Wild Hypothetical Workout (Could you do it?)

This workout would be the most painful experience. I think I could hit 100 in somewhere around 12 seconds. 200 meters... probably 24 low. 300 meters... 45 seconds, 400 meters- I don't really know. Maybe 65, it would be ugly. I dunno if I could make it past 550, probably be crawling by 500 meters. Sounds like fun.

That would be very fun to watch and I would think if done right you would faint before the 2 mins are up. I do not think anyone could complete it but that is what they said about the 4 min mile.

I've always wondered about a workout like that! That sounds awesome, let us know how that goes.

That would be horrible.

I think I'd go 11.5-8 at 100, 23.2-5 at 200m, then start tying up but make it to 300 in 38ish. After 300 it would be over. I could see running around 57-60 for 400. Probably would take me another minute to get to 600-50ish.

i hear its called the 800

I'm not going to try that, what would be the point. Here's a better workout:

Start with a sprint and gradually slow down without pain so that you complete the 2 minutes in a way that will actually give you some physiological and psychological benefits. You can run a very fast time but it is relatively pain free. You can extend this principle to any distance.

Only slow people think about shit like this.

Very awesome idea. I think a big question is could you really do this mentally. Could you really hit 200m in 22-24 then keep going balls-out knowing that tieing up is inevitable?

helovesrunning wrote:

Only slow people think about shit like this.

So you ready to take on the Africans kid?

uh_no wrote:

i hear its called the 800

Yup, that is pretty much how I ran it in high school. No wonder I hated it.

I know I would hate it. Recommendation: Don't wear spikes, because you'll certainly catch one at about 500 meters and fall on your face. Could happen even in flats. Hell, I'm almost 50; maybe I'll try it for my birthday.

If you actually were able to run all out from the beginning, you'd pass out or collapse between 400m. and 500m. I think most people wouldn't be able to give an all out effort after 300m or so, and would instead puss it up the next 80 seconds. It would be interesting to experience, but much more fun to watch. What would make it even better would to make it a race where you're given points for each 100m you win, with the number of points decreasing the farther you go.

Something like winner at:

100m - 10 points

200m - 8 points

300m - 6 points

400m - 5 points

500m - 3 points

600m - 1 point

That would keep people from running a "smart" race and dominating the last 300m or so. It would also be an incentive to keep going all out, even though you're about ready to die. Prize money would be helpful as well.

In fact, if letsrun could get some suckers of similar ability to do such a thing, I would be willing to donate money as long as it'd be filmed and put up on the website.

There was a show on TV about something kind of like this a while back. It would be much, much more painful (think blackout painful) for someone with a lot of fast twitch fibers. Someone with a lot of slow twitch would be way behind after 100m, 200m. Around 300m they would start to catch up, and by 500m or so would pass the FT athletes. This is not due to them "cheating"; they just don't have very many FT fibers to exhaust or build lactate in.

Sean Nunn

Raytown MO

The only way to do it would be a race situation. Otherwise, you would inevitably give up or find a comfort zone. The point system listed above might work for 5-6 dedicated guys.

helovesrunning wrote:

Only slow people think about shit like this.

At first I thought this idea was pretty retarded as well. But if you think about it, "Sams interval" really has some real world application. This is how you would run if you were being chased. In order to survive a chase, you need to be ahead at every instance of the chase. If you make it two minutes without being caught, you probably won't be caught.

I bet most serious runners could make it longer than 600 meters. At worst you would come through the 400 in 65, and I would expect to be able to run six minute pace at worst thereafter.

Unholy Cumulus wrote:

At worst you would come through the 400 in 65, and I would expect to be able to run six minute pace at worst thereafter.

You've never seen elite marathoners reduced to 7+ minute miles?

I could see myself going 11.5,23,36,50,1:22, then maybe getting to 800m by 2:00. Probably not though.

Guppy wrote:

What would make it even better would to make it a race where you're given points for each 100m you win, with the number of points decreasing the farther you go.

Something like winner at:

100m - 10 points

200m - 8 points

300m - 6 points

400m - 5 points

500m - 3 points

600m - 1 point

What's to stop you from getting the 100 and 200 and then quitting? There has to be a rule that you must complete the whole race in a certan amount of time before you get any points at all (or, perhaps, you have make it to the next milestone in a certain amount of time before getting any points for the previous milestone).

selurnralf wrote:

This workout would be the most painful experience. I think I could hit 100 in somewhere around 12 seconds. 200 meters... probably 24 low. 300 meters... 45 seconds, 400 meters- I don't really know. Maybe 65, it would be ugly. I dunno if I could make it past 550, probably be crawling by 500 meters. Sounds like fun.

_

_______________________________________________

Yes, sounds like a blast!!!

I was also thinking I would set my hair on fire. And then, I could have someone throw me overboard 15 miles out in the Ocean, and let me swim to shore . Fun!!