Sprinter to Distance : My quest to run sub 2

Here's the problem - you're too fast. 21.4? Damn. You're probably a 400/800 guy, which actually means you should train more like a long sprinter than a distance runner.

If you were 1.5 to 2 seconds slower, it might suggest you have the physiology to be a 800/1500 guy, and they train more like distance runners.

But 400/800? 65 mpw with long runs, doubles, tempos, all that jazz is not for you. You're no Prefontaine. Sorry to burst your distance running bubble. The good news is realistically you could be aiming for sub-1:50 rather than sub-2:00.

Or you can go ahead and be a distance runner but I think you'll be mediocre. You're too fast twitchy.

well I would probably look at training for a 400m however I am done with sprinting. It is either retire completely or do something entirely different to challenge myself.

And I would tend to perhaps agree with you theoretically with the fast to slow twitch ratio however look at guys like Gary Reed. This guy was pure fast twitch - decathlete and mid 21 200m runner that switched to doing lots of mileage and I would say that turned out pretty well. Not saying I am any Gary Reed but I don't think it is impossible for me to get decently fit.

1.How old were you when you ran the 10.69 and 21.39?2. If you were 18 then you have lost a step or two for sure but i think you can still break 2. If you ran those in college you will break two eventually. Those are fast f***in times. Taking 8 weeks to sky rocket up to 65 will be hard. Hopefully more people post on here to give their input on how you should progress with the mileage.

joeguy wrote:

1. I have not PR'd in a long time and need a new challenges.

2. My Goal:

To break 2 minutes in an 800m next summer and run a mile as fast as I can and not suck at distance running.

You do not need 65 mpw inless you want to run the marathon. Sub 2 on 20-25 mpw is doable. Wariner can run sub 2 and sub 4:30 and your sprint times aren't that muuch slower although your 400 is probably a couple of seconds slower. I will be shocked if you don't run mid 1:50's soon and sub 1:50 next year.

65 a week? We had kids at my old high school who went 2:00 off of 15-20 a week, and none of them could go 10.69. Just do some intervals two or three days a week, jog 5 miles on easy days and you ought to be able to sneak under two pretty quick, provided you aren't totally and completely out of shape.

steve "red" wrote:

Wariner can run sub 2 and sub 4:30

Uh no, I'd give him sub 2 if he had a year to train for it but the guy would not hit sub 430.

4/10. No true sprinter (not even a 400 time) would have a f***ing clue who Gary Reed was, much less his backround/training, etc..

Nice set up, no cigar.

rerrfgergrge wrote:

steve "red" wrote:

Wariner can run sub 2 and sub 4:30

Uh no, I'd give him sub 2 if he had a year to train for it but the guy would not hit sub 430.

What makes you say that? Wariner may not be able to go 4:30 just at the drop of a hat, but it's hard to believe that he couldn't do it if he trained for it. And he could definitely go sub 2.

Wariner ran 2:25.x for 1000 meters a couple years ago

I'm Canadian so obviously I know who Gary Reed is and I've heard him talk about his background before, plus I hang out with the distance guys I went to uni with and they love him.

I think Wariner could easily go sub 2 at any time. An Australian 400m runner I know went 1:56 just to see what he could do for fun in an 8 and he is a 45. guy compared to Wariner 44-43 .

So you say 25 miles a week?? What about in the offseason (right now for me)

[quote]Limpy McGimpy wrote:

4/10. No true sprinter (not even a 400 time) would have a f***ing clue who Gary Reed was, much less his backround/training, etc..

Nice set up, no cigar.[/quot

1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Gary Reed is somewhat a household name in track and feild, from a few years back. I believe retired, but was a medalist at worlds and anyone who follows track may have heard of him. He was pretty good.

If you have natural speed, a desire to log 65mph, and are committed to getting better I think you could run a whole range of events and do very well.

But whatever you decide, don't neglect your speed. Spend a session a week on some shorter repeats and a session on speed development.

Household name- maybe in Kelowna B.C., and that's a stretch.

steve "red" wrote:

Gary Reed is somewhat a household name in track and feild, from a few years back. I believe retired, but was a medalist at worlds and anyone who follows track may have heard of him. He was pretty good.

Here's the thing. I don't think you need to run anywhere near 65 mpw to get under 2:00 for 800 if you are still capable of those kind of sprint times. I think your quest is going to come down to motivation to do the extended anaerobic work and the desire to hurt for the entire 2nd lap. Most accomplished sprinters I know have neither of those traits.

I think there's a big difference between what you really need to run under 2:00 and what might make you happy. If you have friends that are distance runners and like running with them, go do the 65 mpw - it's about an hour of running each day, not really a big deal. It doesn't sound like your goal has anything to do with making the olympics or even the olympic trials, so go do what's going to make you happy and realize that's probably more than what's necessary to achieve your sub 2:00 goal.

35 yrs ago (yikes) there was a guy who was a sprinter (ran 100y in ~ as I recall). He converted to mid distance 400-800 guy, doing quite well (45.xx and 1:44.xx). Training = 35-45 miles.

I work with guys moving up all the time. If you need help post your e-mail!!

Sat

Today ran 4 miles! New record - slowed it down to almost 9min mile pace to make it an "easy" run. heart rate was 173-177 throughout. I know that seems very high and my distance running buddy laughed at me but it feels pretty easy this pace, not sure why the heart rate is so high??

4 miles @ 8:50 (35:16 total time)

Here are my suggestions, from having done this before, thought I wasn't as blazing fast as you.

#1- I'd ignore the heart rates, and not use a heart rate monitor at at all;

#2- Ignore whatever percentage of various fibers. The are highly amenable to different types of training;

#3- Realize you can run any event that you want to run, and run well;

I'd start by running a lot of 2, 3 and 4 milers, gradually transitioning to twice a day, or ten or eleven times a week. Also gradually increase your miles. Again, I'd totally forget about using a heart rate monitor! The more important things are your body's adaptions to the training.

You can do it! I'm interested and will keep watching your progress.