I know it's probably been done here before, but I couldn't find it, and it's a highly individual thing, but for those of you who havee it or are close to someone who has, what were the workout indicators before they went under the first time? Just curious...I'm not looking for a blueprint.
...unless, you can run an 800m in around 152; a 3/4 relay leg or time trial in 2:57; a 400m relay leg or time trial in 52 or better; a 3000m in 8:05 or 2 mile under 8:40.
these are just my guesses.
I would hope with a 1:52 you could run faster than 2:57...i would think that a 2:54 at most, considering you are sufficiently aerobically developed.
-themack
If you can run 2x880 yards in under 2 min with no rest at all, I would say you can run a sub four.
-The Killer
Indoors or outdoors?
Um, 2:54 is better I would think than 1:52.
Running 4:00.00 FAT is definitely a strong indicator.
3x800 under 2 with 2-3 min rest
10x400 avg under 60 with 1 min rest
8 mile tempo under 5 min/mile
2x400 in/under 52 with 5 min. rest
This quadfecta would more than likely put you on the path.
Be Cool wrote:
Um, 2:54 is better I would think than 1:52.
I guarantee you that over the last 40 years, there are hundreds of runners more, that ran or could have run a 1:52 800m compared to those who ran or could have run a 2:54 3/4.....are u nuts?
I ran lots of 1:52's in my career; but never ran a 2:54 relay leg. (I did run a 2:58)
I think 1:52 might be a little slow for a sub 4 miler. I mean, it can happen I guess, but most of them can at least run 1:50. I mean shit, AJ ran 1:53 in HS, just one second off 1:52, yet he still cant break 4.
In trainers or flats?
Unrated wrote:
I think 1:52 might be a little slow for a sub 4 miler. I mean, it can happen I guess, but most of them can at least run 1:50. I mean shit, AJ ran 1:53 in HS, just one second off 1:52, yet he still cant break 4.
I don't necessarily agree with you, but using AJ as an example didn't help.
AJ was within a close range to 4 on a few occasions, yet has 1:53 speed. Another 1.0-1.5 drop in the 800 so he's in the 1:52.00 area, might be enough speed to break 4.
Unrated wrote:
I think 1:52 might be a little slow for a sub 4 miler. I mean, it can happen I guess, but most of them can at least run 1:50. I mean shit, AJ ran 1:53 in HS, just one second off 1:52, yet he still cant break 4.
a highschooler is a bad choice for an example. they're less aerobically developed. a college or elite 1:52 runner would run the mile faster. don't read too much into this statement cause i know that it can be picked apart, just get the point
Adi wrote:
3x800 under 2 with 2-3 min rest
10x400 avg under 60 with 1 min rest
8 mile tempo under 5 min/mile
2x400 in/under 52 with 5 min. rest
This quadfecta would more than likely put you on the path.
Obviously this whole workout-to-race prediction game is pretty silly... But I'd just like to point out that at the time I ran a 3:42 1500m, the only one among those four workouts I could have come close to -- maybe -- was the 10x400. Although I never acually did it.
On the kimbia site where Tegenkamp answers questions, someone asked about benchmarks that made him know he was close to 13min shape. He didn't have any -- his races are his benchmarks. I feel the same way. When I ran 3:42, I was working out on grass for most of my workouts. My few track workouts were not very fast -- I remember doing a 3x800 workout similar to one above and not getting below 2:06. It's not that I was incapable of running faster (as my races showed). But the point of my workouts wasn't to run as fast as possible, so there was no real "benchmark."
As a postscript, several years later I was in much better "workout shape." I ran 3x800 in 2:00-2:02 (as the first part of a workout), and could do 8 mile tempos a little slower than 5min pace. But my racing results were slower, best time 3:43. The moral: don't chase times in workouts, chase them in races.
Bannister's benchmark workout was 10 x 440 ave. <60, 440 "jog" (~2mins.) between reps.
[Except, in looking again at his training log, there's a notation " in 50' " for that day's training--don't know whether that means that he averaged 5min for each run-and-rest on that occasion.]
Anyway, a couple weeks after that workout (and following five days of no running!) Bannister ran 3:59.4 on a cold, windy day.
10 x 400m avg. under 60 with 1 min rest.
When in a timetrial you hit 1500 meters in 3:42 and have something left in the tank.
gas tank or water tank?
1:52 has been a common standard http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0058.htm
Yes, races are the best indicators of fitness followed by time trials. TTing a 1200 is a good way to estimate current miling potential, although you probably won't be really able to understand your 1200 times unless you've run 1200s before. In Sub 4:00, the book about Webb at Michigan, he time trials a 2:51 or 2:52 and then only runs 3:44 or so for 1500, but I think that is a freak example. I know if I could even run 2:55 I could probably run 3:59.
Traditionally, the standards are:
400: 52
800: 1:52
Races distances above the mile are not used much because it's more important to have the speed when you're talking about running 4 laps in under 60 seconds each.
Jeff See split 1:49 and ran 1:50 in an open 800 in HS (yeah, I know, high schoolers are bad examples), but only ran 4:04. Adam Goucher ran 1:50 and also ran 3:56.
Overall your speed is what sets the limits to your potential for the distances of 1 mile and down. 100mpw will help you for nearly any event, but if you can't run one lap in 52 seconds, you probably will never be able to run 4 consecutively in <60.