What 400m speed does it take to run under 15min for 5k?

Neat to look at the progression.

High school:

16:24 and I could run about a :58

First time I broke 15:00 as a sophomore in college:

14:53 and :56

End of my senior year:

14:25 and :54, but consistently closed 5k's in 59/60

Definitely an endurance machine. I don't think I could have run under 54 without serious speed training. Then again, I was a 10k guy.

dsrunner wrote:

hard to break 13 without 50 speed.

hard to break 14 without 54 speed

hard to break 15 without 58 speed

hard to break 16 without 62 speed

hard to break 17 without 66 speed

distance runners don't use blocks, so

assume 3-5m running start scenario.

Why does that have to include a running start? Why not just leave it as a standing start? I also think that 50 is too fast for 13 minutes. I think it's more like 51-52 for most 13 min guys as evidenced by how they get severely out kicked by Farah.

That's like asking what flying 30 speed do you need to hit a 4:30

mile...it's almost irrelevant. I can't believe you got so many people to bite on this question...wait...you just got me!

1/10.

Ran 14:08/29:05 with a 400 meter best of 58 in a workout but closed in 59 in my 10k

I have seen people with utterly piss poor speed, like people who probably ran 13-14 seconds for 100m, run under 15.

weathered2 wrote:

thanks for the feed back guys I need more endurance to accomplish this then. I never ran sub 60 but Ive ran 60.xx a few times. I ran 15:42 last year and I'm going to take a good crack at it this fall.

Have you ever worked on leg strength? It could improve your 400 speed as well as improve your running economy, allowing you to run faster with the same amount of energy. Running race pace also improves running economy, of course.

These two things are not really related. I think I've run maybe a 68 and I've run 16:49. Neither are fast, but I didn't start running til my mid 30's. I know a guy who ran 70 mile weeks in high school and could run a 56-57 and didn't break 17:00 until he was a sophomore in college. They just aren't that related. The fastest 5K runners, most of them can't break 50 seconds in a 400m but that doesn't stop them from breaking 13:00 in the 5000m.

My PR is just under 15, and I split 55.x a couple times in relays, and my only open 400m was 53-mid (but I had stopped running and started lifting, so I doubt I could have run that quick when training). I probably had "average" speed for my 5k PR.

Two teammates of mine who broke 30 for 10k had relatively weak 400m speed.

One had a HS PR of 56 but could not run much better than 58 when he later became a long distance guy (14:15, 29:25, 2:14 marathon)

The other had a 58 PR, eventually got to high 56s and ran 4:11 mile, 14:35, 29:53. He closed 29:53 with a 59. We did 400m TTs occasionally and he really could not go faster than the 56 high.

I ran 54.6...and my PRs were 15:45 and 32:59...

This was in the 80s/90s when we just did speedwork all the time and no real endurance training.

Moral of the story: concentrate on endurance. Very few people really need the speed in the end. Until you can run 12:45, someone is already going to have dropped you and you'll be kicking for something other than 1st place.

So on the other side of the coin, how fast would someone have to run at 400 to be a sprint type, who likely could not come close to breaking 15? I'm thinking the vast majority of people who run sub 50 fit here.

What the fck is wrong with me?

I'm a pretty much terrible sprinter but things turn absolutely horrible for anything over 1500.

100 High 12

200 25.0

400 ~53.5

800 1:59

1500 4:10

2000 6:00

3000 9:50 (!!!)

5000 17:30

10k 36:20

Ran a lot wrote:

There is a formula that holds pretty true:

400 time plus 4 sec is your 800 meter pace.

800 pace plus 4 sec is your 1500 meter pace.

1500 pace plus 4 sec is your 3000 pace

3000 pace plus 4 sec is your 5000 pace.

5000 pace plus 4 sec is your 10,000 pace.

This conversion works only for the most elite, impeccably-coached athletes of all time. Especially when we're talking 400/800/1600

A better option would be the x2.2 conversion:

400 - 55

800 - 2:01

1600 - 4:26

Either way, I'd agree that maybe sub-60 is all that is needed to average 72/400m

Ran a lot wrote:

There is a formula that holds pretty true:

400 time plus 4 sec is your 800 meter pace.

800 pace plus 4 sec is your 1500 meter pace.

1500 pace plus 4 sec is your 3000 pace

3000 pace plus 4 sec is your 5000 pace.

5000 pace plus 4 sec is your 10,000 pace.

In this example that is:

56 for 400

2:00 for 800

4:00 for 1500

8:30 for 3000

15:00 for 5000

31:40 for 10k

This equation only works for runners with much better endurance than speed. A 2:00 800 is much better then a 56 400 for the average runner, and 4:00 is much better than 2:00, etc.

I know a guy who is definelty not a speedier guy, but he was doing a lot of faster training at the time, this is him:

55

2:07

4:51

10:32

16:56

weathered2 wrote:

There is a formula that holds pretty true:

400 time plus 4 sec is your 800 meter pace.

800 pace plus 4 sec is your 1500 meter pace.

1500 pace plus 4 sec is your 3000 pace

3000 pace plus 4 sec is your 5000 pace.

5000 pace plus 4 sec is your 10,000 pace.

In this example that is:

56 for 400

2:00 for 800

4:00 for 1500

8:30 for 3000

15:00 for 5000

31:40 for 10k

Wow, that is ridiculously inaccurate, on both sides.

weathered2 wrote:

I was surprised I didn't see the obligatory "72 sec" answer!

Good timing, it was posted right before this.

marijuologist wrote:

I have seen people with utterly piss poor speed, like people who probably ran 13-14 seconds for 100m, run under 15.

That's not "utterly piss poor speed" for a distance runner. Actually sub-13 would be very fast for a 15:00 runner.

osm wrote:

This equation only works for runners with much better endurance than speed. A 2:00 800 is much better then a 56 400 for the average runner, and 4:00 is much better than 2:00, etc.

Yep, except then it tails off way too far for 10,000 despite that it's so endurance-biased.

53.1 Open

14:58 5000

askdjaskld wrote:

Two teammates of mine who broke 30 for 10k had relatively weak 400m speed.

One had a HS PR of 56 but could not run much better than 58 when he later became a long distance guy (14:15, 29:25, 2:14 marathon)

The other had a 58 PR, eventually got to high 56s and ran 4:11 mile, 14:35, 29:53. He closed 29:53 with a 59. We did 400m TTs occasionally and he really could not go faster than the 56 high.

I ran 54.6...and my PRs were 15:45 and 32:59...

This was in the 80s/90s when we just did speedwork all the time and no real endurance training.

Moral of the story: concentrate on endurance. Very few people really need the speed in the end. Until you can run 12:45, someone is already going to have dropped you and you'll be kicking for something other than 1st place.

Guys like you are why we never won any medals until 2012. You need to improve your speed. There's no way anyone can run 12:45 (61 pace) if they don't have sub 50 speed. And most guys can't do that. Salazar knows this. Magness knows this. It's slowly trickling down to coaches at all levels. Hopefully within the next decade it will be standard practice for most teams.