I know a guy who has run 14:31 and his PR is around 57. Another guy who's PR is 57.9 HT who has run 15:05 after going out in 4:37 and 9:26 at 3200m. These are guys who can barely run in the 13's for 100m. Now sure, if they dropped distance running and focused on the 400, they may be able to drop their time to 55 or below, but that would mean no more sub 15:00 5k. For some, it just cannot happen at the same time.
Well 5k pace being 6 secons slower per lap then mile race pace according to this analagy I should be running a 13:30-13:32 5k. Based on the fact that my best 1500m is 3:45.37 but the funny thing is my best 5k is a slow pitaful 14:16.
lkjhgfdsa wrote:
'elites' ??
anyone else think the word is being used improperly?
'elite', note 'elites'?
deer, not deers
Wow! Good point! What a contribution to the thread.
point being wrote:
1337hax0r wrote:Wrong.
If you can't run one lap in 55 seconds, you cannot run 12.5 of them in 71.99 each or faster.
It's simple mathematics.
Absolute nonsense. High School kids, and not good ones, can handle this one.
especially considering his contribution is completely wrong.
V6 wrote:
Okay, although I personally believe anyone who can break 15 but can't break 55 just needs to race it and is full of crap, I "stand corrected".
My new statement:
The vast majority of people who run sub-15, and particularly people who run sub-14 like McDougal, could easily break 55.
Dave Bedford could run 13:45 x 2 without stopping and couldn't crack 55 with a running start.
Dont Rush me wrote:
Dave Bedford could run 13:45 x 2 without stopping and couldn't crack 55 with a running start.
I nominate this post for most ridiculous exaggerated lie of the year.
hahahaha
i think the point is that the training for one discipline is not conducive to the training for another, and vice versa.
D Nice wrote:
hahahaha
i think the point is that the training for one discipline is not conducive to the training for another, and vice versa.
That's the problem with trying to explain this to some people. If the top-level elite guys can run a race, at say 89% of their max, then non-elite runners can't run the same race at 93% of their max. The point being that they might not run the 400, for instance, correctly, but they certainly have the ability to run faster. Of course training for a 10k is non-conducive to 400 performance, but when I look in Daniels' book, I find his tables to match up pretty well with myself and other runners I know.
dunes runner wrote:
That is totally false.
Buddy Edelen did a 55 second 400, at his fastest, and ran 28:00 for 6 miles and a WR of 2:14 for the marathon.
According to your statement, those running 12:37 for the 5k would need to run the 400 meters under 46.3 seconds!
I do agree that the vast majority of sub-15 guys (and especially sub-14) can run 55 seconds. There are always exceptions, though.
brettman10k wrote:
That's the problem with trying to explain this to some people. If the top-level elite guys can run a race, at say 89% of their max, then non-elite runners can't run the same race at 93% of their max. The point being that they might not run the 400, for instance, correctly, but they certainly have the ability to run faster. Of course training for a 10k is non-conducive to 400 performance, but when I look in Daniels' book, I find his tables to match up pretty well with myself and other runners I know.
This assumption is a pretty big one here. I could definitely concieve of a very non-elite athlete who could run a 5k or longer race at a higher percentage of max (max speed?) than your typical elite athlete.
Most elite athletes are going to be training at least somewhat for speed. Even if they're not maximizing their short distance speed, they're not going to totally neglect it.
I bet there are plenty of non-elite athletes out there who have never done a sprint workout, or even a set of striders, who just go out for a 5-10 mile run every day. Maybe they run some days at a hard pace and some days at an easy pace. There's no reason to think, however, that one of these people couldn't run a 5k race at a higher percentage of their max speed than a typical elite athlete.
Aussie runner Paul Arthur has run 13.4x for 5k and says himself his 400m best is 56.
Another way of putting this thought:
Just because someone doesn't have elite level speed (at 100, 400, 800, mile) doesn't mean that they've not got as good endurance as another guy.
Will we assume that the guy with the very best "endurance" is also going to have some of the best "speed"?
Perhaps there is someone out there who's got better endurance ratios than Bob Kennedy between his 400:Mile:5k, but this person is only blessed with 75 second 400m speed.
He can't have done that!
He isn't elite (sub 13:00) so he can't have run as high a percentage of his max speed as Bekele.
You see, Bekele can run a 5k in 12:37, which is 82.6% of his max 400m speed of 50.0.
Arthur runs a race which is OVER A FULL MINUTE LONGER than a 5k run by Bekele, so it's impossible that he could maintain a higher percentage of his max 400m speed--which assuming 13:46 and 56.0 would be 84.7%.
Clearly impossible!
McDougal's a great runner with a very positive future. He's young, I predict he'll kick down some people now and then...
qwerty wrote:
Aussie runner Paul Arthur has run 13.4x for 5k and says himself his 400m best is 56.
Things like this don't mean anything. These guys are probably either giving 400 pr's from their sophomore year in high school or they're giving their pr from the middle of a workout. I'm just under 15 in the 5k and if I wanted to sound like I was very good aerobically I could say that I can only run a 56 400. However, I would only be lying to myself if I said this because the last time I ran a 400 was during the summer after my junior year of high school in an open race with about 3 other guys (and I won the race so it was obviously not competitive). The point is, I know I can probably run a 52-53 second 400 now, but if I wanted to I could honestly say I can only run a 56.
Had some myself wrote:
He can't have done that!
He isn't elite (sub 13:00) so he can't have run as high a percentage of his max speed as Bekele.
You see, Bekele can run a 5k in 12:37, which is 82.6% of his max 400m speed of 50.0.
Arthur runs a race which is OVER A FULL MINUTE LONGER than a 5k run by Bekele, so it's impossible that he could maintain a higher percentage of his max 400m speed--which assuming 13:46 and 56.0 would be 84.7%.
Clearly impossible!
13:46 isn't elite?
Had some myself wrote:
Another way of putting this thought:
Just because someone doesn't have elite level speed (at 100, 400, 800, mile) doesn't mean that they've not got as good endurance as another guy.
Will we assume that the guy with the very best "endurance" is also going to have some of the best "speed"?
Perhaps there is someone out there who's got better endurance ratios than Bob Kennedy between his 400:Mile:5k, but this person is only blessed with 75 second 400m speed.
There seems to be a confusion here. Everyone looks at 400 "race" as "speed" in a distance runner. If you run a 400 all out in 60 and another runner runs a 400 all out in 54, the two efforts are equal in %. There's no such thing as "only" having 58 second speed in the 400 but being able to run 13:40. If anyone says that then that is just a clear lack of understanding of everything. If you can't run a 400 faster than 60, you can't run a 13:45. Can't be done. No one has ever in the history of distance running been found to run at that high a percentage of their max. Why am I explaining this, I cannot take it anymore, I'm done.
brettman10k wrote:
13:46 isn't elite?
His whole post was a joke.
bob kenendy couldnt break 52 for the 400m and look at how good he was. irv ray takes a lot about stamina indicators in his book. my roomate was a former national champion in the 10k, can run sub 14 for the 5k and 28:30s for the 10k but would have a hard time running 55. you can spit out all of these forumulas but ive done workouts with him and could blast him on the shorter, anerobic power intervals but at the time, he could beat my by a minute in the 10k. he ran a fresh 400m time trial before nationals his senior year and only ran 54 high, dying like a champ.