Equivlant times from 800 to longer road races

my first thought was a 1:56 was equivlant to something like:

5K: 15:45

10k: 33

half: 1:13

full: 2:35

all on flatish roads

thoughts? any of these times stand out as harder or easier than others? I was working off of a 1:56 is good for a runner but isn't going to get you serious D1 looks, similar to a 15:45 5k.

I'd say faster

any estimates in your mind?

I don't think you can calculate from 800 to Marathon.

Maybe to 5k. But beyond that it will not be accurate at all because the kind of running you do is so different.

Anyway just try longer distances and see what happens.

Using all 3 of your times and the rate at which you slow down I get the following...

5k 17:16

10k 39:31

half 1:36:25

full 3:40:41

idk what kind of calculation you did but this is definitely off by a lot as far as similar times go

considering I did a long run half in sub 1:30 and it wasn't too hard, felt like I could have kept the pace for 3-4 miles without much effort

Using only the 800 and 1600

5k 1648

10k 3804

half 132

full 328

Using the rate of slow down I would normally use

5k 1431

10k 3106

half 7043

full 231

for 1:56.00 and a balanced profile (speed VS endurance, like a 1500-5000 guy)

5k : 14:43

10k : 31:07

Half : 1 h 08

Marathon : 2h28

But in your case, being a 400/800 guy it will be hard to hit this times since you clearly lack endurance and even if you work a lot on it you might have too many fastwich fibers.

Maybe 2h40 marathon for you with good training

Linkity Link Link wrote:

Using all 3 of your times and the rate at which you slow down I get the following...

5k 17:16

10k 39:31

half 1:36:25

full 3:40:41

what calculator are you using?

I don't find any where you can use 400m time.

51sec for the 400 would be more accurate to put in the calculator since it was relay.

It is very tough to use an 800 and then calculate stamina based races.

You can get a relatively accurate mile, but after that, who knows.

The problem with the calculators is they assume you are aerobically trained for the event in question. So a 2:20 marathoner should be able to run 1:56 for 800, but 1:56 800 runners can't expect 2:20 without a full marathon preparation program.

That is to say the calculators work well predicting down to shorter distances, but they work poorly predicting up.

Do a 2k or 2400 time trial and plug those times into a calculator for better predictions.

Impala31 wrote:

for 1:56.00 and a balanced profile (speed VS endurance, like a 1500-5000 guy)

5k : 14:43

10k : 31:07

Half : 1 h 08

Marathon : 2h28

But in your case, being a 400/800 guy it will be hard to hit this times since you clearly lack endurance and even if you work a lot on it you might have too many fastwich fibers.

Maybe 2h40 marathon for you with good training

definitely have been more of a mid guy and trying to move up so not expecting any immediate results. really felt like I hit a point where with the 800 I may have been able to get another 1-2 seconds on a good day but more than likely I was plateauing. Figured Id give my hand at the longer more accessible road races a go. I definitely have lacked endurance but not sure if it is me or the training I was doing back then. even in base building for HS I was topping out at ~40 max, never doing anything more than 60 minutes either and was doing the classic sub 7 easy run pace mistake.

a 2:40 marathon seems like a reasonable goal for the long term. Probably will try and do a half time trial soon and see if I can break 1:20 off the current training im doing then go from there. right now its been trying to hold 50 and doing 2 quality days plus a long run. the quality days are tempos, broken tempos and fartleks with some hills or 30 seconds strides at the end

McMillan calculator gives 14:57, 31:03, 1:09, and 2:25. McMillan's own fine print on the calculator will tell you something to the effect that you probably won't hit those times.