54.x
1:54.7
Hardly contested a true 400 so the 800 makes absolutely no sense. I was moving down in distance for the 8.
54.x
1:54.7
Hardly contested a true 400 so the 800 makes absolutely no sense. I was moving down in distance for the 8.
46:05 400
1:46 800
25' long jump
56
1:57.40
Fits the formula wrote:
Bacon n eggs wrote:I have never broken 55 for 400, but have run 1:58 for 800. That means I can run 59 twice, but have never run one lap in under 55. I feel that this is atypical. Why might this be? And does anyone else have a similar set of PRs?
Actually your times are in line with the formula: 400 time plus 4 sec x 2 for 800. My 400 is 56, add 4, equals 60 for a 2:00 800. Only ran a few 800s but the formula usually works adding 4sec each move up. 56-400 60 pace for 800, 64 for 1,500, 68 for 3,000 ( done 69s), 72 for 5,000, 76 for 10,000 (done 74).
I'm probably an anomaly, no matter what formula you use but I'd say its suspect...I am female though so maybe it changes by gender.
But My 400 and 800 PR are actually the same, 73 and 2:26, but the last time I ran an open 400 I was a sophomore in high school and I maybe ran one 4x400 after that. My coach claimed I ran faster in the 400 in a workout but I have no memory or record of it in my logs so I think he's wrong. I ran 74.8 at the 1500/mile, 80 at 3k, 82 at 5k, and 85 at 10k.
by that formula I'd have 73, 2:34(77), 5:24(81), 10:30(85), 18:32(89), 38:45 (93)
Or working backwards from my 10k PR
85, 81(16:52), 77(9:37), 73(4:53) , 69 (2:18) and 65.
50.5x open 400m
1:54.8x open 800m
I agree with that, my roommates in college were 1:46(now 1:44) 1:47, and 1:50. However we were all speed guys who never went over 35 mpw.
My 5k pr is 17:58 and my 8k is 30min so I could definitely use some strength compared to you im sure.
55.8 and 2:06.3
400 is a relay split
I only ran the 800 once this outdoor season, on a cold windy day where my only competition was my teammate who ran about 1:58 so I had no help pacing wise. I figure I could have run the range of 2:02-2:03 on a good day.
In my opinion that just means your more geared towards higher distances. Have you tried the mile? I think you could have a real legit time there.
400 split - 49.5 (never ran open)
800 split - 1:54.0 (also never ran open but split it twice)
Bit dissappointing. All my workouts pointed to the 1:51-1:52 range but never put it together. Last race that year (senior of high school) i basically ran 57 twice with the first and last 200 being exactly the same. Walked off the line and didnt feel tired, just pissed that i didnt give it my all.
49.42, 1:58.28.
When I ran 1:57, I split 52.
1:51 49.1
1:47 48.1
1:45 46.3
Those all splits and likely could have gone faster in the relay when I ran someof the 48-49 split pbs. But they my pb at the time.
uhmm.. hi wrote:
56.2
2:12.6
Which one is better? I'm a female.
Your 400m
Me 59/2:05
53.5 and 1:57.6
52.8 on a relay, 1:57 on a relay.
52.44
1.55.1
53 and 1:58
50.2 / 1:56 senior year of HS with a 49.7 relay split
49.8 split / 1:52.53. Only ran 2 400s that year, 49.8 and 50.1. Think if I ran it two or three more times and figured out what I was doing I could have run 48 high.
MediocreMiddleD wrote:
57.5 400 relay split, never under 59 otherwise
2:05 800 indoor
Had a coach tell me a good conversion is 400 time +3sec x2.
I have seen studies that indicates that optimal 800 pace is 400 pb + 6 sec and I would say thats a pretty good way to estimate or compare your times on theses distances.
I've run a 51.x high and only a 1:59... I'm supposed to be some sort of distance runner with xc and all. Welcome to my world! It really just comes to strengths and weeknessess, mine obviously being speed as a strength and endurance as a weekness
400_50.1
800_1:52.3
400 might be a little soft though, since I haven't raced it since college.
I think a running start 400 (ie relay) might be a better indicator of your 800 potential than a standing start 400, especially if you,re a distance guy. You're gonna really struggle with accelerating up to speed in the first 100m.