2:10 -> 2:00?

I was a 4:57 runner in the 1600m my senior year.

I was a :53 runner in the 400m.

and a :25 in the 200m.

I still ran a 2:02 in 800m.

You should be able to too. Fairly comparable times...

After my junior year, my PRs were 4:50 and 55, same as yours. Never ran the 200, but I would guess 25.x. 800 time that year was ... 2:03.

BUT, the 800 was my main event. The 4:50 and 55 were my only outdoor attempts at those distances in my entire HS career. My sweet spot was in the 600-1000 range.

The OP probably needs to be able to run a 52-53 400m minimal to get under 2:00 in the 800m. Some guys respond better to speed work and some guys respond better to mileage. Look at Ryan Hall...He runs huge mileage, but would probably struggle to break 2:00 in the 800m.

For what it's worth I did 8 x 300M at 44-45 seconds (about 90 seconds to 2minutes rest between each) to simulate 800 races.

Those 10 seconds in the 800 are quite substancial, especially when you start to get closer to 2:04-2:02. I ran 2:06 as a sophomore and it took 2 years of chipping away to finally break 2 (and then taper to 1:57).

The workout that seems to best represent your fitness in the 800 is: 5x200 at 800 pace with 15 seconds rest.

Everything else depends on if you want to focus on the strength or the speed. You can do hard quarters and 200's or 40x200's depending on your training.

'WK1b: 8x200m with 1min rests

WK2a: 2x200 (5min rest) 2x400 (6min rest) 2x200 (5min rest)

WK2b: 6x400m (1min rest)

WK3a: 5x400m (7min rest)

Wk3b: 8x400m (1min rest)

Wk4a: 10x200m (5min rest)

Wk4b: 8x200m (1 min rest)...need to be able to hit 26s ea. by this time.'

I like the look of these as you have a good variety. Bring in the speed stuff with longer recoveries as you get closer to the race. Not sure if you need to drop right down to 30 mpw. Would also add something like 4 x 1000m or 3 x 1 mile to get in slower than pace work

I know several guys can run 1:53 but could not break 25 for 200m. You have the speed but need to work on endurance and speed endurance. Both will come with time

With a 55 in the quarter, you're gonna need to run about a 4:35 in the 16:00 to meet your Goal.

However, you run a 24 200m. With that, I'm HIGHLY confident that you could run a 53 400m at least.

With a 53 second 400m, you'll need to get your 1600m down to about a 4:45.

If you really push yourself & get your 400m time to a 52, then you'll need about a 4:50 to meet your goal.

Here's a quick little chart for you to see what you need to run in the 400m/1600m to run a 2 FLAT

400m / 1600m:

50s / 5:00 - 5:05

51s / 4:54 - 4:59

52s / 4:48 - 4:53

53s / 4:42 - 4:47

54s / 4:36 - 4:41

55s / 4:30 - 4:35

So if you stay at your current speed (55s 400m), then you're gonna need to run about a 4:35 1600m to meet your Goal.

However, judging by your 200m time, I KNOW you can get to a 53s 400m (I ran a 24/53 with little endurance). Once you get there, you should try getting you 1600m down to around a 4:45 and you have a pretty likely chance of reaching 2 FLAT.

Even if you don't get your 400m to a 55s, then you could easily get it to a 54s. In which case, you'll need to get your 1600m to about a 4:40. Not too far off from your current PR of 4:50.

So, I'd suggest you get your 1600m down about 10-15s and/or your 400m down 1-2s.

GOOD LUCK!

Brandon wrote:

Everything else depends on if you want to focus on the strength or the speed. You can do hard quarters and 200's or 40x200's depending on your training.

this is interesting, consider i want to focus on strength because in the long run, i'm not going to always be an 800m runner. my main goal IS sub 2, but i would rather be 1:59, 4:25, 9:40, than 52, 24, and 1:57.

also, thanks again for all the feedback everyone, i'm carefully reading and taking all posts into account.

bump bump bump it up

Training Advisor wrote:

The OP probably needs to be able to run a 52-53 400m minimal to get under 2:00 in the 800m.

Garbage

I've known several runners done 1:53 off a 53 400m

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Training Advisor wrote:

The OP probably needs to be able to run a 52-53 400m minimal to get under 2:00 in the 800m.

Garbage

I've known several runners done 1:53 off a 53 400m

I totally agree with you that sub 2:00 can be run off higher than 53 400m in most cases.

The OP's PRs get much worse as the distance goes up...More so than you would expect from a runner who put in high mileage over the summer and runs 40+ a week. His natural strength seems to lie in the speed category more than endurance.

UKAC - Has it been your experience that most runner's perform better when they train to their strengths?...or when they focus their training on their weaknesses?

Brandon wrote:

Those 10 seconds in the 800 are quite substancial, especially when you start to get closer to 2:04-2:02. I ran 2:06 as a sophomore and it took 2 years of chipping away to finally break 2 (and then taper to 1:57).

The workout that seems to best represent your fitness in the 800 is: 5x200 at 800 pace with 15 seconds rest.

Everything else depends on if you want to focus on the strength or the speed. You can do hard quarters and 200's or 40x200's depending on your training.

Now that I remember we did do some 200s, but not many. We did maybe 12 @ 29 sec (i forgot the rest interval) and also we did 3 x 800, first one easy @ 2:20, 4 minute rest, then 2:14 with 4 minute rest, then a 800 @ 2:08 (thats when my PR was still high 2:04). I think the 800s gave me pretty good confidence because I ran pretty even splits.

'UKAC - Has it been your experience that most runner's perform better when they train to their strengths?...or when they focus their training on their weaknesses?'

As in most thing in training it's the middle ground rather than one extreme or another which works

So you need to work on both, or maybe change to a distance that better suits your strenghts

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'UKAC - Has it been your experience that most runner's perform better when they train to their strengths?...or when they focus their training on their weaknesses?'

As in most thing in training it's the middle ground rather than one extreme or another which works

So you need to work on both, or maybe change to a distance that better suits your strenghts

----------------------------------------------------------

I think most runner's perform better when they focus on training to their strengths, but don't ignore their weaknesses...at least initially. Its not quite "middle" ground. If you see bigger gains by working on speed, continue to focus on and develop speed. Once times start to stagnate, then the focus can shift to developing stronger endurance.

I don't necessarily think that 200 speed is directly related to a mile. I've known guys who've barely broken :30 and are still ~4:20 milers.

It's like a sprinter asking what his :22 200 can do in a mile. Not terribly relevant. Focus on your VO2 max and longer intervals.

Training Advisor wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'UKAC - Has it been your experience that most runner's perform better when they train to their strengths?...or when they focus their training on their weaknesses?'

As in most thing in training it's the middle ground rather than one extreme or another which works

So you need to work on both, or maybe change to a distance that better suits your strenghts

----------------------------------------------------------

I think most runner's perform better when they focus on training to their strengths, but don't ignore their weaknesses...at least initially. Its not quite "middle" ground. If you see bigger gains by working on speed, continue to focus on and develop speed. Once times start to stagnate, then the focus can shift to developing stronger endurance.

i would consider my times as stagnating, would this mean that i should focus on aerobic strength mainly with still a bit of focus on speed?

bump

i would consider my times as stagnating, would this mean that i should focus on aerobic strength mainly with still a bit of focus on speed?

Depends on what type of workouts you are doing right now. What did your last month look like?

Training Advisor wrote:

i would consider my times as stagnating, would this mean that i should focus on aerobic strength mainly with still a bit of focus on speed?

Depends on what type of workouts you are doing right now. What did your last month look like?

Mostly interval stuff with 40 minute tempo runs sprinkled throughout. Pretty standard I think, with about 40 miles per week.