My 23.86 is better than my 27:26. I've ran XC for 7 years, ran a 200 as a speed workout at one meet last year.
I'm a 6 foot 150 pound white guy.
This can't be right can it? 😟
My 23.86 is better than my 27:26. I've ran XC for 7 years, ran a 200 as a speed workout at one meet last year.
I'm a 6 foot 150 pound white guy.
This can't be right can it? 😟
You are a natural sprinter trying to be a distance guy.
I got 3rd in the mile in the 6th grade all-city track meet. If I ran the 200 then people would have laughed. I have a 1:56 800 that means I am at least middle distance not a sprinter.
I've always felt like these tables inflate the scores of shorter distances. This bias seems to go away as you approach elite times, but for the times that most of us are running, they seem to equate relatively weak sprint times with seemingly better distance performances.
I'm pretty out of shape and my PR days are well behind me, but I'm pretty sure I could walk to the track right now and run the 400m time that the Mercier table suggests is equivalent to my 5K PR.
That's because sprinters are more born than made, and vice versa for distance. So most young, poorly-developed runners are more skewed towards the shorter distances. In no objective reality is 23 for 200 or 1:56 in the same ballpark as 27:36.
sprint inflation wrote:
I've always felt like these tables inflate the scores of shorter distances. This bias seems to go away as you approach elite times, but for the times that most of us are running, they seem to equate relatively weak sprint times with seemingly better distance performances.
I'm pretty out of shape and my PR days are well behind me, but I'm pretty sure I could walk to the track right now and run the 400m time that the Mercier table suggests is equivalent to my 5K PR.
♤♡◇♧ wrote:
My 23.86 is better than my 27:26. I've ran XC for 7 years, ran a 200 as a speed workout at one meet last year.
I'm a 6 foot 150 pound white guy.
This can't be right can it? 😟
Dude. Your 200 is waaaay better. I could kill you by 3.5 minutes for 8k but have never (and will never) come close to that 200 time. Admit it, you're training for the wrong event.
sprint inflation wrote:
I've always felt like these tables inflate the scores of shorter distances. This bias seems to go away as you approach elite times, but for the times that most of us are running, they seem to equate relatively weak sprint times with seemingly better distance performances.
I'm pretty out of shape and my PR days are well behind me, but I'm pretty sure I could walk to the track right now and run the 400m time that the Mercier table suggests is equivalent to my 5K PR.
No, it's because Americans/Westerners suck at distance running. Much of our upbringing is more beneficial for sprinting than distance running. A 14 min 5k isn't that good, but it seems good because few people can do it.
You are no sprinter, sorry.
However that 800m seems like the best mark. You have endurance and speed.
You're way too heavy to be a distance guy. I say pack on another 5-10 pounds of muscle and shoot for a sub-22 200.
6 foot 150lbs? There are plenty 800m and even 1500m runners with that build. He will be slim.
YMMV wrote:
That's because sprinters are more born than made, and vice versa for distance. So most young, poorly-developed runners are more skewed towards the shorter distances. In no objective reality is 23 for 200 or 1:56 in the same ballpark as 27:36.
Sprinters are not more "born than made" any more than distance runners. If a sprinter trains properly they will improve. The bigger problem is the number of distance coaches trying to coach sprinters like "mini" distance runners.
23.86 is way better than 27:30's, it's not even close. 1:56 is better than either. If you run 1:56 and can only run 27:30's with several years of training, you should REALLY be focusing on the 800 (or lower!).
Whats your 400 and mile?
;) wrote:
If you run 1:56 and can only run 27:30's with several years of training, you should REALLY be focusing on the 800 (or lower!).
Or he has just been doing several years of bad training.
With that 200 time, you've got at least some of the raw materials needed to be a good 800/1500 guy.
I went to college with someone who never, for my knowledge, ran an FAT 200 or 400, but I did split a 49.5 in the 400, and ran a hand-timed 23.2 200 with a rolling start at the end of a 4 x 200m workout.
Take that for what it is worth, but he ran 1:50.1 for 800 and 3:56 for 1500. I really believe he could have been a 4:05 of better miler, but like you, his 8000 was normally in the mid-27s on most courses.
At the end of the day, 8000 PRs are meaningless. The only thing that really matters is, over the last mile, are you passing a bunch of people or are you getting passed?
oodi wrote:
;) wrote:If you run 1:56 and can only run 27:30's with several years of training, you should REALLY be focusing on the 800 (or lower!).
Or he has just been doing several years of bad training.
It would have to be truly atrocious.
I was speaking about typical North American populations. Andre DeGrasse entered a 100m with borrowed spikes on a whim and won in 10.9x. The comparable feat would be someone jumping into a 5k and running 14:30 with no training. Not happening outside of East Africa.In particular the surfeit of West African genes in American athletics makes "sprinters are born" reliable meme. If you are a guy running 23 for 200 off of distance training, you have the capablity to develop into at least a 21.xx guy, which by any rational definition a sprinter.
;) wrote:
YMMV wrote:That's because sprinters are more born than made, and vice versa for distance. So most young, poorly-developed runners are more skewed towards the shorter distances. In no objective reality is 23 for 200 or 1:56 in the same ballpark as 27:36.
Sprinters are not more "born than made" any more than distance runners. If a sprinter trains properly they will improve. The bigger problem is the number of distance coaches trying to coach sprinters like "mini" distance runners.
23.86 is way better than 27:30's, it's not even close. 1:56 is better than either. If you run 1:56 and can only run 27:30's with several years of training, you should REALLY be focusing on the 800 (or lower!).
♤♡◇♧ wrote:
My 23.86 is better than my 27:26. I've ran XC for 7 years, ran a 200 as a speed workout at one meet last year.
I'm a 6 foot 150 pound white guy.
This can't be right can it? 😟
Your 200m time was a flying start and if FAT from blocks would have been closer to 25. But yes your speed is a lot better than endurance. Also the "jump off a cliff" remark is a nice humblebrag.
I am the same way. Only managed 27 low for 8k. Started running 4x4's for track and ended up splitting 50.9 and eventually sub 50 for 400m splits. Eventually decided to be an 800m runner instead of a miler and went from running high 4:2X's to eventually 1:52 in the 800m. I've run multiple high 23's and low 24's in practice, but never open although my coach and I think mid to low 23 is possible. Regardless, sometimes you're more built for certain events even if you 'don't want to believe it'. Embrace the speed and worry about 8ks and up later in life when the speed starts to leave.
Lenny, that was literally the most boring story ever told on LetsRun. I have no idea what the point was. The guy from your story was a good 800 runner. He clearly did not have a lot of endurance. If he did, then.....he would have been a different person. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you sure you "went to college" ?
Lenny Leonard wrote:
With that 200 time, you've got at least some of the raw materials needed to be a good 800/1500 guy.
I went to college with someone who never, for my knowledge, ran an FAT 200 or 400, but I did split a 49.5 in the 400, and ran a hand-timed 23.2 200 with a rolling start at the end of a 4 x 200m workout.
Take that for what it is worth, but he ran 1:50.1 for 800 and 3:56 for 1500. I really believe he could have been a 4:05 of better miler, but like you, his 8000 was normally in the mid-27s on most courses.
At the end of the day, 8000 PRs are meaningless. The only thing that really matters is, over the last mile, are you passing a bunch of people or are you getting passed?
nice humblebrag wrote:
♤♡◇♧ wrote:My 23.86 is better than my 27:26. I've ran XC for 7 years, ran a 200 as a speed workout at one meet last year.
I'm a 6 foot 150 pound white guy.
This can't be right can it? 😟
Your 200m time was a flying start and if FAT from blocks would have been closer to 25. But yes your speed is a lot better than endurance. Also the "jump off a cliff" remark is a nice humblebrag.
It was an open 200 from blocks. Not humblebragging, more like despair because I consider myself a long-distance runner and have trained like one for 7 years, also couldn't imagine changing to sprinting, doesn't seem intrinsically rewarding to me at all.
From all the comments here I've come to a conclusion. I think that my high school bad form and injuries caused my 5k time to be much higher than my potential. As a result I'm still mentally blocked seeing sub 17 as fast (I was 17:05 and ran 17:20s through the 5k at meets this year). I'm willing, able, and training to run 16:30 through the 5k and hang on this upcoming season. That's because even if I'm genetically predisposed to run shorter distances, I believe that my goal time is slow enough to not be in any way dependent on if I have the genes for it or not, i.e. everyone can run a 26:40 with training and not a ton of natural talent.
My high school and college coaches are both great coaches. It was my own fault in high school with the injuries, and I think in college so far I've been complacent with finishing well compared to my competition (I'm D3). I need to find the mental toughness and competitiveness I seem to have in 800s and show that in cross country.