12.1 with a standing start, was almost all out but not quite. No sprint work in over 6 months. Was after 20X100m untimed sprints. Have been doing 50-60 miles a week for the past few months with lots of strength work ie hills, gym work and tempos, max I have ever been at is 80-85 mpw.
What can I run for 800m in Mayish, and can I walk on to my D1 track team?
i think you might be able to run 156 but taht is not good enough for D1
Tell us your 50m time so we can project this out.
~1:52,
For this, you wouldn't need anything over 50/week. I would have you wait until you can solo 1:20 for 600m and <9' for 3000m before walking on.
The typical NCAA coach is not so good. You need to show up strong enough to withstand overtraining in every aspect.
12.1
23-24ish for 200.
which is about
49-50ish based on your mileage. Maybe 48.
If you can run sub 15:20 in cross maybe 1:52, if you can't break 16, 1:53-56. If you can't break 17, 1:56+ probably luck to just break 2.
Its a big range based more on your endurance.
Did I miss something here? What are your PRs? Why hasn't anybody asked that. And real distances, not 400m in a relay. I'll tell you what, I can run sub 12 from a standing start any time just by playing a few games of pickup soccer each week and still not be in shape to go under 2:00.
Hey, I asked about his 50m time.
Maybe we can use his average bowling score as well.
What's his ERA and free throw % ?
X-Runner wrote:
Hey, I asked about his 50m time.
Maybe we can use his average bowling score as well.
Gotta have his 14 meter time from blocks as well as the distance covered by throwing the shot backwards, not to mention the triple jump with his arms crossed :)
Get real here. If you're serious, at least do a decent 400m time trial (for someone doing decent mileage, the 800 race pace would be 10% slower).
A standing 100 can be off by a HUGE margin, particularly if timed from first movement. 30 meter fly time times 3.8 is a better indication for someone not experienced using blocks.
Are you lot taking this seriously!
TWELVE.x? Dude, 300 pound lineman are faster than you. Lose weight. Like, a lot.
I ran 12.0 100m, hand timed, but with flats on a dirt track (if I recall correctly, it was a long time ago) when I was 20, 2 years after HS XC (with a PR of 10:38+ for 2 miles).
At the time I could probably run 11:30 for two miles. A couple of years later I started running seriously and eventually got down to 2:30s but never ran 16-flat for 5000 or under 34 for 10K (although I ran 51:20s for 15K).
Summary: 12.1 in not very fast.
2:30 marathon or 800,Chief ?
This is the dumbest thread. A million unknowns. Why are you posting? IF LR concludes a time slower than you want, will you not bother??!!
In high school I was a distance guy and as a freshman could only run around 30 seconds for 200m all out during indoor track. But I worked at my speed and got down to 26.5 seconds as a freshman, 25.5 seconds as a sophmore, 24.3 seconds as a junior and eventually 23.5 seconds as a senior. Every year the same pattern showed up however-running about 3-4 seconds slower in the 200m during the winter from not having worked on speed much during cross coutnry. I would go to the track and run an all out 200 and it would be around 27-28 seconds. The speed work would help a lot during the season and I would generally improve my 200m time by 4 or more seconds.
I haven't done speed work (nothing under 5k/70 second per lap pace really). I expected to run maybe 13-13.5 seconds at best, because that equals about 26-27 seconds for the 200m, which is generally what my speed was with no speed workout.
But 12.1 seconds?? With a distance runners poor start, after I had already done 20 near all out 100m reps, running it as a stride and only pushing hard the last 20m. It seems I have not only not lost speed, it has somehow improved.
I could probably pr in the 200m right now in November/December, when my history shows I generally run 3+ seconds faster in April/May. Now I'm not saying I'll run sub 20.5, but sub 22 is definitely a possibility. And with my improved endurance, who knows?
Just because you didn't retain your speed in years past doesn't mean you didn't retain it this year. Your speed might improve a bit on the road to May but the gap from 24 to 22 is a lot bigger then 26 to 24.
Also, a 100m sprint is no indication of an 800m race, which is primarily an endurance one. Assuming the distance was right (which might be quite an assumption, I don't know)
Best case scenario: with a bad start, tiredness, 95% effort, etc the 12.1 was worth 11.5 all out. The 11.5 all out is worth 22.5 all out because you lose time at the start. The 22.5 will be improved by about a second by May based on your previous history of improving a lot during speed training. You said you have been up to 80-85 miles per week and are doing 50-60 miles per week now with tempos etc-that suggests at least good endurance. With no knowledge of longer race times it is hard to predict anything, but I would say your times in May would project out to 11.2, 21.5, 46.5,---1:46
Worst case scenario: 12.1 is all you are capable of and you will run no faster then that by May. Your endurance is poor despite reported mileage and your distance races are lackluster. Worst case-12.1,24.5, 54,---2:02
avg of worst and best=1:54...1:52-1:56 is certainly possible, 1:50-1:52 or 1:56-1:58 would not surprise me much either. However, I doubt you will be under 1:48 or over 2:00
Need more information What is your high bowling score (game and series)? What is your overall GPA? Do you drive a hybrid? Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
It's called maturation. Some people mature later and their speed improves no matter what you do.
I have a similar story. When I first started running in HS I couldn't break 70 for 400m. I ran distances because I figured I was too slow. My senior year in HS, my 400m got down to 62. I then did very little for a couple years. At the age of 20, I ran 48 at an all comers track meet on 2 weeks of training. Two years later I ran 1:49 for 800m after training pretty hard.
I have no idea what your 800m time would be. But it does sound like you should try to train for it and see what happens. Don't be discouraged at first because even though you are running decent mileage, you may not have done the specific speed-endurance training which is necessary to run a decent 400m to 800m (Do things like 3x600m hard with full recovery--obviously don't do this every day).
A 62 to 48 in two years ?
try this on wrote:
It's called maturation. Some people mature later and their speed improves no matter what you do.
I have a similar story. When I first started running in HS I couldn't break 70 for 400m. I ran distances because I figured I was too slow. My senior year in HS, my 400m got down to 62. I then did very little for a couple years. At the age of 20, I ran 48 at an all comers track meet on 2 weeks of training. Two years later I ran 1:49 for 800m after training pretty hard.
This does not happen.
When you're fast, you're fast. The little kids who win field day at age 10 when everybody is skinny and pre-pubescent are the same kids who are the fastest once everyone matures. No one magically goes from slow twitch their entire life to fast twitch at age 20 suddenly off of two weeks of training.
Either the timing was wrong, or you're exaggerating, or you're misremembering, or you're lying.