Spiked up and ran 36.3 for 300m. Not FAT but I used a camera to time. Time started when I started moving, so reaction time may be a factor. Is this a good predictor for sub 50 400m speed?
This was to set a baseline of where I’m at, as I’ll start moving towards 800m training at the end of October, and am wanting to see if shooting to make the 4x4 is valid (I’ll need about 47.9 relay/ 48.9 open)
I’m Currently running 65-75 mpw so not primed for sprinting at all.
do you really not know?
Eh, close. Certainly it's a solid starting point. I would say around 50 mid equivalent which is great for a practice session and for September.
Nope. I’m absolutely clueless when it comes to sprinting and conversions. Some calculators put me at 48-high and others put me at 51 low. None of which factor in endurance vs speed, current training, etc.
You’d think if I did know I wouldn’t be asking right?
I need more data.
* Can you free weight squat x 2 your body weight, 10 reps going 3/4 down?
* Can you calf raise x 2.5 your body weight, 10 reps?
* Thirty-inch vertical?
* Percentage of body fat sub-10%?
* F.A.T. sub-23.25 200m?
* 10 Rocky Balboa one armed push-ups each arm?
*** Sub-43 350m under your camera starting method?
If you can do all seven I nearly guarantee F.A.T. sub-50 seconds 400m!
should easily be sub 50..
Based on your prior training, you absolutely did NOT run 36.3.
Sorry, you just are not that quick. If you had sub 50 speed at your age and were doing 70mpw, you’d be national class, which we know from your training that your are not. You cannot run 48, stop trolling people on here.
You’re probably more like 37 flat, and 37.5 FAT. Still very respectable for a distance runner and even mid distance/long sprinter. Would put you at 51 flat, which sounds reasonable based on your training.
put on your thinking caps wrote:
Based on your prior training, you absolutely did NOT run 36.3.
Sorry, you just are not that quick. If you had sub 50 speed at your age and were doing 70mpw, you’d be national class, which we know from your training that your are not. You cannot run 48, stop trolling people on here.
You’re probably more like 37 flat, and 37.5 FAT. Still very respectable for a distance runner and even mid distance/long sprinter. Would put you at 51 flat, which sounds reasonable based on your training.
What training are you referring to here? I don’t believe I’ve posted much regarding my day to day training in months. That 300m time isn’t hypothetical.
What I do know is that I’ve successfully lowered my bodyfat% and weight a solid amount, while also having considerable gains in lower body lifting along with Olympic lifting. That means I have measurably improved my strength to weight ratio considerably since running 51. All while maintaining strong mileage.
My question to you: What purpose would I have making this post if not being genuine? Does one gain any clout by faking a time under an anonymous handle? Do you think I get an absolute kick out of people saying “I think you could run 50 right now, sub 50 is a realistic goal”
You know close to nothing of my training. You know nothing of where my goals are for the upcoming track season.
You are betting against someone that went 65-57-53-51 year to year doing just middle distance work and mileage for the most part, who is now actively working to improve in this area under D1 coaching. Idk about you, but to me that colors you a Grade A Moran.
I'm going to guess more like 37 flat FAT.
I think you are probably close but would put the over/under at 50.3 or so rather than 50 flat.
I bet you get could break 50 in a 4x4 split though.
CopperRunner wrote:
put on your thinking caps wrote:
Based on your prior training, you absolutely did NOT run 36.3.
Sorry, you just are not that quick. If you had sub 50 speed at your age and were doing 70mpw, you’d be national class, which we know from your training that your are not. You cannot run 48, stop trolling people on here.
You’re probably more like 37 flat, and 37.5 FAT. Still very respectable for a distance runner and even mid distance/long sprinter. Would put you at 51 flat, which sounds reasonable based on your training.
What training are you referring to here? I don’t believe I’ve posted much regarding my day to day training in months. That 300m time isn’t hypothetical.
What I do know is that I’ve successfully lowered my bodyfat% and weight a solid amount, while also having considerable gains in lower body lifting along with Olympic lifting. That means I have measurably improved my strength to weight ratio considerably since running 51. All while maintaining strong mileage.
My question to you: What purpose would I have making this post if not being genuine? Does one gain any clout by faking a time under an anonymous handle? Do you think I get an absolute kick out of people saying “I think you could run 50 right now, sub 50 is a realistic goal”
You know close to nothing of my training. You know nothing of where my goals are for the upcoming track season.
You are betting against someone that went 65-57-53-51 year to year doing just middle distance work and mileage for the most part, who is now actively working to improve in this area under D1 coaching. Idk about you, but to me that colors you a Grade A Moran.
You're a 1500m runner. Aim for sub 3.40 as a realistic goal. Chill wid da body image schtick.
CopperRunner wrote:
put on your thinking caps wrote:
Based on your prior training, you absolutely did NOT run 36.3.
Sorry, you just are not that quick. If you had sub 50 speed at your age and were doing 70mpw, you’d be national class, which we know from your training that your are not. You cannot run 48, stop trolling people on here.
You’re probably more like 37 flat, and 37.5 FAT. Still very respectable for a distance runner and even mid distance/long sprinter. Would put you at 51 flat, which sounds reasonable based on your training.
What training are you referring to here? I don’t believe I’ve posted much regarding my day to day training in months. That 300m time isn’t hypothetical.
What I do know is that I’ve successfully lowered my bodyfat% and weight a solid amount, while also having considerable gains in lower body lifting along with Olympic lifting. That means I have measurably improved my strength to weight ratio considerably since running 51. All while maintaining strong mileage.
My question to you: What purpose would I have making this post if not being genuine? Does one gain any clout by faking a time under an anonymous handle? Do you think I get an absolute kick out of people saying “I think you could run 50 right now, sub 50 is a realistic goal”
You know close to nothing of my training. You know nothing of where my goals are for the upcoming track season.
You are betting against someone that went 65-57-53-51 year to year doing just middle distance work and mileage for the most part, who is now actively working to improve in this area under D1 coaching. Idk about you, but to me that colors you a Grade A Moran.
Interested in some magic coaching?
Don't be discouraged by all the people saying no way. They think just because they couldn't do it, its going to be impossible for you.
In College one year I ran a 36.8 hand timed 300 during beginning of indoor (dec) on similar mileage to what you are running now. A few months later during indoor (feb) and after transitioning to speed work and reducing mileage to 50-55 I split 48.6 in my first 4x4. (BU track/Second leg). Had run 1:53 in the 800m earlier in the day and that was a SB at that point as perspective of where my strength was at.
All that being said, it is definitely possible. It just depends on where you are in your training. If you haven't started track work yet you could definitely drop time on that 300. Furthermore if you are coming towards the 400 from a strength perspective (which i am assuming is the case since the mileage is up there) 35.high could be enough especially with a running start and competition. If you are more of a speed oriented guy you might need to get it down to 34.high -35.low.
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
CopperRunner wrote:
What training are you referring to here? I don’t believe I’ve posted much regarding my day to day training in months. That 300m time isn’t hypothetical.
What I do know is that I’ve successfully lowered my bodyfat% and weight a solid amount, while also having considerable gains in lower body lifting along with Olympic lifting. That means I have measurably improved my strength to weight ratio considerably since running 51. All while maintaining strong mileage.
My question to you: What purpose would I have making this post if not being genuine? Does one gain any clout by faking a time under an anonymous handle? Do you think I get an absolute kick out of people saying “I think you could run 50 right now, sub 50 is a realistic goal”
You know close to nothing of my training. You know nothing of where my goals are for the upcoming track season.
You are betting against someone that went 65-57-53-51 year to year doing just middle distance work and mileage for the most part, who is now actively working to improve in this area under D1 coaching. Idk about you, but to me that colors you a Grade A Moran.
Interested in some magic coaching?
put on your thinking caps wrote:
Based on your prior training, you absolutely did NOT run 36.3.
Sorry, you just are not that quick. If you had sub 50 speed at your age and were doing 70mpw, you’d be national class, which we know from your training that your are not. You cannot run 48, stop trolling people on here.
You’re probably more like 37 flat, and 37.5 FAT. Still very respectable for a distance runner and even mid distance/long sprinter. Would put you at 51 flat, which sounds reasonable based on your training.
while I agree FAT is probably right around 37, there are definitely 70 mpw guys who can run a 36.3 and are not national class.
I'd run a mile time trial and have that data available too before trying to project times for any of the distances you mentioned.