49 400 with no training

Start going to the gym and train for a really good 800. You can run as fast as 1:47. 30 miles per week.

#TrainTrain

#ChristianityRocks

Why change your event when you're already a 1:50 800 meter runner?

Has he said that in previous threads?

If you're a 800/1500 runner, that 49 should be indicative of your 400 speed. I've never heard of an 800/1500 guy deciding to drop down and become a 400 specialist. If it's possible to bulk up and improve your 400 time, it will hinder your ability at 800/1500.

which scores higher OP?

It's rare, but if the 400m time is extremely good, it can work. Martin Rooney did this as a 16 year old (or thereabouts), and went on to run sub-44 and represent GB consistently.

OP, can we have some more info? How old ae you, and what are your 800/1500m times?

If you're 16 and your times are 49 - 1:55 - 4:10, then go to the 400. If you're 25 and your times are 49-1:49-3:45, then I would stick to middle distance.

coach wrote:

Why change your event when you're already a 1:50 800 meter runner?

Not a 1:50 runner but I don't think anyone my age is faster at both. My BMI is like 17

HM guy wrote:

It's rare, but if the 400m time is extremely good, it can work. Martin Rooney did this as a 16 year old (or thereabouts), and went on to run sub-44 and represent GB consistently.

OP, can we have some more info? How old ae you, and what are your 800/1500m times?

If you're 16 and your times are 49 - 1:55 - 4:10, then go to the 400. If you're 25 and your times are 49-1:49-3:45, then I would stick to middle distance.

I'm 140lbs 6'2 and I'm 16 I don't want you to be able to find out exactly who I am from searching me so my 800 is about 1:52 and my 1500 is like 4:20

Than you aren't an 800/1500 runner... you are a 400/800 runner who is currently running an event they are not appropriately trained for or genetically inclined towards. Sounds like you have some talent for your age. Good luck. Also not sure why you care about anonymity... its an unregistered handle and nothing you are saying is particularly inflammatory.

highhoppingworm wrote:

Than you aren't an 800/1500 runner... you are a 400/800 runner who is currently running an event they are not appropriately trained for or genetically inclined towards. Sounds like you have some talent for your age. Good luck. Also not sure why you care about anonymity... its an unregistered handle and nothing you are saying is particularly inflammatory.

Because it looks like I'm fishing for compliments 😂

12345leg wrote:

HM guy wrote:

It's rare, but if the 400m time is extremely good, it can work. Martin Rooney did this as a 16 year old (or thereabouts), and went on to run sub-44 and represent GB consistently.

OP, can we have some more info? How old ae you, and what are your 800/1500m times?

If you're 16 and your times are 49 - 1:55 - 4:10, then go to the 400. If you're 25 and your times are 49-1:49-3:45, then I would stick to middle distance.

I'm 140lbs 6'2 and I'm 16 I don't want you to be able to find out exactly who I am from searching me so my 800 is about 1:52 and my 1500 is like 4:20

Your like 4:20 1500 must have been run in 30mph winds.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

12345leg wrote:

I'm 140lbs 6'2 and I'm 16 I don't want you to be able to find out exactly who I am from searching me so my 800 is about 1:52 and my 1500 is like 4:20

Your like 4:20 1500 must have been run in 30mph winds.

haha haven't ran one this year

I think that gym is pretty good option for you

This feels like Reddit.

You’re not a 1500m runner. Plenty of girls and young women can run 4:20. NONE have ever run 1:52 for the 8. I’d stick with the 400/800.

12345leg wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Your like 4:20 1500 must have been run in 30mph winds.

haha haven't ran one this year

You're an 8/1500 runner and haven't run any 1500s this year?

A current 1500m pr would be helpful for you to pick your best event. But yeah, like others said, it looks like you should focus on 4/8 based on current info. As you get older and set some more PRs, you can decide if you should focus on just the 400 or just the 800, or keep running both, depending how it goes.

Jump into a 100 and 200 in a low key meet, btw. Just to get more data points. That will help you know if you have the speed to take the 400 to the next level or not.

We dont know the type of training you've been doing but you seem to be more of a 400/800 meter runner.

Given that you're only 16 you might naturally put on size and muscle in the next year or two even without strength training.

When you initially stated you ran 49 and that you are an 800/1500 I immediately replied that you're probably at 1:50.

With your times you're either a 400/800 runner or a very poorly trained 800/1500 runner.

I agree with those who say focus on the 400/800 for now. You can always move up to the 1500 later. A very general rule of thumb is that as you move up from 400-800-1500-3000, your pace for 400 goes up 4 seconds for a distance type guy. A 49 second 400 could indicate a sub 1:48 800 with proper training. When I was 16 I ran 4:15 1500, maybe 2:08 and 56-57 for a 400. With your speed you should run 4:15 in your jeans! I also was 6'2" 140 lbs when I stopped growing, it's pretty skinny. I'd say think long term, run more 400s, train for the 800 and see what happens.

When a person is a faster sprinter than all your peers, what made you want to be a middle distance runner? Ninety-nine.99% of middle distance & long distance runners moved up to middle distance & long distance after failing to beat their peers in sprints. If you are a 16 year old 400m sprinter, stop immediately training for 1500m. Posters are bring up the possibility of you being a 400-800 guy. You have posted no 200m time. Work on your 200m & 400m speed. You are a 400m guy at the moment. At age 16, Steve Ovett was a 200m & 400m sprinter. I know there was a Black African boycott, 1976 Olympics, but Ovett finished 5th, 800m, 1976 Olympic finals at age 20. Stop being a a middle distance runner immediately.