OtherWorkouts? wrote:
These are my times, which type of runner am I?
400m: 53.72
800m: 2:01.96
Mile: 4:43
Your 400 lines up with your 800 but your mile is slow.
You look like an 800 runner - but I would be willing to bet that you simply are an improperly trained 800/1500 runner.
If you were a 400/800 type, I'd expect to see a much faster 400.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
smb wrote:I don't think it matters - your 4 and mile are completely average compared to that 8 time.
400m time is easily the best
Huh? The 800 is by far the best mark of the 3 times.
1st year coach wrote:
8th grader
200 - 27.50 (Split)
400 - 1:02.30 (Open indoors yesterday)
800 - 2:34 (last summer)
1600 - 6:06 (last summer)
3000xc - 13:00
7th grader
400 - 1:05 (open indoors)
800 - 2:38
1500 - 5:41
5000xc - 22:46
8th grader is more of a 4/8. That's a pretty quick 200 for an mid 2:30s 800 runner. The 7th grader is harder to tell, but it looks like she's more of a 8/15. I think that watching how they respond to training tells you more than race results when they're still really young though. My 4/8 kids take significantly longer to recover from aerobic efforts than 8/15 kids and the 4/8 kids look much smoother on short intervals. I think at the middle school level as long as they are having fun, establishing good habits, and staying healthy you're doing good work.
from looking at that,id say youre better over 800 metres,than the other two.what is your 1500 metre pb? if you get some run some 1500's rather than miles,thatll give you more of an idea.id say eventually youll be an 800/1500 runner.
You would be lucky to get 1/100 random boys running sub 54
He is training as a runner and anyone trained who can run 54 should be able to break 2 mins
Of course being 15 makes a difference as the runner is not fully trained up but the didn't mention his age
Just read through and no mention of the op's 'friend' being 15
The optimum conversion for is 53.87 + 4 x 2 = 1:55.74
So even if you make it 53.87 + 6 x 2 = 1:59.74
7 seconds which is a poor conversion rate
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Just read through and no mention of the op's 'friend' being 15
The optimum conversion for is 53.87 + 4 x 2 = 1:55.74
So even if you make it 53.87 + 6 x 2 = 1:59.74
7 seconds which is a poor conversion rate
That doesn't matter though. The OP may have a poor conversion from his 400m speed to his 800m.
Doesn't change the fact that the time he has run for 800m supersedes the other two marks in terms of quality. 2:02 will win a lot more races at any level than 53.9.
His 800m is better, then his 400m and mile are roughly equal. You cannot draw any conclusions as to whether he is a 400/800 athlete vs 800/1500 however, that is mostly down to his response to different types of training.
Metric Miler wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:Just read through and no mention of the op's 'friend' being 15
The optimum conversion for is 53.87 + 4 x 2 = 1:55.74
So even if you make it 53.87 + 6 x 2 = 1:59.74
7 seconds which is a poor conversion rate
That doesn't matter though. The OP may have a poor conversion from his 400m speed to his 800m.
Doesn't change the fact that the time he has run for 800m supersedes the other two marks in terms of quality. 2:02 will win a lot more races at any level than 53.9.
His 800m is better, then his 400m and mile are roughly equal. You cannot draw any conclusions as to whether he is a 400/800 athlete vs 800/1500 however, that is mostly down to his response to different types of training.
It does matter though because he is not sprinter but a middle distance runner.How is his conversion poor if his 800m time is better? Surely he has a good conversion off your assumptions?
I bet he has run 10 as many 800's as 400's as well
The mile is very average as well compared to the other 2 times he is getting prrogressively worse as the distance increases