2:50 marathonner can't break 70 seconds for 400m.

Bummer runner wrote:

Opposite problem. I can cruise through 5Ks and 10Ks at 6:00 pace or better but my marathon PR is only 3:20?! Albeit on a very hilly course.

Me too dude. At 35 I.can still go 17:30 but never faster than 3:13. No surprise I guess since I've never done more than 45-50 mpw.

haha YO wrote:

mofomasap wrote:

that's pretty normal for someone who races 5k/10k a lot. whoever said otherwise was using the crappy macmillan calculator

That's pretty normal for someone who has piss poor endurance. The mcmillan calculator is pretty damn good ASSUMING you are training correctly for the longer events. If you are running in the 18s for 5k and not breaking 3 you aren't training right for the marathon.

I've always found McMillan to be plenty accurate when training for a marathon. At my best, I'm about 2:55 and 17:40 on strictly marathon training. My last marathon was 2:58 and a few weeks earlier I ran a 18:20 5K. I find at 41 years of age and little speedwork, if I go much shorter than 5K, my times really fall off. I'm working on my mile time this summer and running lots of 200s and 400s.

Running is always a challenge.

Believe it or not, my marathon pace is actually the exact same as my pace for an all-out, single 400. I guess I'm just super slow-twitch!

That's strange. I cant break 3 hrs but have run 69's at the track just for fun.

Interesting stuff, this!

2:54 marathon but best 400 is 67.5, best 5K is 18:22. Also never ran in HS (or college, obviously). Sad, really.

Makes plenty of sense. I think speed is a little more talent-based than long-distance endurance. But you still have to work on it, same as distance running. I'm in my 30s, and when I'm fit I can run close to 50 in the 400m. But a few months ago I ran 2:04 in a half-marathon and it was pretty hard for me. I like sprinting and I train for it. I do not like distance running as much and I don't train for it. So I suck at it. Duh.

All you sub-3:00 marathoners who can't break 70 in the 400m probably could pretty easily if you trained for it.

Man Pantman, are you serious?I've never heard of such a thing. 74 seconds is really the fastest you can muster for a 400? But you managed a 2:44 marathon? Major props to you for the training to do that marathon. I have learned something today...I figured pretty much any runner could get under 70 seconds even, and even that seems slow to me. WOW!

Pantman wrote:

2:44 and 74 here!

And it was actually worse than it looks as my marathon pace was hampered by lack of speed - couldn't go any faster but was ridiculously easy (low HR).

Working on speed more this year...

I am TRYING to change this, Flagpole! I have been doing Canova's Hill Sprints weekly for a few months now and that has helped a lot. There was a hill/flat/slight descent section (distance unknown) that I used to try and run flat out last year. Initially it took 40 secs, but I got it down to 34. (Most of that drop was probably just basic fitness and weight loss). I was running 34/35s at the time of the marathon. Now, after the hill sprints, it is down to 32 and my sights are set on sub 30.

I know I have to work at my lack of speed if I want to run well even at the marathon, so I am doing it. I've been doing more 10km work and am back down to 35min shape. Hoping to break 17min for 5km later this summer, but that'll be almost flat out.

Once the marathon is done and dusted I'm looking to work on speed right the way through autumn and winter. I have only been anaerobic a handful of times in the last couple of decades, so it'll be gradual and yet still a shock, but it has to be done.

Flagpole, I'd be interested what you think I can get the 400m down to with training. I think a 65 is possible over the next 6 months or so. But I'll be working hard to do that. I'd love to run sets of 400s in the low 70s, but I know that might be no more than wishful thinking. Either way, I'll be giving it a try.

Hey Pantman,First of all, do know that my amazement has to do with the props you deserve and not making fun of you in any way.Secondly, I'm certainly not an expert in this area as I wouldn't have imagined you couldn't already break 70 seconds with a 2:44 marathon. I'm also not an expert at how training improves 400 meter times. If I had to bet though, I would THINK that 65 seconds might happen for you, but a 9-second improvement is a long way. I'd probably try to get under 70 first and then see what happens. Good luck!I guess maybe I was faster (in my prime) than I thought I was. We used to do repeat 65 400s and then bust the last one in under 60 seconds when I was in high school, and that included other guys who weren't as fast as me.

Pantman wrote:

I have only been anaerobic a handful of times in the last couple of decades, so it'll be gradual and yet still a shock, but it has to be done.

Haha. Well that explains a lot right there. If you've basically been doing nothing but aerobic activity over the past 15-20 years it's not surprising that you wouldn't be able to pick it up much for a 400.

Hell, I do have some speed (48.90 in my college days) and after a few years of mostly distance running after college I decided to return to sprinting at 30 years old. My first couple of a 400m time trials on the track weren't even under 70.

i kinda like running wrote:

Haha. Well that explains a lot right there. If you've basically been doing nothing but aerobic activity over the past 15-20 years it's not surprising that you wouldn't be able to pick it up much for a 400.

I have tried to go anaerobic many, manytimes, but the legs genuinely could not go fast enough to manage it...

Flagpole, I'll let you know how I do. Hope all's well with you and yours.

Bummer runner wrote:

Opposite problem. I can cruise through 5Ks and 10Ks at 6:00 pace or better but my marathon PR is only 3:20?! Albeit on a very hilly course.

How many marathons have you run?

I DONT GET IT. How can you be a very fit human being, running under 3 hours for the marathon, and yet can't run at least a 65... I've done mile repeats, and a 65 in trainers is like nothing, feels like butter.

I have a friend that ran a 2:25 marathon but his fastest mile is 4:50, and he does speedwork. I have another friend that has run a 2:35 marathon & his fastest mile is 5:10 with limited intervals.

I have the same 400m time and my distance times go off the deep end after 3-5k, I would kill for the endurance some of these posters have.

i kinda like running wrote:

Makes plenty of sense. I think speed is a little more talent-based than long-distance endurance. But you still have to work on it, same as distance running. I'm in my 30s, and when I'm fit I can run close to 50 in the 400m. But a few months ago I ran 2:04 in a half-marathon and it was pretty hard for me. I like sprinting and I train for it. I do not like distance running as much and I don't train for it. So I suck at it. Duh.

All you sub-3:00 marathoners who can't break 70 in the 400m probably could pretty easily if you trained for it.

2:44 for the marathon given such poor speed of 74 over 400 is a fantastic effort.

There's a Lot of Paula Radcliffe's here it seems. Great stamina, consistent fast pace over long periods, but offers very little in a last lap dust up. Though to be fair she improved her speed over time,

Pantman wrote:

2:44 and 74 here!

And it was actually worse than it looks as my marathon pace was hampered by lack of speed - couldn't go any faster but was ridiculously easy (low HR).

Working on speed more this year...

69!!!

Looks like the hill sprints have been paying off!

Now got 5 weeks before I see if the marathon time can drop a bit too.

You dropped 5sec in a couple months? Please elaborate on these hill sprints for us. I need to get in on some of this.

Same for me. 2:51 marathon and can't run under 70 for 400m. I hardly run 400m though, so could be timing? Also, 42 years old, so I'm sure that has something to do with it.