projected 1500 m. time

High 4:01 mile or high 3:45 1500

I think so. The following are some correlations of mine that I developed in 1986 that I still use. If you have a balance between aerobic and anaerobic development, I believe you will find these to be true:

400m time x 2.18 = 800m time = 2.18 = 1600m time / .99 = one-mile time x .928 = 1500m time.

Example: 400m time of 50.0 seconds x 2.18 =

800m time of 109 sec. (1:49.0) x 2.18 =

1600 time of 237.62 (3:57.62) / .99 =

0ne-Mile time of 240.02 sec. (4:00.02) x .928 =

1500m time of 222.73 sec. (3:42.74)

Based the ratio of 2.18 between predicted 400m to 800m, your high 49 personal best and 1:49 personal best are good mathes. I would extimate that at the time of setting those bests you had good anaerobic endurance and speed. Therefore, in order for you to run a 1500m time of 3:42.74, you would have to focus your attention on aerobic capacity development. I would advise that you supplement your normal workouts which have done a great job of developing speed and anaerobic endurance capacities with aerobic capacity training sessions such as the following:

repeats of 800-1000m at 3k pace;

repeats of 1200-1600 at 5k-8k pace;

threshold reps at 10k-20k pace;

tempo runs (continuous runs) at threshold paces of 15k-20k;

and slower aerobic mileage at 75% velocity of your current estimated 5k pace.

If you only race the 800m regularly and are sure that your aerobic ability is inferior to your 800-1500m capability, then I would suggest that your run no faster than 2 minutes per mile slower than your estimated current mile time. So, if you think now that you can run a mile in 4:10, for example, don't run faster than 6:10 on your distance runs until your aerobic capacity improves. Once you start doing some longer intervals at 3k-8k estimated race pace, then you will soon figure out what your realistic 5k pace would be if you had to race it. Then, you can use the 5k pace per mile divided by .75 to determine your slower mileage aerobic pace. For example, if after a couple weeks of doing repeat 1k runs you estimate that you can run 4:40 pace for a 5k race, then use the 4:40 pace divided by .75 (280 sec. per mile / .75 = 373.33 seconds or 6:13 pace per mile) to determine what your everyday maintenance and long run mileage should be run at. Good luck! tinman.

Tinman,

That was an awesome analysis, and I don't disagree with the conclusion, but the way it was arrived at is flawed.

Two things:

1600m to Mile conversion is based on the difference between 1600m and a Mile (= 1609.32m).

1600/1609.32 = .9942

Assuming that you could not hold your 1600m pace for another 9 meters perfectly, the agreed upon conversion is .9941. In other words a 1600m in 3:57 is far superior to a 4:00.0 mile.

The conversion for a 1500m FROM a Mile time is 92.6%. Using 92.8% doesn't adequately reflect how much shorter a 1500m race is compared to a 1609.32m race. 1500/1609.32 = .932 = 93.2%. But of course you would not expect your 1500 to be linear to your Mile PR, you would be slightly faster at 1500m. So the statisticians have adopted 92.6%.

A Mile of 4:00.0 is statistically equivalent to 3:42.2.

This conversion is also used for 3000m to 2 Miles. An 8:20 3k is considered equivalent to a 9:00 2 mile.

So, for your example:

50.0 x 2.18 = 109 secs

1:49 x 2.18 = 2:37.62

2:37.62/.9941 = 239.03 = 3:59.03

3:59.03 x .926 = 221.34 = 3:41.34

For how long a distance do you believe the '2.18 rule' to be a valid predictor? For example, a 13:00 5k would yield a 28:20.

jtupper wrote:

High 4:01 mile or high 3:45 1500

I'm glad I never bought into your "formula" Jack!

A well-trained athlete with 49, 1:49 can run as fast 3:36-3:37. I've known many who were slower who could run under 3:40. When you set such low expectations it becomes a self-fufilling prophecy.

Contrived formulas look nice on paper but I don't see anything on paper that addresses the competitiveness that m.d. guy is going to need to set up. After all, running is a competitive endeavor isn't it?

If were m.d. guy I'd set my goals high, perhaps "just" out of reach, and go for it. Even if he fails, he's going to perform much better than the armchair quarterbacks who'd sell him short. Be a competitor first, second and third. He has the tools, why not?

Jumbo Elliot had this figured out long ago. A shame too many these days haven't listened.

Malmo,

As I'm sure you realize, this guy is most likely not what you would consider "well trained" for the 1500. In all likelihood, if he were, then he would have run some 1500's and he would know what he could run in the 1500. Maybe telling him that he is only in 3:45 shape will motivate him to work harder.

"I'm glad I never bought into your "formula" Jack!"

Malmo's an arrogant prick

I use 2.18 to convert 880 yds to 1760 yds equivalent and I stand by its accuracy. For middle distance runners who race frequently at both distances, I am certain that the formula works quite well. For distance runners dropping down to the mile and then 800m, I think it will tougher to have equivalent times between the two shorter distances because there is a lot of motor learning that takes place in running a hard 800m. Simply put, a middle distance runner can race 8-10 times in a season before reaching there best times. It is not so much that conditioning has improved a lot, but rather a runner figures out how to push themselves through the tough acidosis.

Regarding the conversion of 5k to 10k, I use 2.08 as the variable. As an example, 13:00 for 5k is equivalent to 27:02 for the 10k if you use 2.08. A 14:00 runner for 5k has an equivalent performance to 29:07 for the 10k. tinman

Cragg Advocate wrote:

Malmo,

As I'm sure you realize, this guy is most likely not what you would consider "well trained" for the 1500.

Agreed. The point is what CAN he do? We've seen the results of a generation of American runners attempting to run marathons unprepared. Hopefully m.d. guy won't attempt the 1500 with the same lack of preparation. He's got all of the tools he'll ever need to go sub-3:40, he just needs a little wisdom and encouragement to get there.

j tupper fan: I'll bet you're one of those road-rage guys aren't you? Someone's always out to get you - to pass you, to slow down, to not speed through that yellow light you were counting on? Take a deep breath, if that doesn't work, seek professional help or Prozac or something.

Fair enough... however it looks like he might have prepared more for the 1500 than I had thought. There is another thread of the same topic where he states that he has run 3:48 and trained somewhat for the 1500. Go runs lots of miles, then run lots of miles fast, then run fast for less than a mile (but a lot of times), then you'll run a fast mile/ 1500.

I have used 2.2, which is sure close to your 2.18, for the 400-800 (or440 to 880 to mile). There are those who will run a better mile than this predicts and those who will run slower than this predicts; but that's how science works, so you tend to take the mean and say that is what can be expected, with obvious opportunity for variability. Maybe this can be best explained by saying this is a major difference between a scientist approach and a coach approach. The scientist deals in probablility and the coach usually prefers to deal in possibility. Which helps or encourages or discourages the fewer runners? I guess you have to answer this based on whether you are a scientist or a coach. As a little bit of both I try to help as many and discourage as few as possible -- with what I like to consider a realistic approach (as opposed to pesimistic or optimistic). I feel a whole lot better when my runners beat what I have predicted for them than when they can't.

jtupper, are you saying that a :45 400 is the equivalent of a 1:39 800? If so......

Where is it you've come up with this number? Have you done a statistical analysis of, for instance, the 100th (and/or 200th...300th....etc) deepest performance for each event to come up with these ratios? Since you brought up probability, did you analyze PRs of 400 meter runners then compare it to their 800 PRs, then, lets say, determine the standard deviation and use that point? How would that differ from comparing the 400m PRs of 800 meter runners? I'd bet a lot?

The problem I see with "equivalency tables", and any attempts at making equivalents or predictions from them, is that they are all subjective in nature, not "scientific" by any stretch. Somewhere I have a link to a website that will do comparisons of Purdy, Mercier, Portuguese, and Vdot. The differences can be absolutely silly.

As far as I'll go is to endorse the generally accepted conversion: 3:42.2 1500 = 4:00.0 . Two distances closely related, with tons of empirical evidence to support.

I think the only way one can make any kind of predictions for an athlete, is for the prognosticator to have years of experience and a personal relationship with the athlete being evaluated. Other than that, anything written on "tables" is little more than idle speculation.

Your comments?

Another way is to add 6 sec to your best 400 and double that for an 800, which would give a 45 sec guy a 1:42 800 (or a 49 400, a 1:50 800). I think the idea of any prediction table is to get into a "ball -park" so the individual involved has an idea of a reasonable pace to set out at for a race in which he/she has little experience. Then of course you run the race and with this additional input as to your ability, you make adjustments in future efforts. Clearly the equivalent performances shown in any tables, comparing a 1500 with a marathon for example, don't mean that a person who can run one of those times is also capable of the other, they are just suggesting that they are equal performances, possibly by the same individual at different times, or by different individuals with similar emaphasis on the different events. Clearly, the 400-800-1500 range of performances is not as predictable because of the relative involvement of different energy systems. Hey, I thought you wanted to provide optimistic performances, what's so bad with the 1:39. Live it up

md,

I have coached and known a few cats in your position. 50 speed for two of them got 1:47 for one, 1:48 for the other. They also ran 3:39 and 3:36 respectively with one winning the USATF National title. Also had an athlete with PR's of 53 high and 1:53 run a 3:40 and make the finals of USATF's.

You are fully capable of 3:35 or better. There's your theory, get out there and train.

Joe

Regarding my 2.18 and Jack's 2.20 factors to equate performances between middle distance events, I did use real runners. In 1985-88 I compared the following runner's times in the 800 and 1500m (I converted the 1500s to the mile by dividing their time by .928) for the following world level runners and derived 2.182 as the correlate:

Coe, Cram, Elliott, Abascal, Ferner, Wulbeck, Barbosa, McKean, Aouita, Bile, Hillardt, Aaragon, Gonzalez, Chesire, Herold, and Konchella. I am forgetting one other but it will come to me. Oh, Lahbi from Morrocco, I think. (I found the names I used on the back page of a book I bought in 1985 by Al Lawrence.) Anyway, those guys all had run the 800 and 1500m multiple times during July and August of 85-88 and so I thought that world class runners who compete in both regularly could give us a good correlation between performances between the two events.

The point is that 2.18 to 2.20 are fairly good predictors of racing ability amongst middle distance events if an athlete has prepared both their aerobic and anaerobic capacity to the same level, approximately.

About the 2.18-2.2 correlates, an 800m runner who drops down to the 400m can expect to run very, very close to the 2,18 to 2.2 level. A 400m runner who does not race the 800m event on a regular basis and comes from a speed background may not have the endurance to corrlate their 400m speed to the 800m. I like to take a look at a middle distance runners projected times based on one performance and see where there weaknesses are. For example, if Jerry runs 1:50 for the 800m (his event) and runs in a few 4 x 400 relays and times out at 51 seconds, then I know that his speed needs some work because at 1:50 flat he should be running 50.45 or faster (1:50 = 110 seconds / 2.18 = 50.45). So, I adjust his training to the speed end of the spectrum a little to improve his overall performance. Provided I maintain his endurance, improving his speed down to 50.45 for the 400m probably will improve his 800m time a little too.

Another example, if I have a 1500m runner who runs 4:00 for the 1500m (4:17.1 for the 1600m) and I want to figure out if his 1:53 for the 800m is on-target, I convert his 4:17.1 (257.1 seconds) to an 800m time by dividing by 2.18 ( 257.1 / 2.18 = 117.9 seconds or 1:57.9 for 800m). So, his converted 4:00 performance for 1500m is equivalent to 1:57.9 for the 800m yet he ran 1:53 in a recent race. That tells me that either he has improved his speed or he lacks some endurance to hold the pace he is capable of for the 1500m.

The key is to use both the mathematics and your personal observations about a runner's training to determine what adjustments need to be made to improve future performance. I have found that using 2.18 or 2.20 to be quite helpful for middle distance training. I also have found the 2.08 factor I use for 5k to 10k performances to be helpful. If a gal runs 18 flat for the 5k yet runs only 38:40 for the 10k, I know she lacks endurances and needs more mileage or more threshold reps or long intervals at close to her race pace. She doens't need short, fast reps, I would say based on the fact that she ran a whole minute or more slower than her projected 10k performance of 37:26 (18 minutes x 2.08 = 37.44 minutes or 37:26.4).

Looks like malmo's off his meds.

Oops! Am I banned again?

Joe:

Hi! I have good things about your training ideas/wisdom. I would like to email and discuss ideas once in awhile. I think we might gain a little more by sharing our thoughts. At least, I am sure that I will learn from you. Take care...tinman at

toms1967@yahoo.com

jtupper wrote:

Hey, I thought you wanted to provide optimistic performances, what's so bad with the 1:39. Live it up

I didn't say anything about being ridiculously optomistic, I like to live with realistic projections and expectations.

I just wanted to hear the "science" behind your formula. I like tinmans idea with respect to his method of gathering a foundation for the 800-1500 correlation, but with a big concern - the data set comes from those who are at the wings of the distribuion curve, the anomalies. I wonder how the correlation holds up to an analysis of, lets say, those who make it into the top three or four hundred in both events?

Clearly, as the evidence shows by the above cited 400-800 results the 2.2 ratio is skewed at world class levels. My original question is what is the data or science behind your 2.2 ratio at 1:50/:50 performance levels? If the 2.2 ratio doesn't hold at the faster paces, why would one expect the ratio to hold at slower paces, ie.. 2:00 or 2:10. My fundemental thesis is that these ratios are not highly correlative and therefore should be regarded as speculation. Or,at the very least no one has demonstrated the correlation. In other words, fun to talk about but with little practical use.

Here's some links that are good for a few laughs:

comparison calculator

models behind the numbers

JOE RUBIO wrote:

md,

I have coached and known a few cats in your position. 50 speed for two of them got 1:47 for one, 1:48 for the other. They also ran 3:39 and 3:36 respectively with one winning the USATF National title. Also had an athlete with PR's of 53 high and 1:53 run a 3:40 and make the finals of USATF's.

You are fully capable of 3:35 or better. There's your theory, get out there and train.

Joe

That 3:40 guy must be Hesch? A big surfer dude who looks like he's struggling, then maybe he's not, and before you know it he passes the whole gosh-darn field! Love it!

Thanks for the ineteresting responses. I was a little surprised to see Jack's prediction as I know people slower at 400/800 who have run faster. 3:38-9 is what I've heard in the past, but I didn't want to influence the models cited. Also, just to tell everyone, I actually havee run a 1500's before, my p.r. right now is 3:48. Joe Rubio and jtupper, I'd be interested in talking with you further, if you are interested in emailing me. Malmo, thanks also for the anecdotal evidence, I was hoping a reliable source would cite some.