Am I too fast to run Distance races?

Look I am sure this a big joke to you guys. Last year I ran 47. Until August I'd never run more than 2 miles straight. Whatever, I am no pu$$y. I'm just struggling with the distance. Never should have posted

What plans does the Coach have for you?

Yes, you can run 200/400 with little to no daily or weekly mileage, but if he sees you as being a conference contender in the Spring it will require some mileage.

How resistant are you to tackling the 800 in a race?

I have a friend, she was a 2:05 800 meter runner, but had no endurance, didn't think she needed it, kinda went through the motions and would jog a 20:00 5km. Since she's got a new Coach, a new environment and a new attitude she is winning races (most recently in 18:13).

Moral of the story is so can you, just don't limit your thinking of what you can and cannot do.

Your Coach believes in you, when will you?

Hey man, don't listen to the haters on this thread. You're faster at 400 than most of them ever will be. And while 47 is nothing to sneeze at, you might be well-advised to explore your potential at 800m. Keep putting in the volume (ideally while not totally neglecting the speed components of your training) and you WILL build functional endurance for the 8. Heck, it'll pay dividends for your 400 as well. Besta luck, fella.

Are you a skinny white boy by any chance who happens to be a fast sprinter?

I knew (of) a guy who used to run 5 or 6 miles of distance every week. He ran a 1:52/3 800. If memory serves,and it does, he ran a pretty good 400m. 43.86. Little bit of mileage didn't seem to hurt him

snorbert wrote:

dipwad, he's not going to "destroy his sprinting ability" by putting in some miles.

if distance training destroys sprinting ability, then tell me how all the top 800/1500 guys can run in the 46-48 sec. range for 400m.

Alright dipshit (since we're throwing around insults), it's likely that he IS destroying some his raw sprinting ability, to some degree. He's probably converting some of his fast-twitch muscle fibers to intermediate-twitch muscle fibers doing endurance training (though admittedly, he's not doing true "endurance" training as most of us would think of it, but even 5 miles at 8 min pace is 40 minutes of running). Even doing that he's probably seeing an increase in mitochondria, aerobic ATP production, and capillary networks in his muscles, which, guess what, means his muscles are becoming more adapted to LONG DISTANCE RUNNING, and less adapted to SPRINTING.

Of course, that's obviously what his coach is going for if he wants him running the 800. Probably trying to convert a significant amount of those fast-twitch fibers into intermediate-twitch fibers to help with 800 running.

To the OP: You'll probably never be great at XC, it's entirely possible you'll never even be decent at it. But right now your coach is just getting some aerobic work in you so you're not starting from scratch trying to run the 800 in the spring. It'll be much easier this way, but don't expect to be anything special in XC - you don't need to if you're coming at the 800 from a speed side, as you clearly are. Don't be surprised if you see a slight decrease in muscle mass as a result from this as well - it's normal, it just means that your muscle fibers are becoming more aerobically adapted. Intermediate (and slow) twitch fibers are narrower in diameter than fast-twitch fibers, by nature.

A couple questions as well: what are your 400/200 pr's, and where are you on your school's depth chart for both of those (it's fine if you're a little vague, don't want to give out exactly who you are and where you run), and what does your school's 800 squad roughly look like?

You will find that you will do poorly, if you have been a distance runner. If you have been a poor distance runner, you can try the 800 and see what becomes of you.

The 800 may be a bridge to far.

Yes you might be too fast for the 800m. On the other hand, your 4 mi run time tells you little about your potential in the 800m. A better measure would be how easily you can start bringing down your 1000m best. If you have real talent for the 800m, the longest you really need to run continuously is ~1:50. I also doubt you need too much training slower than 3:30/k. 8/mi is just silly.

Agree with the poster who suggests trying the 600m indoors.

It's a more reasonable move and might save you some snail paced torture this fall. If you can manage < 1:22 on a good indoor track, you're more likely an 800m runner long-term. You can still run the 4x4. Another way to determine your event is to look at your open 400m and your 400m split on the relay. If the relay split is more than ~1" faster than from blocks, you do belong in the 800m.

As usual, I will be the voice of reason, sensibility, andgreat analogies.

First; your 200/400 times are slowwww. I live in New England, and our hs NE chanp was under 48 secs.

As for "too fast" for 4 milers....let me answer this in one word : NO.

Everyone knows sprinters are mostly BORN with their talent. We all remember the kid in the playground who could run like hell in elementary school. Most sprinters I knew were talented...and LAZY.

Your coach wants to build strength, but you are too LAZY to WORK for it. As said before : sprinters are LAZY.

Anyone can run 1/2 a lap and sit down for 2 hours before their next race.

look Tyson, you're a 100/200 guy so leave the XC to the pros OK; How come you can only run 4 miles at 8 pace, you weigh 300 pounds or something (normal weight for a wood troll i suppose). If you can run fast over 400 you should be able to run fairly fast at 8. I know plenty of 400 guys and girls who can run decent XCs but it's true all that heavy muscle does tend to drag you down in the mud.

Seb Coe was pretty bad at XC you know, he was Ok as a kid in the English schools but never really made his mark after. I seem to remember it was something to do with his stride pattern on uneven or muddy ground.

i kinda like running wrote:

Alot of the top 800/1500 runners in college can run the 400 in 46-48 seconds. day.

El G couldn´t run a 400 in 46, so I guess he would have had a hard time in a US college.

No, but you're obviously too dumb!