anybody here who can't break 60 for 400m but can run 15:00 for 5K?
anybody here who can't break 60 for 400m but can run 15:00 for 5K?
One of my old teammates ran 14:40ish for 5k and has 59 mid top speed.
I have never broken 60 (maybe could come close) but at the end of last year I was running 14:45 for the 5k after a 2:23 marathon.
just think if you guys worked on your speed, you might break through to the next level
I ran with a guy in college, Rob Duffy, who ran 14:35 for 5k.
nj wrote:
I ran with a guy in college, Rob Duffy, who ran 14:35 for 5k.
Uhhh...and could he run sub-60?
Thats insane. How could ANYONE be that slow and still break 15 in a 5k? Even women who are in that range have sub 60 speed (and women are generally much slower over shorter distances relatively).
If you can't break 60 you probably won't break 16 minutes for a 5k.
2 buddies of mine cannot break 60 sec for the 400, one has run 14:26 the other 14:23 indoors, the 14:26 guy has also ran 2:19 in the marathon
Zero chance he can't break :60 for 400m when he can run 14:23.
dtmack wrote:
2 buddies of mine cannot break 60 sec for the 400, one has run 14:26 the other 14:23 indoors, the 14:26 guy has also ran 2:19 in the marathon
That's amazing. What do they run for a mile?
Kim Smith: "I can’t even run a 58 for a 400 by itself..."
http://www.fast-women.com/athletes/interviews/2007/kimsmith061907.html
This interview was back when her 5k best was 14:50 indoors.
My open 400 pr is 58 and I have a 13:57 5K pr. My 4x4 400 best split ever was a 56 with dubious timing. I ran an open 800 around the time I was in 14:01 5K shape and ran my PR of 2:00 flat, which felt easy, I just couldn't go any faster. I am what the OP is talking about.
I have seen an interview with Kim Smith where she said she had done some sub 3 km reps and finished with 2 x 400m in 58..... so they can't both be right, don't have an electronic link to it sorry.
I consider myself slow, only 55.5 speed and have run sub 14.10.
I know of a few people who have not broken 60 officialy who have run high 14.30-14.40... they could prob go 59 though if they cared to.
Not many people actually give themselves a chance to break 60.
1500m - 3.52
3000m - 8.12
5000m - 13.59
10,000m - 28.42
Half - 64.20
Mara - 2:13.20
I'm not sure why, but a lot of distance guys with good 5k/10k prs refuse to work on their speed because they like to say that they can't break 60 in a 400, even though they would be perfectly capable of it if they ever put themselves in a position to do it. They think that not having a fast 400 pr makes them seem like they're doing more with less, and it's a weird source of pride. They're really just hurting themselves though, cause if you don't do anything to improve your speed, you can never compete in a 5k/10k with uneven pace or one where people sit and kick.
my prs:
400m: 61
800m: 2:09
1500m: 4:06
Mile: 4:24
3k: 8:30
5k: 14:53
10k: 30:45
1/2: 69:35
marathon: 2:26
400m speed is overrated and really not THAT big a factor in running fast at longer distances. obviously if you are someone like Alan Webb and can run 46point, it makes running a 10k at 65's more comfortable, but some guys can run closer to their all-out speed for a long way.
slow and low wrote:
my prs:
400m: 61
800m: 2:09
1500m: 4:06
Mile: 4:24
3k: 8:30
5k: 14:53
10k: 30:45
1/2: 69:35
marathon: 2:26
400m speed is overrated and really not THAT big a factor in running fast at longer distances. obviously if you are someone like Alan Webb and can run 46point, it makes running a 10k at 65's more comfortable, but some guys can run closer to their all-out speed for a long way.
you are mediocre D2 college runner, and you are saying that 400m speed isnt important? I hope you arent trying to use your times to support your claim because if anything you are doing just the opposite. If you want to be successful at any track event(marathon doesnt count) then you need to be able to run low 50's for 400. Every guy on the medal stands at the Olympics can run 52 and under for a 400. Every miler in the finals of the olympics can break 50. The top 10 guys in the 5k can all run 150 or so in the 800. If you dont have speed, you are not going to ever be competitive on the track, because you cant win without it.
slow and low wrote:
my prs:
400m: 61
800m: 2:09
1500m: 4:06
Mile: 4:24
3k: 8:30
5k: 14:53
10k: 30:45
1/2: 69:35
marathon: 2:26
400m speed is overrated and really not THAT big a factor in running fast at longer distances..
It's probably the biggest factor...is it really a coincidence that the fastest marathoner of all time is the second fastest ever indoors over 1500m? Speed at shorter distances matter. You can flee up in distance toward the marathon and ultra events but eventually you won't even be competitive at those as athletes with speed compete in them more and more.
I'll never understand why some runners take pride having good distance prs with very slow 400 times. Maybe if they had improved their basic speed they would have been a lot better. You think you will improve on your 4:24 mile with only 61 second 400m speed? Good luck with that. Speed is harder to improve then endurance, but it is more trainable then most people think. Mechanics, power and footspeed are all positively influenced by correct training, and can have a huge impact not just on an open 400 time or a finishing kick but on distance prs as well.
The ability to run very fast over 400m has very little correlation to running a fast 1500m and even a smaller correlation to running fast at 5k-marathon.
Many distance runners confuse speed with endurance. Finishing a race or a workout with a 58 second 400m when your open 400m pr is only 56 or 57 is a produce of your endurance.
The ability to close a race very fast has absolutly nothing to do with speed (speed being the product of muscular strength & power, being the result of your ability to regenerate ATP...ie: the phosphagen system). Why? Because your phosphagen system, your strength & power, has long been used up at the beginning of the race just to get you off the line. So, the ability to run a fast 100-400m, being the result of your phosphagen system ie: the ability to regenerate ATP at a very fast pace, has nothing to do with the ability to run a fast 1500-marathon, being the result of a combination of glycolysis and fat oxidation.
The distance runner who runs a sub 15:00 5k yet can barely break 60 for the 400m likely can barely break 15 for the open 100m. This runner likely runs a 400m very evenly: 15, 14, 14, 14. His lack of speed is likely the reason why he is so good at the 5k-marathon. If he had better speed, his endurance would likely be worse.
The fact that the 2nd best indoor 1500m runner is the WR in the marathon has very little to do with anything. There will always be outliers who are either genetically gifted beyond anything the world has known...or doped to the gills. Either way, the results of the elite world have very little to do with us in the real world where the majority of us can't close a 5000m race at almost our top 400m speed. So, instead of incorrectly trying to focus on our speed to improve our endurance (faulty logic)....which is an easy way out since that requires less workload....we should focus as we always have on our endurance with workloads that are uncomfortable, intervals that are difficult, and miles that are long.
"Lack of speed" is the easy scapegoat. I am slow, yet I am training hard, so it must be a lack of speed. The reality is that your workouts simply aren't hard enough, you repeat your workouts too often, or you simply lack the genetic ability. We all can't be Bekele.
Alan
"Many distance runners confuse speed with endurance. Finishing a race or a workout with a 58 second 400m when your open 400m pr is only 56 or 57 is a produce of your endurance."
I agree, but if that runner had the speed to run a 52 second quarter instead of a 56 with the same endurance they could close in a 54 instead of 58. Speed and endurance go hand in hand.