What is the minimum raw speed of a 400m for a 4:15-4:20 mile?

Faster than ever wrote:

Not true. You have already been provided examples f guy who ran 60 seconds and 4:20 which was what the OP was asking. Furthermore, Only 2 of the last 9 guys to go under 4:20 at my high school could run 54 or better.

LOL! Your school never had a single guy go under 4:20, let alone 9 guys. What fantasy world are you living in. I dare you to post a link from MileSplit or Athletic Net of a single guy who broke 4:20 from your school and we can look at his actual PRs. Yeah, I though so, troll.

When I ran a 4x400 split wrote:

When I ran a 4x400 split of 60 flat I was running 4:36 or so in the 1600. When I ran a 57 split I made a huge jump to 4:18. Senior year I split a 52, and ran 4:14, but I think that wasn't the perfect 1600 race.

In college I ran a 400 time trial in 54, but I was running 4:07 full mile at the time.

Generally, I'd say a sub 4:20 you need to be sub 60, sub 57 is better, if you're sub 55 and you're struggling to run 4:20, then the speed isn't what's limiting you. Most high schoolers, it's not the speed that's limiting them. It's the fact that they don't run very much, or they completely jog everything except their 8 x 400 workout. You've gotta get in some good tempo work as well.

.

No way. 60/4:36 is a slow-twitch runner and if you could have improved your 400 to 52, you would have run close to 4:00. Improving from 60 to 52 is not going to happen. It would be like an XC runner with below average top-end speed becoming very competitive at middle distance.

We have had 9 guys go sub 4:20 over the past 5 years, the fastest being 4:12.

Check out the 400 PRs of some of these guys.

I have crap footspeed. Lost 4 of every 5 final kicks. Split 56 mid in the 400 and was just under 4:20. But I'm a 5k and up guy for sure.

I ran 52 in the 400. Never broke 4:26.

CoachB wrote:

If we're talking about college / post college guys with well developed aerobic engines, then the 6 second per lap rule might apply. For almost all high school kids I've ever encountered, it's probably more like 54 seconds in the 400 to run under 4:20 in the mile.

Around here, there aren't that many guys that run under 4:20. Maybe in our part of the section we get 1-2 per year. Those guys always end up on a 4x4 and split 50-52. Granted, we are not in an area where there is a huge distance running hotbed, but sub 4:20 guys around here are always pretty FAST

It is definitely a very small subset of kids who come close to the lower end of the splits. Most people are a lot closer to your 54/4:20 guy (call it 10s) than that 54/4:05 (call it 7s) guy. Go look at elites MS guys with their <48s 400ms and they are running 56s pace and not 54s pace.

How much of the slow guy with a fast mile time is a result of not running a 400m when in shape, doing zero sprint training (i.e. you never do 100s all out), or actual limits I will leave up to you. But I am pretty confindant that if you think you are running 4s off a remotely legit 400ms for 1600m, you are going to be disappointed.

And no training like a 400m guy for 6 months isn't the answer either. You need to have that speed inn the context of being a distance runner.

I'm much like "illinoisjones" -- no need to go 55 to run a mile in the 4-teens -- my best marks:

400 - 57.6 (relay split)

800 - 2:04 (in practice, FWIW)

1500 - 3:59.6

Mile - 4:19.0 9 (could have been faster; I was doubling back later, so with the 3rd place points locked up, I cruised the last 75-80 yards).

Some other interesting results are here --

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1845375

HOOWIEE wrote:

At least 52. Good luck otherwise.

I don't agree. I ran 4:18 for the mile during my senior high school track season and ran multiple 400s that season, regularly hitting 54 seconds.

I think this discussion is silly. Someone on this thread was saying "4:20 in high school isn't fast. It just isn't" or something close to that. That is so unnecessarily demeaning and seems to seek to strip pride from people who did run 4:20 and perhaps never ran any faster. Many people in the running community, especially on letsrun.com, seem to base their self worth on their perception on whether or not they are or were fast at one point. They forget how relative it all is. They also miss the point. Running means something different to everyone.

For some, it's just about comepting with your peers in your local area (and into bigger localities as you profress), and if you succeed or at least try your best in that arena, then you were successful. For others, it is about getting a college scholarship or getting into a better academic school. And for many people, a 4:20 mile is or was enough to do that. For some people, running is just about trying your best or having fun, and if you did that, then that's good for you.

Talking about raw speed for a 4:20 mile is silly when you think about how 4:20 really is a common high school benchmark, and these high schoolers have so many different motivations, training backgrounds, and physicalities. There's no way of attributing a raw 400 speed threshold to a 4:20 mile, other than that you certainly need to be able to run at least one lap in 65 seconds or faster.

I do think my 4:18 mile was fast, even though always wanted to run so much faster and I spent a long time disappointed in myself for my lack of improvement from there. But I don't think that's important. I am so proud of how hard I worked and the sacrifices I made to run 4:18. I only wish that I wasn't so hard on myself for not getting any better.

That is a quote of Nico Young's high school coach. It will be used here forever. Complain to the quoted individual, not the person quoting it. But a 4:20 guy is probably at the high jump pit when the national champ is finishing. I would say fast is 4:15 or under when talking on a global website like LetsRun.

reasonableperson001 wrote:

I do think my 4:18 mile was fast, even though always wanted to run so much faster and I spent a long time disappointed in myself for my lack of improvement from there. But I don't think that's important. I am so proud of how hard I worked and the sacrifices I made to run 4:18. I only wish that I wasn't so hard on myself for not getting any better.

This board is delusional about how fast things like 54s and 4:20 are. Some of it is false modestly and some is that you spend more time looking up (those kids running 4:05) than you do looking down (all the ones who try hard for 4 years and struggle to run 4:55). Outside of a few large states, if you run a 4:18, you are going to be one of the half dozen best runners in your state.

Realistically the splits for most people are in the 8-10s range. There are a few outliers that are a bit better and tons who are slower.

I ran 3:56 1500m so probably 4:13 mile equivalent. I ran 1:59 800m and could run 55-56 400m with a rolling start in relays. I would say minimum for a 4:20 mile would be 59 or 60 400m speed.

Joseph McVeigh wrote:

I'm much like "illinoisjones" -- no need to go 55 to run a mile in the 4-teens -- my best marks:

400 - 57.6 (relay split)

800 - 2:04 (in practice, FWIW)

1500 - 3:59.6

Mile - 4:19.0 9 (could have been faster; I was doubling back later, so with the 3rd place points locked up, I cruised the last 75-80 yards).

Some other interesting results are here --

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1845375

I find it hard to believe your claimed 400 and mile times, but if true, your best event would have been the 2-mile and you would have been awesome in XC. There was a guy in our section that maybe was that slow for 400 and ran 4:19, but he also ran 9:05 and won the section XC title.

Ran 4:20 in hs and couldn't break 56 with a running start on my best day

If you've got a bit of mileage under your belt and some short track work at 63-65s pace, your top end speed isn't so important

I think this is a great point, and one that I was trying to get at. People who ran in the 4:15-4:20 range are often obsessed with the people at the next level or two, and forget or refuse to give themselves or others in their range any credit. I'm not saying you shouldn't want to be better (very few people have run 4:15-4:20 without that innate desire), but that you can want to be better without having to put others down.

I see that another poster is saying that the "4:20 isn't fast" thing was a quote from Nico Young's coach. It's really a shame that there are coaches out there talking like that. My high school coach had such a huge impact on me and my teammates by validating our personal accomplishments and encouraging us to go for more without putting us down. I wish we could all place more emphasis on the nice people in our lives than remembering the ones who put us down.