60sec 400=sub 5 min mile?

Thanks for your insight. I guess I hit a nerve with you. Okay. I m not even going to comment as your post speaks for itself. I still though think your a slow bastard. Good luck though your going to need it.

When i was in 10th grade my p.r. for the quarter was a 62, and i ran a 4:42. So i guess i just did the impossible. I am amazing.

I honestly can't break 60 to save my life. It's pretty hard to do so when you can't break 14 for 100 meters. Don't forget, El Guerrouj only slows down 8 seconds per lap from his 400 to mile.

Of course it is impossible to PREDICT an athlete's mile time based on his 400m time. However, the 400m time is very relevant to one's POTENTIAL at longer distances. Obviously, someone who can't break 60 sec. for 400m won't be able to run four consecutive 60 second laps for a 4:00 mile.

For the record though, there is no reason why a runner with 60 sec 400m speed should be incapable of breaking 5:00. I've run 4:52 with a 400m best of 59.5

why can't some of you idiots figure out the difference between "you're" and "your"??

this thread it starting to get old

Easily Influenced wrote:

Of course it is impossible to PREDICT an athlete's mile time based on his 400m time. However, the 400m time is very relevant to one's POTENTIAL at longer distances.

So Jeremy Wariner, who has recently run 44.80 as a 20 year old, has better potential at longer distances than just about any US distance runner if he only decides to seriously train for distance? What if Micheal Johnson or Marion Jones decided to dedicate themselves to distance running? Having run pretty fast 400's, they would sure have POTENTIAL according to you. And Salazer had no business running ~13:10/27:2x because his pathetic 400 speed? Maybe he was just faking it and could bust out a 48 if he really trained for the 400.

I dressed myself this morning.

But then I soiled myself after breakfast.

Since I'm sitting in my own filth, I think I'm going to clean out this horrid-smelling stuff in my pants. Oh my this smells terrible. I think I'm gonna puke...

This thread also reminds me of a guy I race against all the time in trail races. He is a really strong all-around athlete: not pro, but definitely pro-level in triathlons (fastest amateur, faster than most of the pros in a big race last year), very good trail runner, maybe 32 something for 10K. I have no speed myself with a 59.7 relay 400m best from high school, but I sprint by him in close races like he is standing still. He presses the pace at the end of races and has won races that way, but has never changed gears that I have ever seen, even in slower tactical races where he should have plenty left. I doubt he can run much faster than 65 for the 400. I would actually have a hard time imagining him going faster than 70, but that seems a bit ridiculous.

I changed but I forgot to take a shower so my new clothes are smelly now.

Hey guys ima freshman in highschool and in a 400 my PR is 61 but im usually burned out at the end of it. I have never tried a timed mile but i know i can run one. Do you guys think i can break a 6 min mile? Thanks

yep wrote:

i agree....i've never run faster than 62.7 for 400m and i have run 4:06 for 1500 and 4:22 for the full mile....400 speed is not really important as long as you are strong as hell

Each 400 in your mile would be around 65.1

I find it hard to believe that your 400 time was all-out when you were in mile pr shape. That's only a 2.4 second difference!

57 sec PR in the 400

4:40 for the mile

to the original poster: as people have said, yes, it's possible, but it's also difficult for a high schooler. i ran many 4x400's in hs with a best split of 59, and did a 4:55 1600m. for an older guy or for women, who have to be in relatively better shape to go 5:00, i'd expect the task would be more feasible.

interestingly, we had two sprinters on our team run the mile/1600 this year. they were both in 51s shape at the time and they ran 5:08 mile for one guy and 5:01 1600 for the other guy

to the people who claim 400 time and mile time are unrelated: please shut up. you are very, very stupid. "unrelated" is a specific statistical term. if two paired variables are unrelated, then having knowledge of one value will give you absolutely no knowledge of the other. however, if i know your 400 time, then I know with certainly that you cannot run a mile faster than 400time*4, so the variables certainly are not unrelated. if you plot 400 time vs. mile time from a large data set, you will see a strong correlation. your 400 time is not a perfectly accurate predictor of your mile time, but it is much better than, for example, the first letter of your last name.

for those who are bragging about how slow they are at 400m but can still run a good mile: that is not a badge of honor. you are annoying. claiming to be able to run a mile at 4 seconds/lap slower than your ability at 400m is asinine. maybe you've never run a 400, or maybe you don't know how, but your the effect of your preposterous claims in conjunction with your supercilious tone is abominable

btw i don't think i've maximized my 400 ability in a race, either. i suspect i could have run 58 back in high school, but never learned how to run a good 400.

i still haven't - my pr sits at 56.9 in a time trial, but based off of workouts and how i can keep up with some guys i ought to be 55.0. that's probably true for plenty of distance guys. we don't really know how fast we are at 400, except for the really quick runners who do lots of 4x4's and know how to run one.

unless you have competed in the 400 in a legitimate track meet, either starting from blocks in the open 400 or running a 4x400 leg fairly fresh, you really don't know how fast you can go. The fastest 400 I have ever ran in practice in an "all out" setting is maybe 55 high, but I have gone 51.5 in the open and 50.7 on a relay leg. Being that this board is mainly long distance runners, it is safe to say that some of these posters have more speed than they're willing to admit, but have never ran a 400 in optimal conditions. Nobody gives a f*** if you ran a 62.4 after wrestling two grizzly bears and kicking chuck norris in the balls after your physics final final when you had mono, not really a pr.

I never broke 5 minutes in high school for 1600 meters.

My 400 times averaged 53 low, and I have done 55 from a standing start in several workouts (after other intervals).

800 times were 2:02

Go figure.

Bulls**t right out of the gate

I ran a 4:59 off of a 67 400m PR