obamacon wrote:
I might be delusional, but doing a 71 s 400 for 105 straight days doesn't sound that bad. Worst part would be getting to the track every day.
It probably doesn't sound that bad. But 105 days is almost a third of a year. Nagging injury? Fever? Out of state wedding to attend? Air travel for work?
I'm side-stepping the point, but doing the exact same thing at least once every day for almost 1/3 of a year is still not easy.
Anyone who knows anything about running know that 4:43/mile is less than 71 seconds per 400m. 70.42 seconds per 400m equates to 4:43/mile pace. Morons.
Interesting way to look at this.
Reminds me when I was running highschool croos country we would occasionaly do a "short and sweet" workout our coach called the 4min mile. After a long warmup, we would run eight 220's on 1 minute intervals and add up our final time to see what our mile was. We had a good team, went to states, and I recall that we only had a few that could get under 4 min. I certainly wasn't one of them.
It was a good workout, but I think our coach was giving us perspective. That a Jim Ryun (I'm dating myself) could do this in high school back to back with no rest...maybe it was too much perspective :)
So for the quarters, how about doing them on 2 min or 3 min intervals and see if you can match his pace? ...
sanfrany wrote:
Interesting way to look at this.
That's actually not interesting.
Being age 60, the only way I could ever do this is to run a 17.75 100m for 420 days!!
Pel, you are such a computer geek. Nice stat though.
I would drive the 26.2 miles and get it overwith in 26.2 minutes. Internal combustion engines rule.
Geb is no doubt a beast,
But the hardest thing about these for most college runners is just getting to the track every day to do it. The half marathon one is very tough though.
The way I look at it is if I take my pb I could get to 5k with him, but then he would start to pull away from me.
my pb
400 - 51.3
800 - 1:57.3
1500m - 3:46
3000m - 8:15
5000m - 14:30 - closing on me!
8000m - 24:24 - DONE!
Of course both workouts fall short of the marathon.
Th 105x400 is 42000 meters (195 meters short) a narathon is 42195 meters and the 52x800 is 41600 (595meters short). ;-)
Yes it would be tough I'd probably have to drop down to 50 meter runs since I'm about 20 years past my prime!
John
youareallidiots wrote:
Anyone who knows anything about running know that 4:43/mile is less than 71 seconds per 400m. 70.42 seconds per 400m equates to 4:43/mile pace. Morons.
Anyone who would take the time to calculate that should know that Geb actually ran 4:43.69/mile which is 70.52 per 400m. Moron.
chicrlo wrote:
We can put this ridiculous marathon into perspective. Geb averaged 4:43 per mile for 26.2. This is 2:22 per half and 71 per quarter.
How many of you can...
Run a 71 second 400 for 105 straight days (26.2 mile distance)
OR
Run a 2:22 800 for 52 straight days (26 mile distance)
OR
Run a 4:43 mile for 26 straight days
OR if you really feel bold
Run a 9:26 3200 for 13 straight days
OR in all impossibility
Run a 61:59 half marathon in 2 straight days
As a 25 minute 5 miler myself, I tend to think the 4:43 mile for 26 straight days is the best bet. The 3200m version might not be bad, but all it takes is one bad day. Any thoughts on how this could go?
71 seconds per quarter for 105 straight days is definitely the easiest. Easily the easiest. 71 seconds is not very fast, and the distance is so short that it wouldn't hinder you from doing it again the next day. This is done easily by the vast majority of runners who post here -- even ones who lie about their times.