TrackBot! VDOT 3:35 1500m
TrackBot! VDOT 3:35 1500m
VDOT for 3:35 1.5km: 79.6
Equivalent race times based on VDOT:
Marathon: 02:08:07
Half marathon: 01:01:08
15K: 00:42:34
10K: 00:27:47
5K: 00:13:21
3Mi: 00:12:51
2Mi: 00:08:16
3200m: 00:08:13
3K: 00:07:40
1Mi: 00:03:52
1600m: 00:03:51
1500m: 00:03:35
I am a bot. Info:
VDOT for 3:35 1.5km: 79.6
Equivalent race times based on VDOT:
Marathon: 02:08:07
Half marathon: 01:01:08
15K: 00:42:34
10K: 00:27:47
5K: 00:13:21
3Mi: 00:12:51
2Mi: 00:08:16
3200m: 00:08:13
3K: 00:07:40
1Mi: 00:03:52
1600m: 00:03:51
1500m: 00:03:35
I am a bot. Info:
This is false 3:35 for 1500m is about 3:53 for the mile.
Metric Miler wrote:
You cannot have a man that runs sub 2 hours in the marathon and a low 50 time for the 400m. The combination of speed and endurance is impossible. Just like Bolt couldn't run 9.5 and also 15 minutes in the 5k.
Rupp runs 2:10, probably 2:06 or so on a good course, and he is without a doubt a sub-50 guy.
Are you saying that his speed is holding him back? Like if he were to train appropriately for a sub-2 marathon, or even 2:02-2:03, that he would lose the ability to go sub-50 in the 400m?
If that is your argument, then I would say it also stands to reason that the runner's times through 1500m and possibly even 5000m would actually get slower, not faster, as the runner became a 1:59:59 marathoner.
Metric Miler wrote:
"You can be an endurance monster with 45, 55, or 65 400m speed."
This statement is wrong. Admit that and we can move on. 45s 400m speed directly damages the ability of an athlete to be good over long distances.
Your line of thinking where athletes are simply easy to predict math models reminds me awfully of an annoying poster around here...
The statement is not wrong. In no way does 45 sec 400m speed directly damage the ability of an athlete to be good over long distances. Fitness does not damage other aspects of fitness. That idea make no sense at all. Your body is not at war with itself.
You also keep changing the subject and leaving out the other 2 times (55, 65) that I mentioned. The subject is that endurance monster has to do with ratios not absolute numbers. Whether that is 45, 55, or 65 is irrelevant to that point.
Now you are just lying and making things up. I never said athletes are simply easy to predict math models. You refuse to admit you are wrong so you are diverting the conversation and making up arguments that I never said.
A good dude wrote:
Metric Miler wrote:You cannot have a man that runs sub 2 hours in the marathon and a low 50 time for the 400m. The combination of speed and endurance is impossible. Just like Bolt couldn't run 9.5 and also 15 minutes in the 5k.
Rupp runs 2:10, probably 2:06 or so on a good course, and he is without a doubt a sub-50 guy.
Are you saying that his speed is holding him back? Like if he were to train appropriately for a sub-2 marathon, or even 2:02-2:03, that he would lose the ability to go sub-50 in the 400m?
If that is your argument, then I would say it also stands to reason that the runner's times through 1500m and possibly even 5000m would actually get slower, not faster, as the runner became a 1:59:59 marathoner.
Are you sure about being a sub-50 guy, personally I don't think so anymore, Mo wouldn't be running that far under 50s and he always looks to have more sprint speed than Rupp. Just look at the last 500m in the 10k from Rio. Rupp's 3:50 indoors would hint at sub 50 potential but with his marathon training he probably doesn't have this speed any more.
Want to know about what the limit of clean performance is? See below:
TrackBot wrote:
VDOT for 3:28 1.5km: 82.6
Equivalent race times based on VDOT:
Marathon: 02:04:07
Half marathon: 00:59:14
15K: 00:41:15
10K: 00:26:56
5K: 00:12:56
3Mi: 00:12:27
2Mi: 00:08:01
3200m: 00:07:58
3K: 00:07:25
1Mi: 00:03:45
1600m: 00:03:44
1500m: 00:03:29
I am a bot. Info:
http://habs.sdf.org/trackbot
"I never said that you can predict a 400m time off of marathon pb alone."
Explain where 51.0 came from and why it is being used to predict 10k/HM times.
"No, there is nothing that says that combination of endurance and speed is impossible"
Yes, there is. Human physiology, specifically muscle fibre types and energy systems dictate there is a difference between sprinting and endurance running and one cannot be a master of both. Specificity is key.
The fact you don't understand this undermines all of your other posts.
Interpolation is simple, yes, but it will not give an accurate estimate of a runners ability when irrelevant metrics are used, such as sprint times for estimating distance performances. So whilst the maths is simple, the reality is that it simply doesn't work.
If you think it will then please show me some examples of it working.
"In no way does 45 sec 400m speed directly damage the ability of an athlete to be good over long distances. Fitness does not damage other aspects of fitness. That idea make no sense at all. Your body is not at war with itself."
Further to my previous post, this shows such a lack of understanding of the subject matter there really is little we can discuss.
I will add I have not changed the topic of discussion at all, but simply focused on the more absurd things you have said.