First time I'm racing the 800 in my life, any tips/ what should I hit for a 4:40-4:50 1600m equivalent?
First time I'm racing the 800 in my life, any tips/ what should I hit for a 4:40-4:50 1600m equivalent?
2:05-2:08
2:01-2:06
2:02-2:08
the ratio is typically about 2.2.
280 seconds/2.2 = 127 seconds
The same ratio holds true for 400 and 800. 200 to 400 is slightly lower on average.
2:06-2:10. If you have decent strength, your 1500 should be double your 800. I'm guessing that, because you've never done an 800 but have done the mile, you're more of a long distance guy.
What is your 400m pr, or have you not raced that yet? Even a little training info would be nice. Even a 3200 would be helpful.
I have known 4:40 guys that could never get past 2:08, and others that could push 2:01. It's all a matter of what kind of running you're geared towards.
rabatiesu wrote:
First time I'm racing the 800 in my life, any tips/ what should I hit for a 4:40-4:50 1600m equivalent?
if you are strong but not fast, a good rule is 1500 = 2x800. so 4:40-50 1600 is about 4:20-4:25 1500 which means 2:10-12 for the 800
if you are speedier than your are strong you can knock 5s off that. so 2:05-2:07
Bad Wigins wrote:
the ratio is typically about 2.2.
It's not. As always you have no idea what you're talking about, just parroting something you've read. 2.2 is only valid for very aerobically developed runners, not for a mere 4:40 miler with obvious limited experience.
You're a joke.
4:40= ~2:04
4:50= ~2:08
osm wrote:
4:40= ~2:04
4:50= ~2:08
Agree.
800 analyzer wrote:
osm wrote:4:40= ~2:04
4:50= ~2:08
Agree.
that would ONLY be right for someone who is faster than they are strong - like an 800 runner. people who run 4:40 or 4:50 on aerobic prowess will be 5s slower over 800 (as i posted earlier)
2:07/08 = 4:40 imo
My HS 1600 PR = 4:30
My HS 800 PR = 2:06
Bad Wigins wrote:
the ratio is typically about 2.2.
280 seconds/2.2 = 127 seconds
The same ratio holds true for 400 and 800. 200 to 400 is slightly lower on average.
I just ran 1:55 and I sure as hell could not run 3:50. I have good strength (9:20 for 3200). I don't think that this is accurate.
2:10-2:15
2:03 - 2:10
For mile to 800 conversion, divide by 2.18 for an "average" runner, thus 2:08. 1600 is 9 meters short.
get a clue. wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:the ratio is typically about 2.2.
It's not. As always you have no idea what you're talking about, just parroting something you've read. 2.2 is only valid for very aerobically developed runners, not for a mere 4:40 miler with obvious limited experience.
You're a joke.
If you register a name, you might cure that nasty streak of yours. You have no name because nobody likes you, which feeds your nastiness, trapping you in a downward spiral of toxic despair from which there is no escape.
But you provide an opportunity to educate the people. Here's a randomly chosen minor track meet from milesplit, the first one that came up in the search.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/post.php?board=1&reply=5688789four boys were in the top 15 in both 800 and 1600
1st/1st: 2:00, 4:37 ratio 2.30
5th/4th: 2:10, 4:41 ratio 2.16
14th/11th: 5:22, 2:35 ratio 2.07
13th/13th: 2:28, 5:50 ratio 2.36
on the girl's side,
1st/1st: 2:25, 5:18, 2.19
8th/5th: 2:37, 5:47, 2.21
The boys' winner was clearly running for points in the 1600 whereas he won by 5 seconds in the 800, so his real ratio is probably lower. Nonetheless, the average ratio for these less than "very aerobically trained" runners
(2.30 + 2.16 + 2.07 + 2.36 + 2.19 + 2.21)/6 = 2.21
carunner0103 wrote:
I just ran 1:55 and I sure as hell could not run 3:50. I have good strength (9:20 for 3200). I don't think that this is accurate.
I made it pretty clear that it's number of seconds, and 2.2, not 2.0.
1:55 = 115 seconds
115 x 2.2 = 253 = 4:13,
which you can probably achieve with that 800 speed. Macmillan predicts 4:14. Interestingly,
253 x 2.2 = 556 = 9:16,
almost your 3200 speed.
In practice, for equally trained athletes the 1600/3200 ratio is closer to 2.15. If you trained 1600/3200 and reached 4:13 you'd probably improve to 9:04. But training 400/800 you may be capable of 4:13 right now. Since your 800 is better than your 3200, I'd be surprised if your 1600 isn't significantly better than 560/2.15 = 4:26. And since you're probably not a sprinter, your 400RP is likely within 1 second of 115.5/2.2 = 52.5.
Most people just add a certain number of seconds per lap to convert times. But 5 seconds per lap for a 4:40 miler is not the same as it is for a 4:00 or 5:20 miler. Not only is using ratios more accurate, the same ratio is valid for both doubles from 400 to 1600, and nearly valid up to 3200. 2.2 is the Golden Ratio of middle distance.
crete wrote:
800 analyzer wrote:Agree.
that would ONLY be right for someone who is faster than they are strong - like an 800 runner. people who run 4:40 or 4:50 on aerobic prowess will be 5s slower over 800 (as i posted earlier)
yes. speed
280.5/124.5 = 2.25
290.5/128.5 = 2.26
aerobic
280.5/129.5 = 2.16
290.5/133.5 = 2.17
average
2.20
2.21