Almost no one on this site is running 100mpw to improve their mile times. We're long distance runners trying to run well at 8k-marathon for the most part. That said, I actually have seen people run mile PRs off nothing but base mileage, tempos, and mile repeats.
kipper wrote:
Not impossible. I ran under 3:40 in the 1500 and could only muster 50-high with a running start at my sharpest.
What were your bests for 3000 and 5000?
People with your basic speed and sub-13:00 strength (or close to it) have run some very fast 1500s.
From the Komen training thread:
warm-up 4x400m 52,52,52,53 + p 3
Anyone still doubt Komen's sub 50 400 speed?
Notice how that doesn't give rest? I still have no idea what his speed was, other than probably not all that great.
Koman has run a 3:46 mile, and morons on here claim his speed is "probably not all that great."
You really never know. Published sprint PR's are years before someone hits the big time. Someone in 3:50 mile form rarely if ever runs a serious/flat out 400. Why would you risk injury? The training is different so you can't be at your peak for both at the same time.
milers-need-speed wrote:
From the Komen training thread:
warm-up 4x400m 52,52,52,53 + p 3
Anyone still doubt Komen's sub 50 400 speed?
Based on that? If that's "evidence" of anything it would seem to be that he ISN'T capable of running much faster over 400 meters. Why else take near-complete rests after reps?
Have you ever run a 400m?
Kiprop only run 49 and he is 3:30, and komen is insane
flower-poewerless wrote:
Have you ever run a 400m?
Yes, and with three minutes rest in between reps I would have no problem running 2-3 seconds slower than all-out for 4 reps.
If you can 4x400m 2-3 seconds slower than your best effort, don't you think Komen, one of the world's most talented middle distance runners , could also? Of course Komen could break 50 seconds for the quarter. He's run 3:46 for the mile. Do you understand the talent and speed required to run such a time?
lol, you contradicted yourself.
Azaleas wrote:
Notice how that doesn't give rest? I still have no idea what his speed was, other than probably not all that great.
3 minute pause
I agree Komen was probably the slowest at 400, and the most amazing of the bunch, WR's at 3000 and 5000m.
Now there's an indication of something.
kipper wrote:
marijuologist wrote:That's sheer bullsh*t. Maybe he never put much effort into his 400 time, but it's impossible to run much under 4:00 if you don't at least have the capacity to break 50.
Not impossible. I ran under 3:40 in the 1500 and could only muster 50-high with a running start at my sharpest.
I don't believe this. If you ran sub 3:40 you were capable of faster than 50-high, even if you didn't actually do it.
flower-poewerless wrote:
If you can 4x400m 2-3 seconds slower than your best effort, don't you think Komen, one of the world's most talented middle distance runners , could also? Of course Komen could break 50 seconds for the quarter. He's run 3:46 for the mile. Do you understand the talent and speed required to run such a time?
What you don't apparently understand is that with 7:20 strength, one does not need to be particularly fast to run 3:46 or 3:29.
Skeptik wrote:
kipper wrote:Not impossible. I ran under 3:40 in the 1500 and could only muster 50-high with a running start at my sharpest.
I don't believe this. If you ran sub 3:40 you were capable of faster than 50-high, even if you didn't actually do it.
Your belief is irrelevant. It is obvious to many of us that one can run 3:39, for example, without being able to run faster than 50xx for 400 meters, or even 51 flat. Your inability to believe this is not a factor in whether this is true or not, and of course it is true...
Koman, while not as fast as others with similar mile times, could still break 50 seconds for 400m. Also, he has run reps of 4 x 400m in 52 off 3 minutes rest, indicating he could break 50 seconds if he was rested and fresh for a one time effort.
Skeptik wrote:
kipper wrote:Not impossible. I ran under 3:40 in the 1500 and could only muster 50-high with a running start at my sharpest.
I don't believe this. If you ran sub 3:40 you were capable of faster than 50-high, even if you didn't actually do it.
Sure, if you would have asked me when I was competing I'd have said I could muster a 48-high on the right day. But with some time/reflection (and results), sub 50 would have been a real feat.
I ran a couple open 400s and 1st legs in 4x4s and never cracked 51. The 50-highs came in workouts similar to Komen (2-3x400 w/ complete rest), hitting the 1st in 50-high, 2nd and 3rd in 51s.
Lol: sub 13:50 5k; also ran sub 1:48 w/ even splits, so I had decent strength that made me look much quicker than I was.
LOL Louder wrote:
Koman, while not as fast as others with similar mile times, could still break 50 seconds for 400m. Also, he has run reps of 4 x 400m in 52 off 3 minutes rest, indicating he could break 50 seconds if he was rested and fresh for a one time effort.
Not necessarily. Komen had the endurance to run repeat 400's close to his 400 PB. Asking him to run one 400 at top speed wouldn't have resulted in much under 50 (49.6 maybe).
Ray Flynn never ran under 50 for the open 400.
A 1 second differential between relay split and out of the blocks is not a given for a middle/long distance runner.
lol lol lol lol wrote:
What you don't apparently understand is that with 7:20 strength, one does not need to be particularly fast to run 3:46 or 3:29.
Right. If Koman had run 48/400 and 3:46/mile, he wouldn't have been anywhere close to 7:20 and 12:39. His key training was many sets of 400's (200-1600) right around his 3k pace (58.7).
The 4 repeats at 52-3 3p was by far the fastest session that he did, and was not his usual training.