The real answer to these kinds of question/threads on 400 speed is DNS. You don't ever need to run a 400 m race to run a 4:20 1600 m. It would be misleading anyway, since a distance runner hopping into a 400 m race would probably under perform substantially compared to if they focused on training for the 400. It's more realistic to go from where the runner is now in the 1600, and whether they are on track to improve.
ironside wrote:
ThatAverageRunner wrote:
I'd be willing to bet there's someone who can run ~4:20 but can't crack 60 in a 400m. A very rare outlier, yes. But I'd bet it's possible.
Have you found the person? If such a person is listed, said person may have raced last 400m in 8th or 9th grade. By senior year 1600m time down to 4:20. This hypothetical person would be capable of much faster than 60 seconds for 400m at the time said person raced 4:20 for 1600m. Proving me wrong is to show a person racing 400m in 60 seconds, a relay leg is ok, the same school year racing 4:20 1600m.
Didn't Seth Hirsch (senior last year, placed pretty high at Foot Locker, at Wisconsin now I think) say something along the lines of "I can't break 60 for a 400m, but I can run a lot of them" in an interview? I disagree with 60 second speed being able to get you under 4:20 but if you wanted an outlier, that's the kid.
I ran a 53 relay split in HS for the 400m and ran a 4:15 mile
All of you pathetic formal logic students whom high jacketed this thread need to look in the mirror. OP simply asked for advice to break 4:20 for 1600m. You pathetic pieces of sh&t went on and on about 65 is all that is needed for 400m speed to break 4:20 for 1600m. Then you pathetic individuals posted faux sh&t about pretend 1500m 4:04 runners and faux 4:22 mile runners with 60 or 61 400m speed. Bull sh^t! No one can run sub-4:20 1600m without sub 57 400m speed! Any so-called man who brags about not being able to run sub 60 for 400m is not a real man. If you are a male, why can't you race sub-60 for 400m, if you are under age 25? Sub-60 for 400m take a bit of b$lls and desire.
Yes. With 53 speed, you can go faster than 4:20.
It's not like you are training for the 400, so you could do a faster 400 also.
ironside wrote:
Blah blah, whine complain.
I never broke 56 in high school and ran a 4:06 1,500. 55 is plenty fast to break 4:20.
ironside wrote:
ThatAverageRunner wrote:
I'd be willing to bet there's someone who can run ~4:20 but can't crack 60 in a 400m. A very rare outlier, yes. But I'd bet it's possible.
Have you found the person? If such a person is listed, said person may have raced last 400m in 8th or 9th grade. By senior year 1600m time down to 4:20. This hypothetical person would be capable of much faster than 60 seconds for 400m at the time said person raced 4:20 for 1600m. Proving me wrong is to show a person racing 400m in 60 seconds, a relay leg is ok, the same school year racing 4:20 1600m.
If this person exists, it likely isnt a senior in high school. It would need to be somebody with an extremely well developed aerobic system, something that takes 8+ years.
I wouldnt be surprised at all if a very few 30 to 40 year old runners can run 4:22 in the mile with a current 400m ability of 60 flat. Outliera may be hard to find, but that doesnt mean they dont exist or arent possible.
The real issue is how are you going to find a FAT 400m time for that person? So you'll just have to believe anecdotes. I had a teammate who was a 29:30 10k runner. He ran 4:15 at the end of a DMR and he never ran faster than 28 for the 200m in practice.
Another teammate if mine was a 30:30 10k runner who ran an all out 400m in practice on multiple occasions, because he was obsessed with how slow he was at it and wanted to get faster at it. He was stoked to run 61 one day. He ran 4:05 in the 1500.
If youll never be satisfied that a 60/4:20/4:22 is possible unless you see FAT times for somebody at the same relative time, then we will probably just have to agree to disagree, since I'm not sure anybody is going to find that evidence for you that meets your burden of proof.
ironside wrote:
All of you pathetic formal logic students whom high jacketed this thread need to look in the mirror. OP simply asked for advice to break 4:20 for 1600m. You pathetic pieces of sh&t went on and on about 65 is all that is needed for 400m speed to break 4:20 for 1600m. Then you pathetic individuals posted faux sh&t about pretend 1500m 4:04 runners and faux 4:22 mile runners with 60 or 61 400m speed. Bull sh^t! No one can run sub-4:20 1600m without sub 57 400m speed! Any so-called man who brags about not being able to run sub 60 for 400m is not a real man. If you are a male, why can't you race sub-60 for 400m, if you are under age 25? Sub-60 for 400m take a bit of b$lls and desire.
Because I'm not under age 25, I'm 35. Yes, I broke 60 back in HS, and if I trained for track rather than the roads I probably still could. But the point is that it is possible to have a highly developed aerobic engine (I've run a 1:08/2:25) and retain the ability to run 4:24 without the fast twitch and turnover needed to break 60. This combination is unlikely to be found in a younger athlete, but fairly common in older sub-elite and elite marathoners. A guy like Meb can drop a 4:40 on First Ave during NYC marathon, so do you doubt he could easily go 4:20 in a mile? But just how fast do you think he could run a quarter all out?
Exactly my story.
Buddha14 wrote:
I can barely break 57, but ran 4:19 full mile indoors while training for 10k.
Soupy11 wrote:
Seth Hirsch ran 4:14 and in some interview he said he doubted that he could break 60 for the 400
+1