As an 800 runner, for example, if your 400 is a 46, you can get away with 20-25 miles a week to build and maintain strength and endurance but if your 400 is 49-50, you generally need 50 plus miles a week.
As an 800 runner, for example, if your 400 is a 46, you can get away with 20-25 miles a week to build and maintain strength and endurance but if your 400 is 49-50, you generally need 50 plus miles a week.
Simplez wrote:
As an 800 runner, for example, if your 400 is a 46, you can get away with 20-25 miles a week to build and maintain strength and endurance but if your 400 is 49-50, you generally need 50 plus miles a week.
Yes. I’ve seen dudes run 1:45-48 on LESS THAN 20 miles per week.
It’s basically just leveled up sprint training. Ok the track for 3 days instead of 2. Longest session might be 2 miles of track work.
M - 5 x 600 + speed dev
T - 6-8 x 200 + speed dev
W - 3 miles easy or off
T - 3-4 x 400, 6 x 150
…..you get the point
There more milage you do (to a point) - the better chance you'll have of reaching your true potential.
Is 43 the best?
speed it wrote:
Is 43 the best?
Well, Quincy Wilson, who we all know has a 44 400 and split 43 in a relay, did run an open 800 last year and ran a 1:50, beating his teammate, who was the 800 specialist on the team and is currently at Stanford, who by the way had a 49 400 and split 48 in the 4x4 at best and did (does) more mileage so yes, i would say the faster you are in the 400, the more POTENTIAL you have in the 800.
Still, i am amazed at how many HS coaches, specially the sprint coaches, don’t understand that concept. Its why i believe an 800 runner with 49-50 speed should definitely do XC but somebody like Quincy, or Cooper probably should not or at minimum don’t need to.