Accurate 800m predictor based off 400/1600m time

What if he is ambitious and his goal is 1:55 in the 800m...this would predict a 4:35 mile for a 5:00 miler.

At first I thought this was stupid...then I tried it.

College

400-50.6

1600-4:18

Predicted time 1:52.32

Actual 800- 1:52.9

HS

400-51.9

1600-4:25

Predicted time- 1:55.3

Actual 800- 1:54.7

I say that is pretty successful formula.

I found this formula pretty good.

HS junior year

400 - 56.99

1,600 - 4:48.76

Predicted 800 - 2:06.14

Actual 800 - 2:07

So definately works for me.

pretty solid calculator.

400m - 63

1600m - 5:10

800m - 2:17.6

I ran a couple of 2:20's this summer jogging to the track going out in 69 and holding on for a 2:20 on like the first wednesday night in july and the 2nd wednesday night on july.

A little off for me.

400m: 49.54

Mile: 4:18.21

Predicted 800m: 1:51.0

Actual 800m: 1:52.86

400: ~60 flat

1600: 4:26.XX mile ~ 4:25 flat 1600

Predicts a 2:05. Never ran the 800 but I always thought this was about the best I could hope for.

very interesting.

52.7

4:14

-->1:54.04

I've never been close to that, but I've only run an 800 once in like the last 10 years. But I never run the 400 either, so that makes me think I should be able to go 50.x and therefore ~1:52. Sounds a little crazy at this point, but also kinda exciting.

I thought I'd check an elite on this:

Nick Symmonds

48.1

3:54

-->1:44.52

That's pretty darn close, I'd say. He's run faster than that, but he probably can go faster than 48.1 in the quarter if he ever raced it.

M M M wrote:

400: ~60 flat

1600: 4:26.XX mile ~ 4:25 flat 1600

Predicts a 2:05. Never ran the 800 but I always thought this was about the best I could hope for.

How are your times even possible holy crap. Can't break 60 but can run a 425...

400 - 52.5

1600 - 4:19.53

I'm getting 1:54.3, but I've only run around 1:58.4, and I'm definitely not a strength runner since I've only run around 9:45 for 3200. Of course I've only run the 800 in dual meets save one invitational my freshman year, so maybe that is what I could potentially run? If so I'm really excited for track this year.

TheMilerTom wrote:

400 - 52.5

1600 - 4:19.53

I'm getting 1:54.3, but I've only run around 1:58.4, and I'm definitely not a strength runner since I've only run around 9:45 for 3200. Of course I've only run the 800 in dual meets save one invitational my freshman year, so maybe that is what I could potentially run? If so I'm really excited for track this year.

Did you run your 400m and 1600m times within the same month? I assume that the prediction would only be valid for simultaneously being in shape to run both times.

My other guess is that you had poor pacing or weren't pushing yourself as hard as you really could have.

Worked for high-school me - 53.8, 4:25, 1:57. I haven't raced a quarter or an 800 in a long time though, so I don't know how it would work now.

400=49

1600=4:16

Predicted=1:50

Actual=1:54

Close

NotChuckNorris wrote:

400=49

1600=4:16

Predicted=1:50

Actual=1:54

Close

In what way is 4 seconds close? This isn't a 10k.

Works best if you are weaker in the 400, I think. I have a strong 400 (55.9) and off of 4:40 it predicts 2:03.7 whereas my actual is 2:06.7 off of many attempts.

Predicts 2:01.41 (55.07 and 4:36.63) and I actually ran 2:01.86--good enough for me.

Sheeeesh wrote:

Works best if you are weaker in the 400, I think. I have a strong 400 (55.9) and off of 4:40 it predicts 2:03.7 whereas my actual is 2:06.7 off of many attempts.

What's your pacing like for those attempts? Maybe that's the problem?

Thought I would try it out.

400: 47.7 = 57.24

1600: 4:11 = 50.2

Predicted 800: 1:47.44

Actual 800: 1:47.6

Well done!

Within .5 for me, and the 1600 time i get using my goal 800m seems pretty close

good find

Doesn't work so well for me

400 - 51

1600 - 4.15

predicts 1.52.xx where as i have only ever ran 1.55.1