Should I run 400m or 800m?

Your 400 time is MUCH better than your 800. I'm not saying you couldn't do well in the 8, but right now I'd say your better shorter.

800

You're better at the 400 now obviously, but your coach is right that you could go 2:10. There's nothing wrong with sticking with the 400 though.

a 56 runner who's fully trained for 800 should be able to run 2:03. 2:10 would not be worth the switch.

400 for sure. Dropping a 56 is much better than maybe getting a 2:10

Bad Wigins wrote:

a 56 runner who's fully trained for 800 should be able to run 2:03. 2:10 would not be worth the switch.

I disagree - 2:10 and 56 are about equivalent, if not tipped in the 2:10's favor, at least for younger people. Maybe for a masters 40+ runner the 56 might be better.

A good pro 400/800 runner who could run 47 would be capable of about 104 seconds.

104/47 = 2.21

Rudisha can run about 46 and 101, a ratio of 2.19

An average college runner could do 50 and 110, about 2.2

130 seconds/56 seconds = 2.32. A much slower 800 than usual for a doubler. 2.2 would be about 123 seconds, or 2:03.

I always trust that 2.2 ratio, it's simple and it works.

Bad Wigins wrote:

A good pro 400/800 runner who could run 47 would be capable of about 104 seconds.

104/47 = 2.21

Rudisha can run about 46 and 101, a ratio of 2.19

An average college runner could do 50 and 110, about 2.2

130 seconds/56 seconds = 2.32. A much slower 800 than usual for a doubler. 2.2 would be about 123 seconds, or 2:03.

I always trust that 2.2 ratio, it's simple and it works.

56.xx 400 would suggest that a runner could open an 800 race in about 62.00 comfortably. Following that, I would suspect this runner would come back in the 64-68 range for about a 2:06-2:10 finishing time.

But that's just me.

sure, they could open in 62. But they could also open in 60 if they'd rather not underachieve. The difference between 56 and 62 is enormous.

Another way to look at an efficient 800 is to run the first lap at 93 percent of 400 max and the 2nd at 88 percent, I think it was Joe Vigil who said that. 56/.93 would be 60.2.

crazy raisin wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

a 56 runner who's fully trained for 800 should be able to run 2:03. 2:10 would not be worth the switch.

I disagree - 2:10 and 56 are about equivalent, if not tipped in the 2:10's favor, at least for younger people. Maybe for a masters 40+ runner the 56 might be better.

No they are not

Even off an average conversion 56 + 6 x 2 = 2:04

You guys are looking at this all from a distance mentality.

Going by what some people are saying then a 45.00 second 400m runner should be running the following:

45 x 2.2 = 1:39.00

Somebody should tell the Borlees to move up as they'd be shoe-ins for Rudisha's record :-)

The fact is you are all looking at it from the point of view of distance runners with a 400m time. What about looking at it from the point of view of a sprinter with an 800m time?

56 and 2:10 would place a woman roughly in the same sort of position in a national championships in many countries btw. The performances are equal on the IAAF points tables.

Also the chances are if the OP changes to 800m then he will lose a bit of his 400m speed due to less pure power speed work. He'll get faster over 800m but would probably lose a second or so in his 400m.

He is in his MID 20s.

The only thing that matters is,"I much prefer the 400m training and the mix of speed, strength work in gym, and speed endurance. I don’t really like the look of 800m specific training."

Stay with the 400. After only 2 years you can still improve your 56 with what you are doing (you might have to do a little more 800ish training to get to 53 eventually) If in 25 years you are still running 56.xx you will be a stud.

Have fun.

Bad Wigins wrote:

A good pro 400/800 runner who could run 47 would be capable of about 104 seconds.

104/47 = 2.21

Rudisha can run about 46 and 101, a ratio of 2.19

An average college runner could do 50 and 110, about 2.2

130 seconds/56 seconds = 2.32. A much slower 800 than usual for a doubler. 2.2 would be about 123 seconds, or 2:03.

I always trust that 2.2 ratio, it's simple and it works.

Apparently I'm running 5 seconds slower than my potential. I'm not sure I agree with that conversion, at least at the high school level basically every 800 runner I can think of in my state runs a slower 800 than would be suggested by that conversion. Maybe they're all training wrong but I think 2.25 is a better conversion at the high school level.

Is the OP a chick or a dude? And would the conversion still be 2.2 or 2.25?

pretty good times...

for a girl

Yeah, OP are you a male or female?

If you're a male, then I say just do whatever you get the most enjoyment from. Based on your times, and please don't take this as an insult, your speed is average so I wouldn't worry too much about taking competition seriously outside of personal fulfillment. Do what you like doing. That said, I think you may have greater potential in the 800. Your 100m does not indicate great sprint potential, and your 2:19 is based off little to no 800m training. You can' just go out and run a decent 800 off weights and speed work. Plus, your own coach thinks you'd be better at it. His opinion probably means more than ours because he works with you.

If you're a female, I say go for the 800. With a season of 800m specific training, you may have potential to compete at a high level

For males, 56 = 2:00. Stick with the 400.

For females, 56 and 2:19 are both really good. You could really improve in the 800 and be competitive.

Bad Wigins wrote:

A good pro 400/800 runner who could run 47 would be capable of about 104 seconds.

104/47 = 2.21

Rudisha can run about 46 and 101, a ratio of 2.19

An average college runner could do 50 and 110, about 2.2

130 seconds/56 seconds = 2.32. A much slower 800 than usual for a doubler. 2.2 would be about 123 seconds, or 2:03.

I always trust that 2.2 ratio, it's simple and it works.

Umm, Rudisha has run 45.5 for 400m and was likely in high 44 / 45 flat shape in London