10x400 in 64secs with 90sec rest, 1500/mile time?

I would say you are look at being able to hold 66 pace.

A good 400 repeat indicator workout would be 10 x 400 starting one every 2 minutes (i.e 64's would give you 56 seconds rest).

You had decent amount more rest so I'd knock the pace 2 seconds.

If you went into the race and tried to hold 66 pace then I think you'd be in the right ball park.

A 400m rep workout is a terrible race predictor if we don't know anything else about you.

Guesstimating from Purdy tables 4:06 for 1500m and 4:27 for mile. However, going from a workout to a performance time is not accurate. The proper way to use the tables is to go to a workout from a performance time. All that considered I would say you are ready to go under 4:10 or 4:30 as a reasonable goal.

MPR wrote:

I would say you are look at being able to hold 66 pace.

A good 400 repeat indicator workout would be 10 x 400 starting one every 2 minutes (i.e 64's would give you 56 seconds rest).

You had decent amount more rest so I'd knock the pace 2 seconds.

If you went into the race and tried to hold 66 pace then I think you'd be in the right ball park.

MPR,

I'm not questioning you, but I know you are pretty knowledgable on training and I've always had this question about workouts like you just suggested. So, is there any specific logic behind the "every 2 minutes" workout, or is it more convenience? I'm specifically thinking about comparing a runner that can run them in 60, versus a slower/less talented runner that can only manage 72s. It doesn't make sense to me that the faster/better runner should get 12 seconds MORE rest... if anything, they would probably be capable of handling 12 seconds LESS rest than the slower runner needs.

I guess it only makes a little sense to me for an individual runner: run them slower (80s) & only get 40s rest, faster (68s) and get a little longer rest. But even that doesn't seem quite right.

Is this just splitting hairs? I've just always wondered, but never knew any knowledgable coaches to ask.

Thanks!

A lot of the answer depends on stuff we don't know about you. I'll say that, for me, that workout would indicate 4:13-4:16 in the mile.

For context, though, I'm not very "good" at workouts. I've never understood how some people can just rip off quarters at mile pace all day with almost no rest and then still fall apart in races. Once my coach had me attempt 10x400 with 50 seconds rest at mile pace and I made it through 6 of them before calling it quits. That weekend I ran the mile at my avg pace for the 6x400.

I think if you don't hit at least 4:18, you're either overdoing the 400s or underdoing some other aspect of your conditioning.

twentyoneanddone wrote:

title says it all. does the average convert to race; ex. 64sec avg =4min 1500/418mile?? or is 90 rest too long and should be 60secs?

Who can say? You'll have to do some racing and find out for yourself.

For a decent racer with an overall solid training program and as much speed as endurance (800 slightly better equivalent than 3000), then you should be able to hold 64's for 1500, maybe 1609 on a very good day.

Good question. In this particular case I think you are right, I think the standard practice is to add to the total cycle length if your 400 average is above a certain amount. I believe that time is around 70-72 seconds and the recovery is kept to 60 seconds then, but I am not 100% sure, as I don't typically work with middle distance runners. The only reason I can speak to the exact workout the OP mentioned is that I did that workout often in college and we did it on the 2 minute cycles and it is was a pretty reliable predictor for most on the team.

As pointed out there are certainly other variables such as other workouts and training done, but those variables also effect the ability to do this workout. As long as the rest of his training is within a standard deviation of the norm this should be a fairly reliable tool.

As for the reason for the workout: trail and error from decades of coaches has determined this is a pretty good workout to guage 1 mile fitness. Nothing more or nothing less. I would imagine it started out with a coach looking at how much rest he needed to give his runners to still allow them to do their quarters at mile race pace, and he and other coaches have eventually settled on 10 repeats and the 2 minute cycle for most 4:00 to 4:45 milers (i.e tns of high school and college runners). There are of course various economy, efficiency, VO2 Max, pace work reasons for the workout as well but nothing other workouts can't work individually better.

MPR

Last year I did this workout with 1 min rest, but only averaged 65's. I ran 4:24 and 4:22 in the two indoor miles I ran.

Did you do the workout indoor or out?

not a workout champ wrote:

A lot of the answer depends on stuff we don't know about you. I'll say that, for me, that workout would indicate 4:13-4:16 in the mile.

For context, though, I'm not very "good" at workouts. I've never understood how some people can just rip off quarters at mile pace all day with almost no rest and then still fall apart in races. Once my coach had me attempt 10x400 with 50 seconds rest at mile pace and I made it through 6 of them before calling it quits. That weekend I ran the mile at my avg pace for the 6x400.

I think if you don't hit at least 4:18, you're either overdoing the 400s or underdoing some other aspect of your conditioning.

Agreed 100%, I'm the same way. 6x400 at mile pace with equal time standing rest is even a staple workout of mine, and by the end I am toast. Can't imagine doing 8 or 10.

But then again I have better speed than endurance, maybe that is why I fall apart as the number of reps gets higher.

FWIW I have seen this session and recovery ratio in many coaching books and articles over the years, going back to the 70s and 80s - mostly British ones, including Horwill and Coe. Horwill's five pace system, echoed by Coe, recommends doing

- 1500 pace sessions with 1:1 rest (i.e. 60 rest for a 60 sec 400)

- 800 pace with 2:1 rests (e.g. 300s with 90 sec)

- 3000 pace with 1:2 (e.g. 8x600 in 1:40 with 50 sec rest, thus starting every 2:30)

Practically, if you have a bunch of people capable of anywhere between 3:50 and 4:30 for a mile, it's just easier to go 'on the minute' than to do clever maths in your head while knackered. Presumably they do other sessions at both slower and faster speeds so there's no point worrying too much about it.

I think there may be a little history at work too. This is the session Bannister, Chataway and Brasher famously worked on each week under Franz Stampfl before going sub 4, which (I suspect) has inspired many others. They got down to 61, got stale, took a break and went climbing at Stampfl's suggestion, came back and did 59, then broke the record shortly after.

There are a couple of other well known tests for predicting 1500/mile times:

The Kosmin 1500 test:

Involves splitting up the distance and doing 4 1-minute efforts with rests. My group does this often and I have always felt it favours the 800 types: they tend to score highly and not get near the predicted time in reality. Kosmin actually did a regression formula against real race times, and it's not a bad predictor - but I always figured that if you were going to take rests, you need to run more than 1500 in a session. This is not really practical as a group session as you have to mark finish points for many different people.

The 1500m predictor:

I like this best. Or rather, I hate it most, as it hurts about as much as a real mile. Forcing yourself to crank out hard 800s reveals more about your aerobic fitness than any number of 400s. It's also a good group session.

I ran 4:23 last spring. At the end of xc I did a time trial and ran 4:29. A week or so later I did 8x400 with 200 jog rest that I timed and took no longer than 90 seconds. I ran them at 64 and 65. Seems like you are a few seconds ahead of me. 4:24 sounds about right.