I am a running club guy, just OK in running, trying to see if 7:18 for a 2,400 on the track would be good for a sub 10:00 two-mile.
I am a running club guy, just OK in running, trying to see if 7:18 for a 2,400 on the track would be good for a sub 10:00 two-mile.
Yes--about 9:50 for 3200.
I'd say it is nearly equivalent. If you use a Seigel-like formula where t2=t1*(d2/d1)^(1.07), a 7:18 2400m would give a 9:59.60 2-mile.
For other distance combinations to show how this formula works, these are some equivalent performances. It seems like it works out about right.
5k - 16:30 2 mile - 10:17.9 10k - 34:38.44
5k - 16:00 2 mile - 9:59.22 10k - 33:35.46
5k - 15:30 2 mile - 9:40.50 10k - 32:32.47
5k - 15:00 2 mile - 9:21.7 10k - 31:29.49
5k - 14:30 2 mile - 9:03.05 10k - 30:26.51
5k - 14:00 2 mile - 8:44.32 10k - 29:23.52
5k - 13:45 2 mile - 8:34.96 10k - 28:52.03
5k - 13:30 2 mile - 8:25.60 10k - 28:20.54
5k - 13:15 2 mile - 8:16.23 10k - 27:49.05
5k - 13:00 2 mile - 8:06.87 10k - 27:17.56
5k - 12:37.35 2 mile - 7:52.73 10k - 26:30.01
I ran a 7:19 2400m after running a 3:19 1200m an hour before and ran 9:59 a week later under better conditions. Based on my experience, I'd say it's worth 10:00-10:02 for 3200m. The purdy points calculator agrees, it says 7:18.0 is worth 10:01.4 3200m. So, close to 10 for 3200, definitely not worth sub 10 two mile.
Stats on 2,400m performances are hard to come by since that isn't a normally-contested race distance. What we can do, however, is use a equivalence chart for common race distances - one which is based on thousands of actual race performances - and determine the slowdown in meters per seconds (or seconds per lap) as the distance increases, using that criterion to formulate a "best fit" curve to the pace-per-lap data and estimate probable paces for intermediate distances.
Based on this method, a 2M time of 10:00.0 (= 9:56.4 3,200m) would be equivalent to 7:16.1 for 2,400m.
running club question wrote:
I am a running club guy, just OK in running, trying to see if 7:18 for a 2,400 on the track would be good for a sub 10:00 two-mile.
Yes, about 9:55 for 3200m or about 9:59 for 2 miles.
Tinman
10k runner 22 wrote:
5k - 16:00 2 mile - 9:59.22 10k - 33:35.46
This jumped out at me. Are those really equivalent? The 5K seems to be the most impressive by quite a bit.
i dont think 12:37 equates to 7:52 2 mile....but thats just me
7:18 using VDOT is equal to a 10:04 two-mile.
Its about right i think. I had ran 9:53 and my last 2,400m was 7:22
translates to a 10:05.26 for 2 miles or 10:01 for 3200 meters according to the track calculator
i ran my pr 9:39 for 3200 meters and i ran 7:00 for 2400 meters, so i think a 10:01-10:05 for 2 miles would be equivalent but if you ran out of your head you could break 10 minutes for 2 miles. i would split the race like this run even 75 quarter pace and kick in the last 400 meters
Nothing is better than a sub 10 2 mile until you run a sub 10 2 mile
Lazy L wrote:
Are those really equivalent? The 5K seems to be the most impressive by quite a bit.
The function used there assumes possible values of t1 = 0 and t2 = 0 for any two race distances. This would never correlate with actual data. When using real-world performances to derive a regression formula, you are almost always bound to have a positive intercept value, especially if the regression model is linear. For our purposes (comparing the relative strength of race times), a linear model is as accurate as a non-linear one within the range of data we're investigating. A linear formula begins to deteriorate for performances slower than the low 6:00s for the mile, low 13:00s for 2 miles, mid-21:00s for 5,000m and for performances at other distances near that ability level. This may be because fewer runners at this level are highly trained aerobically. Performances faster than world records have not yet been achieved, so we have no data to go from beyond that end of the model.
Here are my conversions for the preceding 5,000m marks, including predicted equivalent performances for the mile and the 2,400m. Note that this model shows the 10,000m WR is currently the "best" mark, with the 5,000m WR extremely close. The vaunted 3,000m mark is actually a little behind (equating to 7:55.94 for 2M), as is the 1,500m record (equating to 3:42.49 for one mile). The depth of 5,000m marks at the elite level has improved relative to the depth of marks for other distances over the last few years, so the chart may need a slight revision, making predicted equivalent performances for the 5,000m probably about 0.5 to 1.5 seconds faster. This would bring predicted performances for the shorter distances more in line with the actual performances. After all, the world records themselves (not some formula-based chart!) represent the real truth of human achievement.
Excuse any problems with the formatting.
Mile2,400m2M5,000m10,000m
3:41.30 5:45.48 7:53.65 12:37.35(WR) 26:18.04
3:47.3 5:55.2 8:07.2 13:00.0 27:07.3
3:55.3 6:08.2 8:25.3 13:30.0 28:12.6
4:03.3 6:21.1 8:43.3 14:00.0 29:17.9
4:11.3 6:34.0 9:01.3 14:30.0 30:23.1
4:19.2 6:46.9 9:19.4 15:00.0 31:28.4
4:27.2 6:59.9 9:37.4 15:30.0 32:33.7
4:35.2 7:12.8 9:55.4 16:00.0 33:38.9
4:43.2 7:25.7 10:13.5 16:30.0 34:44.2
running club question wrote:
I am a running club guy, just OK in running, trying to see if 7:18 for a 2,400 on the track would be good for a sub 10:00 two-mile.
Running club guy, I am sorry to be a bit cynical, but why don't you just go to the track, jog a bit to warm up, put on your race shoes and then run your sub 10 minute 2 mile?
What is stopping you?
Jason