Yesterday I ran the 3200 and 1600, the 3200 comes before the 1600 here, which I ran a PR in the 3200 of 10:44 then I ran a 4:59.8 in the 1600, what do you think I could run if I weren't to have ran the 3200 before hand
Yesterday I ran the 3200 and 1600, the 3200 comes before the 1600 here, which I ran a PR in the 3200 of 10:44 then I ran a 4:59.8 in the 1600, what do you think I could run if I weren't to have ran the 3200 before hand
Seeing as a 4:59 is better than a 10:44, I would guess you're more speed orientated rather than distance, so a 2 mile before the 16 could really slow you down. I'd say 4:49.9 is a good goal in your next race.
Dan the Fish wrote:
Seeing as a 4:59 is better than a 10:44, I would guess you're more speed orientated rather than distance, so a 2 mile before the 16 could really slow you down. I'd say 4:49.9 is a good goal in your next race.
What the heck? The mile time is not better than the 3200 time. My friend runs 4:45 for the mile and 10:55 for the two mile. My other friend runs 4:25 for the mile, and 10 for the 2 mile. A third one runs 4:55 and 11:30. Maybe my friends are just speed or oriented, but I think 5 is way easier to hit than 10:40.
Your friends are all bad at the 3200, then.
A 5 minute mile equates to a 10:40 2-mile. OP could probably hit 4:55 without doing the 2-mile beforehand since he seems better at the mile.
xdddddddddddd wrote:
Your friends are all bad at the 3200, then.
A 5 minute mile equates to a 10:40 2-mile. OP could probably hit 4:55 without doing the 2-mile beforehand since he seems better at the mile.
This.
I'd say you're good for about 4:52-4:53. You don't mention what your training is like, but I'm assuming you're not running a ton of miles. If that's the case, running two miles at race pace would take a lot out of you relative to someone who had been running more. That's why I say you've got another 6-7 seconds in you
In the original post I didn't include that I had a meet the day before and I ran a 2:16 800 and 5:05 1600, I set the races up not to be slow but to where I wasn't 100% dead. Also, I didn't mention, in the 3200 my hamstrings were quite tight from the day before and I had a little bit of pain in my right IT band.
My training is relatively simple, I run 35-40 MPW, I do a long run of 8-10 miles every weekend for 3 weeks then the next week I don't do one so I can rest or get a quality speed workout in. I have recently done 10x400 w/ 2 min rest in 71.3 second average. The saturday after this meet I ran a 9 mile long run w/ the last 3 miles at negative split, the rest around 8:00, which is a very easy pace for me. My last 3 miles were, 7:40, 7:20, and 6:35. Which my goals were 7:50, 7:40, 7:15 but I also told myself if I get in a nice groove in the last 3 miles I'm just gonna go with it. And I know my 3200 was slow, I did a pretty big negative split, showing I can obviously run a bit quicker and my 1600 shows that I can run faster due to it also being a pretty big negative split
I am actually more of a slow twitch runner, but I can run close to my sprint for a long time (600m) I could probably run around a 1:35 600 because I can run almost all out sprinting the whole way!
My 1600 on chart is better than my 3200 man, honestly the friends you have aren't good at the 3200 or they aren't training correctly
Stop thinking about it too much. I hate when people do this. I admit I used to do it too and all I did was go slower and once all I thought about was just running fast I was running prs each race so go ahead and overthink running, the most basic sport, and see where it gets you
i wouldn't say running is a simple sport, in any way.. if you explain some of your workouts to non-runners and tell them the purpose, they're in awe at how complicated it actually is