sub 1:50. The fact that you're running 1:51.1 with 'only' a :52 - 400m means you're pretty darn strong.