Minimum 400 PR Required To Break 2:00 in the 800

I must disagree, I have known many people who can run under 15 minutes for the 5k and would extremely struggle breaking 2:00 for the 800m. Some people don't have the speed.

It is entirely possible to run 15:00 with only a 56 400m, but breaking 2:00 with that 400m time would be very difficult.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Under 54.

Perhaps after years of aerobic training, you could break 2 with a max 55.xx 400m, but I don't think a high schooler could do it.

I agree. My training partner and I ran 52.xx in training (yes it was handtimed) at age 14. My training partner later ran 2.00.xx over 800m.

Side Note: I still maintain I could have ran sub 2 as I was aerobically fitter than he was (although he had more raw speed than me) and a better racer.

I know a guy who broke both 15 mins 5k and 31 mins 10k, yet he would be hard-pressed to run 2:02 and sub 4:05 1500, let alone 2:00.

Anyway, he is an aerobic monster with a half PR of 66 mins and a vo2max of 78.

atehundred wrote:

This would depend a lot on the runner and if they are more of a sprinter or distance guy, and obviously the technical answer is 59.5, but it is pretty unlikely to run even splits off of a 59.5 second PR.

I ran 1.58.55 off near even splits in my first race of the season a few years back - I was 59.xx through 800m - and I definitely considered myself to be an endurance type runner (I'm mainly a 1500m guy but I'm good at XC too) so even splits are beneficial for distance guy

I ran a similar time - 1.59.xx - in June of this year off a 57 first lap (I had only been training 3 times a week for 3 weeks after an injury) so I think that shows benefits of even splits

I ran 1:59.7 for my one and only sub 2. I maybe could have run 56.5. I think more likely 57. I think I could run 26.5 for 200m maybe? But I also ran 4:01 and 31:00 for 10k. Just no wheels really.

I ran 1:56 with 52split and 53 open speed. I couldnt break 2 until I broke 54 and I was more aerobic (4:01, 15:51, 26:26).

I coached a 1:59 kid and he had 54 speed (could have gone 53).

Two of my coaches that ran 1:59:

One had a pr of 53 and 4:24 in hs when he did it.

Another coach just split 1:59.9 and had max speed of 55 but he was a 3:59 14:42 guy.

Id say you neee minimum 55.5 if you are a great 5k runner. On avg, you need to hit 53/54low.

In HS, I ran with a guy who barely broke 54 (440y), but ran 1:54 (880y), 4:09 (1609m), and ~9:24 (2 miles). From his 440y and 2-mile times you would think would never be sub 4:10 but he was indeed.

Ran 1:59 in an open 800 during a year when my only open 400 was run in 55.1 during a windy dual meet doubling back from a 4x800 leg. Seeing as I ran 56.1 for the 400 as a freshmen, I'd guess my 400 potential was closer to 53 during my senior year when I ran the 1:59. This of course is all conjecture. I had relatively weak endurance with a 4:32 1600 and 10:00 3200. I'd add that as I was running 800 times from 2:06 on down to 1:59, my first 400 was always in the 57-59 range. Had no trouble getting out reasonably fast but had a hard time hanging on the last 200.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Under 54.

Perhaps after years of aerobic training, you could break 2 with a max 55.xx 400m, but I don't think a high schooler could do it.

I've broken 2 and my 400m best WITH A RUNNING START is 54.9.

Er... wrote:

I ran 1:59.7 for my one and only sub 2. I maybe could have run 56.5. I think more likely 57. I think I could run 26.5 for 200m maybe? But I also ran 4:01 and 31:00 for 10k. Just no wheels really.

4:01 Mile? or 4:01 1500m? a 4:01 mile means you likely went sub 2:00 for 800m in a portion of that race. Highly doubtful you are an all-out 26.5 200m either and probably did rolling 200m repeats as fast as 27s.

4:01 for 1500, indoors after the 1:59 outdoors.

Low_Volume_800 wrote:

Er... wrote:

I ran 1:59.7 for my one and only sub 2. I maybe could have run 56.5. I think more likely 57. I think I could run 26.5 for 200m maybe? But I also ran 4:01 and 31:00 for 10k. Just no wheels really.

4:01 Mile? or 4:01 1500m? a 4:01 mile means you likely went sub 2:00 for 800m in a portion of that race. Highly doubtful you are an all-out 26.5 200m either and probably did rolling 200m repeats as fast as 27s.

59.9

atehundred wrote:This would depend a lot on the runner and if they are more of a sprinter or distance guy, and obviously the technical answer is 59.5, but it is pretty unlikely to run even splits off of a 59.5 second PR. So what time would you say one needs to be able to run a 400 in to feasibly break 2:00? Do you think it is as low as 55 or 56, or would a 58 second 400 be good enough for a young high school runner to work off of in order to get under 2:00?

theoretically, from some "mathematical" tables :

12.12 = 24.25 = 53.00 = 2'00.00 = 2'34.02 = 4'02.00 = 8'29.61 = 14'34.25 = 30'05.07

looking at that, a 2-flat woud usually expect a bit slower than 53.00 speed assuming 800 is best distance

i'd say ~ 55 is slowest a high-schooler coud run 2-flat off

( note : before i gets lots of drivel for

"2'00 is no way as good as ~ 30-flat"

please consider talent pool & participation levels

even at elite women level, i'd say x5 - x10 more women enter the 800 compared to 10k

the elite western participation for 10k is utterly pathetic

ingrid ran 30'13 all of 29y ago !!! & only paula has run quicker

utterly pathetic

if we'd seen some serious participation in this event, the elite western clockings shouda been in the 29'40/29'50 from 1/2 dozen+ gals in that near 30y & dozen+ at 29'50/30'00

those equivalencies are for "mathematical" equivalencies meaning all same talent in 10k as in 800 )

I had a friend who would probably have struggled to break 60 for 400m, let alone 2 min for 800m, but he ran 14:38 for 5000m, and 29:5x for 10000m.

I ran 1:57.xx for 800m, and would only do 57/58 for 4x400m with 2 laps jog recovery. Was probably more of a 1500m/3000m type.

Off that sort of basic pace, you could be a 55 sec 400m guy and go 58/61.

So, 12:12= 4'02.00 = 8'29.61 = 14'34.25 = 30'05.07

You are the one driveling here.

depends on how much speed endurance you have,but id say if youre a 53-54 second 400 metre runner,you should be able to do it.

Metric Miler wrote:

55.5 max if you are aerobically strong.

You'll need sub 54.5 if you want to have a decent chance at sub 2.

+1. A couple days after my first sub 2 I ran a 400m tt in 56 something (I'd give the exact split but don't have my running log on me). But I was running it solo and my shorts kept slipping down so i had to keep pulling them up, thus taking away from the overall time.

I would most likely been under 56 with better shorts, and close to 55 low/54 high with competition.

Truth is... wrote:So, 12:12= 4'02.00 = 8'29.61 = 14'34.25 = 30'05.07

You are the one driveling here.

utterly clueless

the talent pool in the 100 + the participation level is probably 50 times that of the 10k

if only 1/50th the number of athletes who ran the 100 did so compared to those that actually do, then people woud be impressed with a 12.12

or conversely think : if x50 as more athletes ran the 10k from junior high onwards, what do you think woud happen to the quality/depth of clockings ??

Are you crazy?

Anyone with good wheels can pull out a 12 100m with minimal training, but no one can drop down a 30-low 10k without a decent amount of training.