Have you ever come across a distance runner who was really good at shorter distances like 800/1500, and was also really good at the marathon but somehow was disproportionately bad in distances like 10K?
Have you ever come across a distance runner who was really good at shorter distances like 800/1500, and was also really good at the marathon but somehow was disproportionately bad in distances like 10K?
Nope.
I know a guy who has run 1:48.6 for the 800 and 25:00 for 8k cross, but only 3:59 for the 1500.
I knew a guy who ran the 100y and the mile (longest track race then available) on his high school team.
Logic Man wrote:
Have you ever come across a distance runner who was really good at shorter distances like 800/1500, and was also really good at the marathon but somehow was disproportionately bad in distances like 10K?
My High School PRs went as follows:
100m- 10.9
400m- 50.9
800m- 1:59
1600m- 4:49
3200m- 9:24
Not exactly what you're looking for, but if you can't already see from this, the 800m and 1600m times are obscenely terrible when compared to the others...
*Note: I never actually ran the 200m so I have no idea what my PR for that is*
on the track i've run 3:49 for 1500 and 31:30 for 10k, but my 3k PR is only 8:55.
Mike Gratton
49 second 400 in HS 2.08 marathon. Most of his other times are fairly moderate compared to those 2. Good reason for it but still
According to the Purdy performance calculator, my best events are the ones 10 miles and longer and 1 mile and shorter. 5k-10k are worst. I feel like I've never figured out strategically how to push myself for 5-10k properly.
Seyta wrote:
My High School PRs went as follows:
100m- 10.9
400m- 50.9
800m- 1:59
1600m- 4:49
3200m- 9:24
Not exactly what you're looking for, but if you can't already see from this, the 800m and 1600m times are obscenely terrible when compared to the others...
*Note: I never actually ran the 200m so I have no idea what my PR for that is*
You must have run at least 4:42 for 1600 based on that 3200
400-55.24
800-2:05
1600-5:03
3200-10:35
3mile-16:04
do these sound pretty even? i have no idea.
My performances are like a U curve relatively speaking when I look at various performance rating or equivalency tables.
My 400 time is good, my 800 dips a little but my 1600 to 3000m times are my worst. The 5,000 is not too much better but after that the performance curve starts to go up again. My half marathon is slightly better than my 400m. Haven't tried a marathon yet.
I interpret this as indicating that I have decent speed, good running economy (both in terms of form and at the cellular level), but NOT as good of a VO2 max. I have a slight sunken chest so maybe my heart stroke volume can't be as big. I read somewhere (I think Daniels?) that the 3000 is the most VO2 max intensive race. So that makes sense for me. Whereas the 1/2 mary depends more on threshold and efficiency.
100m:10.96
400m: 47.77
800m: 1:52
1600m: 4:34
5k: 16:43
10k: 35
half: 1:12:24
Out of all those times, I was only ever proud of the 400m time.
When you looked at my times by expected performance curves as the distance went up, I pretty much got worse as the distance got longer. This was pretty normal in the early 90s when nobody was training correctly.
However, I was the "kicker" on my team, the one with the best 800m and below times, matched pretty evenly with other equally talented teammates at the 1600m (won most races by kick) and could destroy them in a 10k (3 mins faster) and on a long run (hour+), but generally got dominated in the 3200m and cross country.
The exception was at the beginning of the year when we'd be doing less speed and a little more distance...then I was owning everything...
I kind of knew I should keep doing that training but I foolishly trusted my coach and did exactly what I was told to do. Since I was the better runner at the lower distances I had to cover the 800m, so I was trained like an 800/1600 runner (which in the late 80s meant I trained like a 400m runner). My teammates were 3200m runners and ran about 10-15mpw more than me with longer intervals and less speed. Their extra aerobic capacity buried me in the 3200m and XC (though I occasionally could hang in there and win). My real talent was probably at 3200-5000 but I never developed it properly.
mile: 4:08
10k: 29:30
5k: only 14:26
Haven't run anything above 10k and my 800 is pretty terrible (1:57)
Seyta wrote:
Logic Man wrote:Have you ever come across a distance runner who was really good at shorter distances like 800/1500, and was also really good at the marathon but somehow was disproportionately bad in distances like 10K?
My High School PRs went as follows:
100m- 10.9
400m- 50.9
800m- 1:59
1600m- 4:49
3200m- 9:24
Not exactly what you're looking for, but if you can't already see from this, the 800m and 1600m times are obscenely terrible when compared to the others...
*Note: I never actually ran the 200m so I have no idea what my PR for that is*
So is the 400. Maybe the 100 time is a bit dubious...wind aided, hand-timing error (in your favor).
Yes... I have been there... and it all was because of my training. The culprit was not enough (or none) tempo type runs. I did long runs, speed work on the track (800s and below), and recovery runs. It wasn't until I added tempo/progression type runs into my week that I actually built any strength needed for solid 5/10k races.
I have/had this problem, two yrs ago I trained with a group of sub 16 5k and one of them was a sub 15 5k guy. My best was a very honest 16:27. I ran a lot of 5ks (like 4-5 in two months) around that time to improve it, from 16:40ish to 16:27.
We used to do a good ammout of 100m sprints on grass in the morning after drills and core work, none of my teamates could even come close to me if I ran them 100%. When I went at 90% effort some were close but they had to work hard to get me. Most of the time by 40-50meters I had them beat.
They never mentioned it but probably hated running long runs with me, we started easy and progressed but my progression would drop all of them by 45-50mins of running, it literally felt like someone hit a refresh button and I felt much better than at 20-25mins.
All of the interval track workouts, or short tempo runs. I was dead last. Sometimes If I felt good enough Id make it second last but it took a hell of a lot of effort.
I figured out the problem. It's obvious. Not enough **consistent** intervals through the year. I went overboard by reading stuff online like "intervals burns the athlete" and "running lydiard training is the long term way to go". Last year I discussed this with a great friend (old coach) and basically I was missing a balance. I ran continuous medium effort intervals but year round.
This year Im a 15:20 guy and what is nice I kepted the long run and sprint ability.
The point is work on what you are weak at consistenly.
Good luck.