We talk alot on here about how speed is relevant to running, especially the 800/1500/Mile. So my question to you is can the "typical" person (who is capable of running a 57 second 400m) break 4:30?
Another way of phrasing this is if you rounded up everybody who could run 57, would a substantial number be able to run <4:30, or is there a significant amount of aerobic talent needed to approach the guideline of mile time = (400m time + (8s-10s)) * 4?
A lot of football types could bust out mid to low 50s 400, but wouldn't be willing to change their body composition to the extent necessary to go 430 for a mile.
Yes, without a doubt. I never cracked 57 in an open 400, but I ran mid-4:20s with no problem. I ran the 57 point in an open 400 at the peak of my fitness in college, as a 5K/10K runner.
Fair enough. Let's assume though that the person is willing to make some changes. I'd say if the football player could get to 4:30 via training and body change then he is indeed capable of running a sub 4:30.
I guess I ought to clarify that I don't mean capable at this moment in time, but if said 57 guys did some training for a while. Obviously very few, if any, can just go bust out a 4:30 without decent running training.
Mcmillan, while obviously not a concrete predictor by any means, sets a 57 equivalent to a 437 mile. This suggests that some moderate aerobic talent would definitely be necessary in order for these individuals to run 430, along with proper training
No. I could run 50 flat, but only run a 5 min mile.
No. I split 56 in my one and only mile relay (on a 440 yard dirt track), but was barely a 4:50 miler.
I think the OP is mis-underestimating how good 430 really is.
I assume the OP is talking about individuals who have an average muscle fiber type composition. The two above posters probably had a much higher % FT muscles as well as a higher anaerobic ability, or underwent training geared more towards shorter distance races
"mis-underestimating"?
seriously??? wrote:
"mis-underestimating"?
lolz
I know a former top runner who topped out at a shade under 55 for 400m and ran 3:42 flat for 1500m. He was on the USA team for the World XC Champs and World Track&Field Champs. Maybe you're more suited to the longer races like him. But yes you can run sub 4:30 with a 57 max because I did it.
seriously??? wrote:
"mis-underestimating"?
Sorry, is that not supposed to be hyphenated?
Irregardless, we have gone a bit off-topic...
Yes you can... wrote:
I know a former top runner who topped out at a shade under 55 for 400m and ran 3:42 flat for 1500m. He was on the USA team for the World XC Champs and World Track&Field Champs. Maybe you're more suited to the longer races like him. But yes you can run sub 4:30 with a 57 max because I did it.
Obviously its possible, there are tons of runners out there who aren't gifted with blazing speed but have well developed aerobic talent and can run <4:30 with a 57 400. What the OP was asking is if a significant amount of everyone maxing out a 57 400m would be able to run at least 4:30 off of proper training. I'd say less than 50% of those who run 57 would equal or break 4:30
Eldrick (not that one) wrote:
Sorry, is that not supposed to be hyphenated?
Irregardless, we have gone a bit off-topic...
lmfao
if it helps in any way :
57.0/4'30 ->2'04.1 , 4'09.8 , 8'57.3 , 15'41.8 , 33'29.3
waeg wrote:
I assume the OP is talking about individuals who have an average muscle fiber type composition. The two above posters probably had a much higher % FT muscles as well as a higher anaerobic ability, or underwent training geared more towards shorter distance races
That's true, I was training for the 400 when I could run 50 flat. But I still think I would have trouble running a 4:30 mile even if I was training for it.
Eldrick (not that one) wrote:
A lot of football types could bust out mid to low 50s 400, but wouldn't be willing to change their body composition to the extent necessary to go 430 for a mile.
This is true. I ran with a guy in college who got down to 47 seconds for the 400, and he couldn't have run 4:30 to save his life...two completely different energy systems. Sure some can and do, but when you look at it from the point of view of the low 50s 400 runner and then wondering if on average they can run a 4:30 mile, then I say no...even if they were willing to "change their body composition".
I ran 55.9 but never broke 4:40, despite mileage up to 120/week, a 2:38 marathon and every kind of low-middle-high mileage program. I do have asthma issues that cost me some good races, and at 160 I am a little bigger than optimal, but I honestly feel that sub-4:30 just wasn't possible with my genetics.
ventolin^3 wrote:
if it helps in any way :
57.0/4'30 ->2'04.1 , 4'09.8 , 8'57.3 , 15'41.8 , 33'29.3
Interesting. My PRs, all from the same track season (the 4:26 is a full mile, not a 1600):
57.?, 2:04.?, 4:09.?, 4:26.?, 8:57.?, 15:27.?, 31:48.?