am I reading this wrong? wrote:
Arthurian Legend wrote:
What he meant was, if you can run under 25 for 200 (male) then the 800 is not going to be your best distance.
So he meant the opposite of what he said?
No, he was just saying move up to a longer distance. Lydiard is not known for telling runners they lack talent is he?
Arthurian Legend wrote:
am I reading this wrong? wrote:
So he meant the opposite of what he said?
No, he was just saying move up to a longer distance. Lydiard is not known for telling runners they lack talent is he?
...Which sounds like basically the oposite of "if you can run under 25 for 200 (male) then the 800 is not going to be your best distance." Why is being able to run faster than 25 seconds indicative of the 800m not being your best distance?
I hear you, and I am not disputing the accuracy of your statement, but rather questioning the accuracy of his.
I mean, the 7:43 is 7.5 consecutive 400s at 61.7. I find it inconceivable that he was never able to crank out a 56.something 400 (frankly, I would expect him to be in the 53s, but just cannot fathom him not being able to drop 5 seconds off of his 30000m pace.
am I reading this wrong? wrote:
Arthurian Legend wrote:
What he meant was, if you can't run under 25 for 200 (male) then the 800 is not going to be your best distance.
So he meant the opposite of what he said?
Sorry typo. Fixed it. Thanks for the heads up.
I would consider 25 low the line for considering someone a speed guy. Otherwise, you're talking about people who can train down to it.
Smoove wrote:
I've heard that about Salazar as well, although I just really cannot believe it.
This is sort of a silly question - it is stated as if this is some kind of agreed upon standard, but it is not something that I have ever really heard.
I do think :29 is adequate speed to run 4:40 though, for what it is worth. I am definitely an endurance guy, but always thought I had pretty good speed for a good D3 5k runner. At this more advanced point in my running career, I am guessing it would be really hard for me to break :28, although I should be able to break :29, and I am very confident that I could break 4:40.
Again, anecdotal evidence of one random guy's experience isn't really useful for purposes of establishing a rule of thumb, but I still think it is an adequate degree of speed (but you should be thinking about moving up to the longer distances over time).
Do you always talk this way? That'a lot of sentences to say a whole lot of nothing.
He must be right. I ran 26.7 for 220 yds and never cracked 4:40 for the mile- on 70 mpw, disgusting.
I wouldn't consider a 29-second 200 particularly fast. To me, a 200 under 25 seconds or a 400 under 52 seconds would indicate speed for a distance runner. That said, a 29-second 200 should be fast enough to crack 4:40.
Ask my college teammates. I was freakin' slow! I ran a couple open 800m races (one was a week after that 3:55, 1500m) and never broke 2:00 open. I ran 1:59.8 on a relay split indoors once though. I actually ran 3:56-3:55 for 1500m during spring break two years in a row and for those two years ran 2:00 flat for an open 800m both times a week later at another track meet in CA. My 400m PB may have been a 56-high relay split (I never an an all-out 400m in college), but in hs it was a 57 open. In workouts we could close in 62-60....but all-out for an all out 200m I never broke 27. Granted I was mainly training for 5km-10km-marathon in college.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
RejectJogger wrote:
Sage Canaday replied and even told me that he only had 27 high speed. He ran a 3:55 1500. He didnt break 57 in a 400..
No way could you run 3:55 if you fastest is 57
57+ 4 x 2 gives best at 800m of 2:02
So 61 seconds per lap.
No way can you hold almost double the distance at 62.7 pace
Learn something about coaching wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:
No way could you run 3:55 if you fastest is 57
57+ 4 x 2 gives best at 800m of 2:02
So 61 seconds per lap.
No way can you hold almost double the distance at 62.7 pace
This is Sage Canaday we're discussing here. He's a slow twitcher, an ultra runner who isn't afraid of shorter races. You post a lot here, you should have figured out some of this out by now.
An above poster just said that was his high school 400m. He was obviously afraid to do the sprints otherwise he'd know what he could actually run for 400m
Running is simple unfortunately so are you and you still don't get it.
S. Canaday wrote:
Ask my college teammates. I was freakin' slow!
I ran a couple open 800m races (one was a week after that 3:55, 1500m) and never broke 2:00 open. I ran 1:59.8 on a relay split indoors once though.
I actually ran 3:56-3:55 for 1500m during spring break two years in a row and for those two years ran 2:00 flat for an open 800m both times a week later at another track meet in CA.
My 400m PB may have been a 56-high relay split (I never an an all-out 400m in college), but in hs it was a 57 open.
In workouts we could close in 62-60....but all-out for an all out 200m I never broke 27.
Granted I was mainly training for 5km-10km-marathon in college.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
No way could you run 3:55 if you fastest is 57
57+ 4 x 2 gives best at 800m of 2:02
So 61 seconds per lap.
No way can you hold almost double the distance at 62.7 pace
Elites can knock s second off their relay split. Non sprinters tend to stand almost stationary when getting the batten.
Obviously if you ran 57 in HS you could at least have run 55 in college off natural development. I've seen kids go from 58 to 53.
When you mention 200m I bet you never did one fresh or in a race.
You've run 2 flat and you'd need 56.0 minimum to do that. 2:00 to 3:55 is a good conversion though you certainly made the best of what you've got.
There is no set in stone "rule" that says to run a 2:00.0 for 800m you NEED to have sub 56.0 sec 400m speed. Most guys couldn't do it for sure....I'm probably all slow twitch though. I was certainly not faster at 200m and 400m in college. I never ran those much in hs (JV relay stuff just for speed/kicks), however I tried a lot more in college in improve my flat out speed doing 8-10 sec hills sprints, sprints/ 100m strides a lot, weights and tons of drills. I didn't grow or gain any muscle mass/ft fibers...I was full grown by my junior year in hs. I'm fairly certain i never had the ability to run a 55-sec 400m. Not in hs. Not in college... and certainly not now. You seem to be very Horwill based? "The 4-second rule" doesn't always apply. It is not set in stone. Keep in mind I was also running marathons in college and training over 120mpw at times. What improved was my aerobic stamina/running economy and lactate clearance.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:
Ask my college teammates. I was freakin' slow!
I ran a couple open 800m races (one was a week after that 3:55, 1500m) and never broke 2:00 open. I ran 1:59.8 on a relay split indoors once though.
I actually ran 3:56-3:55 for 1500m during spring break two years in a row and for those two years ran 2:00 flat for an open 800m both times a week later at another track meet in CA.
My 400m PB may have been a 56-high relay split (I never an an all-out 400m in college), but in hs it was a 57 open.
In workouts we could close in 62-60....but all-out for an all out 200m I never broke 27.
Granted I was mainly training for 5km-10km-marathon in college.
Elites can knock s second off their relay split. Non sprinters tend to stand almost stationary when getting the batten.
Obviously if you ran 57 in HS you could at least have run 55 in college off natural development. I've seen kids go from 58 to 53.
When you mention 200m I bet you never did one fresh or in a race.
You've run 2 flat and you'd need 56.0 minimum to do that. 2:00 to 3:55 is a good conversion though you certainly made the best of what you've got.
I currently just MIGHT be able to crack 13 seconds for a 100m, if not get to 13.0x in good conditions and maybe do 26.xx in a 200m. Does this mean if I have the talent, I could develop my endurance to be running 8x100m in 14.99 with no rest? Because anything below 15 high/100m still feels like a bit of a sprint to me; can't see myself sustaining that for 2 laps even if I were to become an aerobic beast like Sage Canaday is; the mechanics of that pace are too much or is that something more mileage makes you comfortable with?
ukathleticscoach wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:
Ask my college teammates. I was freakin' slow!
I ran a couple open 800m races (one was a week after that 3:55, 1500m) and never broke 2:00 open. I ran 1:59.8 on a relay split indoors once though.
I actually ran 3:56-3:55 for 1500m during spring break two years in a row and for those two years ran 2:00 flat for an open 800m both times a week later at another track meet in CA.
My 400m PB may have been a 56-high relay split (I never an an all-out 400m in college), but in hs it was a 57 open.
In workouts we could close in 62-60....but all-out for an all out 200m I never broke 27.
Granted I was mainly training for 5km-10km-marathon in college.
Elites can knock s second off their relay split. Non sprinters tend to stand almost stationary when getting the batten.
Obviously if you ran 57 in HS you could at least have run 55 in college off natural development. I've seen kids go from 58 to 53.
When you mention 200m I bet you never did one fresh or in a race.
You've run 2 flat and you'd need 56.0 minimum to do that. 2:00 to 3:55 is a good conversion though you certainly made the best of what you've got.
You are fantastically stupid. You have the information from the man himself, and from me that your numbers don't work for a slow twitcher. Coaches should be constantly learning. You seem to have decided long ago that you already know it all.
I ran 4:54 off of 35 sec 200 speed. Not a high mileage guy either. 40 mpw at ~190 pounds, lean.
When in my periodization and how frequently should one be doing hill sprints and fast 200s to improve best on overall speed? I do 6 to 8 strides about 2 to 3 times a week after my easy runs.
Those regular strides will help a lot, especially after a good warm up. The more slow twitch you are like Sage the quicker you recover from sprints becauase... well because the slower you are the less it takes out of you and the faster you are the more it takes out of you.
200m sprints? Well full out sprints, not too often, maybe 150s at that effort, in other words train don't strain.
S. Canaday wrote:
There is no set in stone "rule" that says to run a 2:00.0 for 800m you NEED to have sub 56.0 sec 400m speed. Most guys couldn't do it for sure....I'm probably all slow twitch though.
I was certainly not faster at 200m and 400m in college. I never ran those much in hs (JV relay stuff just for speed/kicks), however I tried a lot more in college in improve my flat out speed doing 8-10 sec hills sprints, sprints/ 100m strides a lot, weights and tons of drills. I didn't grow or gain any muscle mass/ft fibers...I was full grown by my junior year in hs. I'm fairly certain i never had the ability to run a 55-sec 400m. Not in hs. Not in college... and certainly not now.
You seem to be very Horwill based? "The 4-second rule" doesn't always apply. It is not set in stone.
Keep in mind I was also running marathons in college and training over 120mpw at times. What improved was my aerobic stamina/running economy and lactate clearance.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Elites can knock s second off their relay split. Non sprinters tend to stand almost stationary when getting the batten.
Obviously if you ran 57 in HS you could at least have run 55 in college off natural development. I've seen kids go from 58 to 53.
When you mention 200m I bet you never did one fresh or in a race.
You've run 2 flat and you'd need 56.0 minimum to do that. 2:00 to 3:55 is a good conversion though you certainly made the best of what you've got.
I said to go exactly 2 56.00 is bang on the limit. You are just guessing that you could not beat you hs time in college.
As you mentioned Horwill his 4 second rule is the limit. Most cannot manage that & most people would say you need faster to go sub 2.
I've seen runners with a 400m on pb of 59 split an 800m in 58. Most runners don't know how to pace a 400m in lane tend to go too quick & die.
It's impossible not to gain in strength from 16/7 to 21 you don't need to be musclebound.
Relay is always last on the program. I bet you'd already run when you did your 400m relay or.
Either way imagine if you run for years but only run a couple of 5km races. You are not going to find your capability off that.
Still if you insist you didn't improve by 1.5 seconds in 4 years so be it!
Are you s reverse of all those ultra runners that like to trim their pr''s!
Most distance runners who talk about their times over shorter distances are talking about one off relay times or times that they hit in practice. If someone asks me what my best 200 or 400 is, I will tell them 26.8 and 55.6, which were times from when I tried to crush one of the last reps in a workout. I don't say that I had 24-25 200 speed or 54 400. While that may be imprecise for purposes of using the formulae that you want to use, it is the reality on the ground, and I think the better approach would be to simply accept what a fairly experienced, knowledgeable and successful (across a very wide range of distances) tells you about his own ability.
Are while it may seem like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth because I am dubious about the claims about Salazar's speed, if AlSal came on these boards and told me himself that he could not break 57 if he tried, I would accept it (notwithstanding his current credibility issues).
But you're likely to do your best 400s at the end of a workout like you did. Me too, same with 200s.
My best self timed session was 61.5 60.2 59.2 58.6 then 27.8 for 200 all with 7 minutes recovery and a 6 mile warm up before.
So that 27.8 is 28 in a race. Soon afterwards I ran 4.00 for 1500.
Speed endurance is different for diffent runners. Some people, most runners in fact just don't understand these things and will argue the point for years and never learn.