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

I'd be interested to see how much you endurance guys can improve your speed with training. For those of us for whom speed comes easy, we know we can improve our endurance with training. Not sure it as as easy the other way around.

fgfgfgfgfgf wrote:

A guy I know has run a marathon in 2:50, yet can't even break 70 seconds sprinting 400m. How can this be right? Does this make sense?

Yes, the 400m was not in a race

It gets even worse. I can hit 70 but I can’t even break a 4 hour marathon or even 24 in a 5k right now.

Know a 48 yo gal. Ran well in hs - like 5:10-12 for 1600m, then ran mediocre D3 (focused on a hard major). As a 46/47/48 adult has run 2:49:15 off of only a 18:12 5K.

Nj possible wrote:

I'm not too surprised. There's a lot of 30 and 40 year olds who can't touch a 17:30 but dip under 3. They're slow but dedicated.

wrong. Just lazy.

Speaking of slow twitchers, it reminds me of a story Lydiard would tell. It was about a dude who couldn't run faster than 2:4x something for the marathon. Not any faster, but could run another marathon at the same pace.

I was a 2:43 marathoner in my prime (honest course, not downhill) and I couldn't even hit 80 seconds for 400 m, nor did I ever break 18 minutes for 5K. No speed at all, but I could run close to my maximum pace for a long time.

amkelley wrote:

I was a 2:43 marathoner in my prime (honest course, not downhill) and I couldn't even hit 80 seconds for 400 m, nor did I ever break 18 minutes for 5K. No speed at all, but I could run close to my maximum pace for a long time.

That is honestly amazing. Poor speed but fantastic endurance. How many mpw were you running when you ran 2:43? What were you capable of in the mile at the time you ran that?

Rez wrote:

amkelley wrote:

I was a 2:43 marathoner in my prime (honest course, not downhill) and I couldn't even hit 80 seconds for 400 m, nor did I ever break 18 minutes for 5K. No speed at all, but I could run close to my maximum pace for a long time.

That is honestly amazing. Poor speed but fantastic endurance. How many mpw were you running when you ran 2:43? What were you capable of in the mile at the time you ran that?

I was running 70-90 mpw at that time. Usually six days of singles and one double, with the only real speed work being on the second run of the double. One long run per week (15-23 miles) which was often also hilly and hard, trying to keep up with faster runners.

I figured out pretty early in my running career that the marathon was my race and I never worked really hard to improve my speed at shorter distances, but I did race quite a few 5Ks and I ran as hard as I could when I toed the line. I never raced a mile until I did it on a lark at age 57 and I don't know what I could have done in my prime, but likely about 5:30 ish.

This is an interesting thread. I'm the opposite of most posters here. I hate the marathon and the half marathon. I'm 70. If I took a full year to train, I might run 3:45, but sub-4 would be more realistic. Most likely, I'd just get injured and DNS. On the other hand, I could go out tomorrow and run a 67-68 400m.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Speaking of slow twitchers, it reminds me of a story Lydiard would tell. It was about a dude who couldn't run faster than 2:4x something for the marathon. Not any faster, but could run another marathon at the same pace.

That is utter BS.

Opposite. I can routinely run 16:00-16:30 for 5k (PR 15:35) and can average 12x400m in 69 but can barely break 2:50 in the marathon.

suitcase of courage wrote:

Nj possible wrote:

I'm not too surprised. There's a lot of 30 and 40 year olds who can't touch a 17:30 but dip under 3. They're slow but dedicated.

sigh.......it's worse than that. I ran 2:53 and I still can't break 18 in the 5k.

I was worse than that in the opposite direction - 15:22 for 5k on the road and a 2:47:30 marathon (and that was an even paced one 83:30/84).

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.

I have run a 33,10 10k but my marathon PB is 3,00 (Berlin). During my marathon buildup I had 14 weeks above 130 km/week and 11 runs longer than 2 hours, so it wasn´t lack of training.

Zero endurance wrote:

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.

I have run a 33,10 10k but my marathon PB is 3,00 (Berlin). During my marathon buildup I had 14 weeks above 130 km/week and 11 runs longer than 2 hours, so it wasn´t lack of training.

Obviously something was wrong either on race day or with your training in general.

Not everyone with 33 min 10 k runs 2:33 which should be possible with this 10 k PR according to Daniels, MacMillan and Co.!But you are too far off. Maybe you did run all your mileage very slow and neglected specific training at threshold and marathon race pace?

Maybe your long runs were to short? 2 h at a slow 7:30 pace is not more than 16 mi/25.6 km, whereas a few 20-22 mile runs are advisable at least. Maybe you forgot about real tapering and were simply tired from high mileage training?

A lot of the posters above who claim to be not able to run 400 m below 75 s did never really try in my opinion. They are training for 10 k to marathon races, the fastest sessions in training maybe 1 km repeats at 5-10 km race pace. Seldom they run repeated 400s at 3 k race pace which is maybe 80-85 s per lap. From this they estimate that it would be impossible to run sub 75.

If I run repeated 400m in training at the moment the average would be 75-80s, depending on number of intervals and length of recovery. A last repetition can be sub 70s occasionally.

But thats not my PR in an all out 400m race, as one could think if I just trained for distance like these marathon guys above. A few years ago when I was training specifically for middle distance my 400 m PR was 53 s and I am quite sure I can still reach this within 1 or 2 seconds with minimal specific work.

My point is, if they never really tried to race and train for anything shorter than 5 k, they simply can not know about their potential.

Even I can not tell you if I could have run closer to or even faster than 50 s if I trained really specifically for sprint and with a bit more dedication. It seems quite possible but I feel like 50 s might have been the maximum. But while I can make a realistic guess, they really can't.

Yeah well how about this - I have run 64 400m / 23 200m but can't break 3. Lol

As a back of the pack distance runner in HS I never thought I was fast and it has only gotten worse with age (now 60) and marathon training with no speed work during the winter/icy months.

But I can tell you there is more speed there with the right conditions. One example was in my 30's I couldn't break 70 when doing 400 repeats alone. Then one day I did a workout with sub 53 second 400 meter runners and they pulled me through a 67.

Example 2. Since I'll be doing a 3000 race on the track in 2 weeks earlier this week I decided to do 2 hard 400's with plenty of rest. I've struggle to run 88 this year when I have done 400's. My first one this week was 85.1. Six minutes later I ran 81.0.

So I would suggest that almost all (younger) sub 3 hour marathoners could break 70 seconds with a little work to teach their muscles how to move faster and a better warm-up. If that doesn't work a little competition should get them there.

It shouldn't take much focused training. I'm a 3:31 marathoner at the moment hoping to get back under 3:25.

The phenomenon basically being discussed here is the level of anaerobic (glycolytic) capacity. A high such allow for alot of power contributed from that energy system in shorter durations (e.g in 100-800m races). But in longer races (5k and up) a high or even a medium anaerobic capacity will lower performance (i.e threshold speed) due to the downside of that energy system - creation of hydrogen ions causing acidosis in the muscles inhibiting muscle contractions.

You will always find some talented runners that can run really decent at both the 400m and marathon, but that would mainly be because of good aerobic capacity, good economy, and anaerobic capacity probably in the medium range to somewhat allow for decent power output in both short and long durations. But we know that the runner will is probably not trained to reach he's/she's potential on either of those very short and long disciplines.

So to conclude one can advance in "all" disciplines as long as there is significant room for improvment in aerobic capacity and/or economy, but to get that last improvment kick optimal anaerobic capacity for the targeted race duration need to be found and trained/adjusted to. Not too high to cause acidosis to early in the race, but not too low to not contribute with (too) little power from glycolysis (metabolic pathway that breaks down glycogen/glucose).