Calculate my 1600m time?

the fact that you fall off so hard from 400 to 800 is startling, but I don't think under 5:00 would be so hard for you.

You lack endurance, so training for the mile will probably help your 800 times a lot.

Is my 400 to 800 time really that big of a fall off? What should someone running in the low.54s run for their 800?

Here's the formulas I use. These are to be interpreted as best possible time, i.e. your potential.

Add 5 seconds to your best 400 and double for 800 time. Add 10 seconds to your best 400 time and quadruple for 1600 time.

You have to train of course to achieve this potential.

runnyrun56 wrote:

I'm a mid-distance runner, right now running the 400 in the low .54s and running 800s in around 2:05-2:08. Do you think I could break 5 in the 1600 if I tried? For training, I run anywhere between 2-6 miles 2-3 times a week for a good base so running distances isn't foreign to me

I could run a 25.x, 57, and 2:09 and I ran 4:41. 4:45 was easy for me. You need to increase mileage or decrease quality days.

oldandoutofshape wrote:

runnyrun56 wrote:

I'm a mid-distance runner, right now running the 400 in the low .54s and running 800s in around 2:05-2:08. Do you think I could break 5 in the 1600 if I tried? For training, I run anywhere between 2-6 miles 2-3 times a week for a good base so running distances isn't foreign to me

I could run a 25.x, 57, and 2:09 and I ran 4:41. 4:45 was easy for me. You need to increase mileage or decrease quality days.

EDIT: I misread your op and thought you couldn't break 5. You'll knock it out of the park if you pace yourself well. Go out conservatively in a 75 and see where you go from there.

You should be able to run around 2:00 flat for the 800. Of course, you aren't trained for it, so it isn't too surprising.

Unless you have no aerobic capacity, sub 5 is a lock. Your 800 is clearly a drop off but even so I'd think sub 5 easy. Run a few 25-30 mile weeks and you might be