who do you know of or heard of that has pretty slow 400m speed but had the strength to go sub4? i know it may be hard to figure out since not too many milers run open 400s but whatever. i think i read somewhere ritz only ran 54 for an open 400 and he has run low 3:42-3 somewhere around there for 1500 which is close to a 4min mile?
i mean, should runners give up hope for a sub4 if they dont have at least some certain amount of leg speed naturally?
I don't know what the record is for "slowest sub-4 minute miler," but I can think of a couple people who have run right around 4:00 for 1500m with only 57 point speed. This makes me think that there are probably a few sub-4:00 milers out there who can't break 54. Most likely, they're 13:20 5k types. Just a guess.
I think Pete Julian (formally of Portland) has run 3:41 and only like mid 50's (like a :55) or so for 400m. Not exactly sure, but I know he ran that 3:41 off of strength right before he ran the 10,000m at USATF.
59.xx is all the speed you need. You just have to hold that pace over 4 laps.
Arthur Lydiard claimed that the slowest he every coached was a guy name Ian Studd who broke four minutes with only 56 speed. However, I don't put much credit in these 400 times as most of these people never really race a 400 to see what they can really do.Some run an occasional relay but generally they make their claim on interval workout times. Also, I gurantee you if all you can run is 59 you won't be breaking four minutes in the mile. Just can't be done if you are maxed out at that speed.
I would think AlSal would have to brought up in this discussion. I saw him run a 4:02 4 X Mile split while in college and a teammmate of his told me that he could only run :56-:57 all-out. Can't verify how accurate the teammate was, but this is a true story.
I believe Scott Fry's PR's are something like 57.5/ 1:57.5/3:45.
RE Fish, I think you may've missed my sarcasm! Sorry!
Todd Williams ran 4:00.90 and said his best 400 was 54 flat.
Since had about as much endurance as anyone at that time (he ran a near WR 42:20 for 15k a week later), I figure you've got to be able to run at least sub 54 to break 4.
I think anyone who has run 3:59 and claims their best 400 is only 55 or 56, hasnt really run a flat out 400m race, and could run at least 53.??
Generally I'd say that 52 second quarter speed is the minimum for sub-four potential. But then guys like Todd Williams (53/54sec) go and run 4:00.
I think 54 is min. speed needed and that might be generous. I agree with RE Fish, that these guys don't really know what they have for 400 speed. Example I was a 4:18-4:20 miler in high school, I would have guessed my best 400 would be about a 56-57. However, I ended up running 3 open 400's as our team was distance loaded and needed points in the sprints. I improved with each one and ended up running 51.9. I never would thought I had that leg speed. So my guess is if guys are running sub 4 a majority of them have sub 50 400 speed.
A 56 second 400m sounds about right based on following.
56 sec 400m will more or less equal a 1:54 800m you generaly run about 2 secs differential for 800m + another 2 seconds for consequtive laps - apply this logic over 1600m and you get to a 4 minute mile, take a bit for the etra few metres bit on the end of a mile and you get to around 55.5 to 56 being the minumum speed. But at the end of the day it is 400m x 4 laps at under 60.
whoa, can you please explain how a 56 second 400 equals a 1:54 800? Based on my experience that equation is a bit off, most 1:54 guys are a whole lot faster than 56 in the quarter.
middleman wrote:
whoa, can you please explain how a 56 second 400 equals a 1:54 800? Based on my experience that equation is a bit off, most 1:54 guys are a whole lot faster than 56 in the quarter.
That's because most guys are lacking in endurance and aerobic capacity. Most sub1:54 guys are not aerobically developed and are not running to the full potential of their basic speed capabilities.
Thomas wrote:
A 56 second 400m sounds about right based on following.
56 sec 400m will more or less equal a 1:54 800m you generaly run about 2 secs differential for 800m + another 2 seconds for consequtive laps - apply this logic over 1600m and you get to a 4 minute mile, take a bit for the etra few metres bit on the end of a mile and you get to around 55.5 to 56 being the minumum speed. But at the end of the day it is 400m x 4 laps at under 60.
Huh? A 1:54 800m is 57/400m, so I just can't possibly see how a 56 400m runner could be able to pull that off.
I'd say that the mininum 400m speed required to run sub 4 is 54, which would put you right around 1:54 for 800m.
i remember awhile back someone on the board posted a bunch of runners who had PRs of both 1:52 and 4:08.
does that still hold? do alot of people get stuck right there. i remember this guy on my team a few yrs ago ran 1:51high and 4:08 indoors. but he also ran 3:46 outdoors. but when i read that post i was like, hmmm its still pretty close. there is another guy on my team currently who has run 1:51 and 3:51 which is also pretty close. both of these guys had run 48-49sec relay splits on 4x400s
so i was thinking when i posted this that alot of people would say you had to be a sub50-51 400m runner if you really had a shot. but looks like more people should be sub4min milers after all. i mean i bet there are loads of people with sub54 speed out there.
Slowest 400 for a sub4:00 is one thing. Typical 400 for a sub4:00 is another and I'd say typical is about 48. A decent rule is add 6 sec to your best 400 and double that for an idea of your 800. Same thing -- add 6 sec to your 800 pace and figure that for mile -- 48 + 6 = 54 X 2 = 108 sec. , and 54 + 6 = 60 and 4X60 = 240 sec
I thought that rule was supposed to be 4 seconds for competitive male runners.
According to the tables in "Computerized Running Training Programs" written by James Gardner and Gerry Purdy, a 4:00.4 mile is equivalent to 960 points. The equivalent 400m for 960 points is 46.5 This means according to their tables, a 4:00-mile performance is equivalent to a 46.5 400m. I'm not sure how these values were determined, but they are a bit old (designed in 1970).
if they are lacking in endurance and aerobic capability, that would mean a 49 sec guy might not be able to run 1:54, and that is certainly the case quite often. but a 56 sec guy who's aerobic capacity is lacking will not be able to come anywhere near 1:54, much less even break 2. and if his speed is maxed out at 56, the only possible way to come back in 58 is if he is ridiculously strong aerobically. maybe i am just misunderstanding what you are trying to say.