ALL RUNNERS IN AMERICA WITH AVERAGE SPEED ARE CAPABLE OF........

run32 wrote:

Anything above 5k really has little to do with your 400 speed.

Can a runner with 60" 400m speed run 12:37 for 5km? Of course not. Distance performance is determined by speed and endurance, no matter the distance.

The marathon world record is run at a pace of about 4'45 per mile, and that would put you in the mid 4'30" range for the anaerobic threshold. For a 60" 400m runner this is an impossible task to accomplish with the training methods and even drugs of today. Speed does in fact play a big part in finishing time and pace of distance running. Does this mean that endurance is not needed? No, but don't fool yourself into thinking that speed is not a bottle neck.

If a runner with no health or biomechanical problems maximized his abilities at a single event with speed limited to 57" for 400m, I'd expect him to run:

800m: 1'59"5

mile: 4'10"

3000m: 8'05"

5000m: 13'50"

10,000m: 28'50"

Half: 1'03'30"

Marathon: 2'12'30"

Someone posted about "leg speed" being important and so on. I have a question. How come every time I try to do something short and fast like a 400 meters it doesn't seem to be "leg speed" that holds me up but endurance. In other words I'm flying at first but at about 250 I tie up so bad I'm practically walking it in. I even feel like I fade toward the end of a 200 meter run. But my long distance endurance isn't bad.

You prove my point, Hodge meister. People think that a runner needs killer speed to be an elite runner; not true for distance athletes. It helps, of course, but it should not hold people back from going after great distance race times. Tinman

The 400m requires good anaerobic/speed endurance as it is not run at maximal speed. So it is possible that you have very good 100m-150m speed and very good aerobic endurance, but lack the anaerobic endurance that would be required to maintain that high end speed.

i believe that average isn't quite the term for some of the times you guys are coming up with. average isn't sub 5 and not sub 3 i mean sub 60 quater speed? common among most men. Not even close

its been a while since ive run some of these distances...

400: 51

800: 2:01

Mile: 4:28

3200: 10:17

5k: 16:13

10k: 37:37

1/2: 1:16+

Marathon: 3:00+

I could go faster in everything tomorrow except the 400 and the Marathon...

One reason why you can fly and then tie up could be this. Fast twitch fibers pump more lactic acid into the blood stream than do slow twitch. Lactic acid in the blood is what slows every runner at some point. This is also the reason why so many who have posted slow 400m times are able to hold what little speed they have as they go to longer distances, they're simply not pumping a lot of lactic acid into their bloodstream, thus allowing them to maintain a steady pace for a longer period of time than speed runners. The body can be taught to clear out this lactic acid at a faster rate by running short speed intervals. Speed intervals (100-200m) produce the most lactic acid, by producing the lactic acid repeatedly the body will then learn to cope with the lactic acid builup.

According to Horwill, Rick Wohlhuter was the best world class runner at maintaing 400m speed to the 800m.

400m-48.2, 800m-1:43.9(51.95/400m) a differance of 3.75 seconds.

No. 2 was Seb Coe 400m-46.85, 800m-1:41.8 diff. 4.0 secs.

These men were both very fast and were able to hold their speed by running many repeated speed intervals.

****** "I'm 35 My prs are 16:22, 33:48, 1:15:10 and 2:37 all run in the last 2 years.

I couldn't break 60 seconds for 400m if my life depended on it." ******

I'm 21. 16:04 5K PR. Never ran sub 60 either.

No way could a guy with 57 speed could run 1:59 or 4:10. No way. If someone has run those times, and you actually ran the 400 while in top shape, please correct me. My conversion from the 4 to the 8, which is probably 95% accurate, is take your best 400 time, add 6 seconds, qand this is what you can run the 800 in if properly trained. ie a 50 sec quarter= 56 x 2= 1:52. or 60= 66 x 2= 2:12. I say a 57 guy maxes out at around 2:06.

I ran a 52 quarter, but I could not run a sub 2:00 800m.

My HS had bunch of 52 quarter sprinters who could not break 2:05 in the 800m.

Also, the longer distance guys who had 400 PR of 55 ran PRs of 1:58.

If you could run 52 in the quarter, i GUARANTEE you could be trained to run sub-2. as for your 800 guys, chances are they were running the 800 and not the 400 most of the time, or running the 400 open after running the 4 x 8.

I'm telling you, the 6-second conversion works 95% of the time, as long as your workload is fairly substantial (40+ miles/wk with 2 interval workouts)

Just my experience from running HS, college and coaching HS

My HS prs

51 mid, 1:55, 4:23

college 49 high, 1:52, 4:08

Most runners who are balanced between speed and endurance will slow about 9-10% when moving up to 800m from 400m.

A 57 second 400m run would equal a 2:04.3 to 2:05.4 for 800m

A 50 second 400m run would equal a 1:49 to 1:50 for the 800m

A 47 second 400m run would equal a 1:42.5 to 1:43.4 for the 800m

The world record for 800m will be set by sub 46 second 400m man. If Alberto Juanterano had focused on the 800m and not made it his second event, I think, in his prime, he could have run under 1:41 if pushed or paced.

Tinman

Interesting. Personally, I've never met a guy that could break 1:50 in the 800 and not break 50 in the 400.

Doper wrote:

You have too much faith on the average guy.

If we are talking about the average 30 yr old guy who runs 25 miles per week:

400m - :69

800m - 2:49

mile - 6:05

5K - 21:00

10K - 46:00

Marathon - 4:00:00

This is probably the best post on this thread. You guys who think an "average" guy has 57 second 400m speed are on crack. Most guys probably can run somewhere in the 65-70 second range. The times above are entirely correct for an average guy. I've run as high as 60mpw and my times are :63, 2:25, 5:10, 18:40, 39:00. Please don't tell me I'm not working hard (I am -- I'm just slower than shit).

I think many of these posts are reflective of what I call the "I have no talent I just work hard" distance runner. Ask vritually ANY distance runner out there and they'll say "I don't really have any talent...I just work real hard". Then the guy tells you he has run 14:45 or something for 5k. Yah, no talent, right. No talent is struggling to break 20:00 for the 5k or 42:00 for the 10k or 6:00 for the mile. I've been there. Trust me. Anyone who can run sub-5:00 for the mile has talent. If you can run sub-17:00 for the 5k, you've got talent. So quit making excuses and go use it.

Slow down by 6 seconds? That's shitty ass endurance.

I totally agree. I think many posters probably think, "what the average American with loads of talent can do". The average guy with average talent (whatever that is) who busts his butt, cranks out 40 to 50 miles per week might do a little better than the numbers above. With the genes our moms and dads gave us, there is only so much we can do with our training. The reason why we train is to max out our talent. I am still skeptical of someone with "average talent" who can run a 57-58 quarter can do a 2:05 half. If someone has lots of talent and is fairly young, can they do this? Yea, I guess, but I bet it is extremely rare. It's my guess that someone with "average talent" who could run a 57 quarter and trains very hard, would have a very difficult time coming any where near a half under 2:08, let alone under 2:05. My H.S. experience didn't show anyone, be it on my team or the other schools, that had anyone who could display these numbers. Our team had lots of talent, won the H.S. state championship, and the competition was fierce. Not a single guy I knew who ran a 58 quarter could run under a 2:10.

Colorado,

The original poster wasn't talking collegiate or national level. They said "average."

Also, you may blow by people at the end of your 5K, but all that blowing isn't cutting a minute off your 5K time. I see lots of guys "blowing by" people. Of course, I've finished the race already and am watching on my cool down.

very true and point taken. I'm not a fast or anything at 5k i'm a 800 guy I was just trying to point out that speed is indeed a factor when running theses races. Clearly not the only factor but it is needed.

For the average slow leg speed guy, I'm wondering if the following would help 400m/800m times. It is called the Tabata protocol and was developed by a Japanese exercise physiologist. It involves sprinting for 20seconds followed by 10second rest for a total of 4 minutes. His research showed this protocol significantly increased both VO2max (like 10% in 8 weeks) and Anaerobic endurance (14% in 8 weeks) for a sample of fit university students. They did this protocol 5 days a week on an exercise bike I believe.

I'm thinking, for us plodders, doing the 20second sprints would increase coordination at top end speed, leg strength and Anaerobic endurance enough to bring down the 400m times which could, as hypothosized, beneficially affect times at all longer distances. The VO2max tickle would be a bonus prize. What do you think?