2:05 fitness? (800 workout)

Most predictor questions are silly but this is reasonable & gives useful stats.

More of a 5000m runner but by by coincidence I ran 1:31.9 solo time trial but flat out. I than ran a pb of 2:05.05

Normally women have s poorer 400m than men plus juniors have a poorer conversion than adults 21+

So despite running a lot extra after the 800m it's possible she could be a bit slower over 800m.

However, my 400m was 59 in 400m fat and not doubling,and I went through in 59. I'd done circuit training to improve my speed but was 24 at the time and no way was faster than 57xx.

I also ran the first lap in 2nd lane and it was a windy day. I was only 1.5 seconds behind a guy who I'd never seen go over 2. It has to be worth 2:03xx

Now it depends s lot on her 400m or

You could not rule out 2:05 a couple of seconds faster but would also need to know all her pr's.

It also depends on the pace of the race. Too fast or slow & or is out of question but you need to run for position when running for a team not time.

Thought you were the coach just realised its you- same applies as above.

Iowa800 wrote:

You're in very good aerobic shape but are lacking the speed based on your 600-400-200 times, rest taken, mpw, and a solid 1600. I'd shoot for 2:07-2:08 for the first 800 and work your way down from there. Most kids who could run a 4:36 1600 indoors (69 x4) should be able to run a 59-61 after a 600 and a Rip Van Winkle rest. There's barely any difference, two seconds, between the 200 splits of the 600 and the final 200. Overheated on a 600? Sounds like lactic acid build up from going out hard in the 600. Your best way is to run nearly even splits for your 800 and be like Windle or Symmonds who pick off people the last 200 of the 8. Start positioning yourself a little further towards the front as you progress through the season and pick people off a little further out.

Another factor to consider in the overheating is that it was almost 80 degrees (an all time high for the month of February by 8 degrees in our area), and it hasn't been anywhere near that hot this winter. (I can remember it being above 60 once since Nov. and most of January it was below 30). I guess I should add that my focus for this workout was to go 100% for the 600, and then just get the other reps in in whatever time. I think I mentally relaxed after the 600, and could have produced a faster 400 had I been pushed by an external factor (coach, teammates).

ukathleticscoach- If I were a high school girl with a 4:36 PR, why would I be posting on LRC? That would make the fastest girl in the country by 6 seconds in the mile (and 14 for the 1600).

Also: it HAS to be worth at 2:03.xx... nice. You're almost a 2:02 guy.

I think you can run 2:02-3 in a well run race right now OP. I think your 1:59.7 school record is definitely achievable this season. If you're interested I'd guess you can run 4:32ish outdoors right now and could dip well under 4:30 this season.

2:05 might be a more reasonable guess as to what you will start your season in (if you're inexperienced or doubling). 2:07 or slower is definitely not your current fitness

/thread

Oh. Last year ran the 4x4 a couple times. Comparing my running from then to now I'd estimate I can run ~55.x all out (well, with the rolling start from a relay)

80000000000000000 wrote:

Quicker than thou wrote:

I could crush that 600 time and I only run 2:03-4. That should be your goal for this season. You’ve already improved a lot.

You're either a 400 specialist who ran that in race conditions or a troll.

By the first week of April this kid might be ready to run 1:59. I peg him at 2:02-3 right now in well run race.

+1

You'll all hate me for this wrote:

[quote]

ukathleticscoach- If I were a high school girl with a 4:36 PR, why would I be posting on LRC? That would make the fastest girl in the country by 6 seconds in the mile (and 14 for the 1600).

Also: it HAS to be worth at 2:03.xx... nice. You're almost a 2:02 guy.

OP is a savage. You should join the HS racing/training thread. Would be cool to see you go sub-2 this season/how fast you can go.

You'll all hate me for this wrote:

Another factor to consider in the overheating is that it was almost 80 degrees (an all time high for the month of February by 8 degrees in our area), and it hasn't been anywhere near that hot this winter. (I can remember it being above 60 once since Nov. and most of January it was below 30). I guess I should add that my focus for this workout was to go 100% for the 600, and then just get the other reps in in whatever time. I think I mentally relaxed after the 600, and could have produced a faster 400 had I been pushed by an external factor (coach, teammates).

You asked for a prediction and like many prediction contests, they are all over the place. You can believe what you want to believe about them. Here is some analysis of your data points and not some arbitrary feelings.

1. 1:31.xx TT @ 100 percent per your own words. IAAF TABLE for a 1:31.52 FAT equates to 2:08.25.

2. 4:36.xx 1600m (congrats for an 8 sec PR)

Let’s say that’s a low 4:36.xx FAT and that equates to a 4:38.08 mile which translates to a 2:04.35 800m

3. 50-55 mpw. For a high school miler this is on the medium-medium high side depending on state/region but for a speedy 800m type this on the higher side.

4. You can slice the 400 TT anyway you want but the 200 is the same as the first 200 of your 600 TT. 29 secs is slow. Based on your I think I can do a 55.xx w a rolling start you would need to do 27.xx and a 27.xx back to back!

5. 1:59.96 FAT on the IAAF table equates to a 1:25.43 FAT 600m.

I’ve trained with distance guys who had no turnover, speed guys with no endurance, and true mid distance guys with some of both so the IAAF tables aren’t the Ten Commandments but nothing from your data points suggests you are ready for sub 2:04 at this point. The 4:36 is the outlier compared to the other times. You have very good strength. Start out cautious and hunt your prey after 500m the first few races. A strong third 200 meters is the key to a successful race and you’ll have that in spades. Best of luck.

You know what- You should ask the British High school phenom Kyle platt. She is 16 years old and ran 2:01 indoors at the weekend. She was stuck at 2:05 for so long, it was said her team mates referred to her as mrs 2:05.

Kind Regards

The silver Fox

IAAF conversions are not designed to convert from one distance to another- a strength based runner will be faster over 800 than the equivalent of their performance over 600. Additionally, this was a solo TT, so slow than race conditions.

If I can step in and interpret for the OP. I think he was saying that the 600 was all out, the rest of the workout was not. I’ve always felt for myself that I could hold what I can for 3/4 distance in a TT solo (sounds like OP did not even have coach) for a full race. So 1:31 in these conditions predicts like 2:02-3, the other stuff is just bonus.

No one cares have a day off.

Good gooser wrote:

I’ll give you 2:09. That 400 tells me that had you run another 200 at the end of the 600 it would’ve taken about 40 seconds.

Agreed in concept with this poster, but I will give you 2:08.

G ooo wrote:

Good gooser wrote:

I’ll give you 2:09. That 400 tells me that had you run another 200 at the end of the 600 it would’ve taken about 40 seconds.

Agreed in concept with this poster, but I will give you 2:08.

2:08 is stupid or a troll guess. He ran 2:10 when he was in 4:50 shape last year per his PRs. Now he’s run 4:36 and you think he can only run 2:08?

This should be a homerun wrote:

IAAF conversions are not designed to convert from one distance to another- a strength based runner will be faster over 800 than the equivalent of their performance over 600. Additionally, this was a solo TT, so slow than race conditions.

If I can step in and interpret for the OP. I think he was saying that the 600 was all out, the rest of the workout was not. I’ve always felt for myself that I could hold what I can for 3/4 distance in a TT solo (sounds like OP did not even have coach) for a full race. So 1:31 in these conditions predicts like 2:02-3, the other stuff is just bonus.

I’m sure top coaches across the country tell their athletes the same thing about 3/4 length time trials.

I’m well aware the IAAF tables are comparison based - not necessarily IF and THEN predictors. If you take the superior data point, the 1600, and compare it to the 800 it’s still 2:04.35. I’ve trained for, studied, and coached the 800 over the past 28 years. A simple search of indoor men’s and boy’s stats suggests someone who ran a 4:36ish 1600 also ran an 800 in 2:05-2:08.

Since the poster mentioned he would have been the fastest high school girl in the 1600 by 6 seconds this year, let’s look at the all time high school bests for females.

All Time Performers

600m 1:27.13 Samantha Watson #10 1:30.35

800m 2:01.78 Samantha Watson #10 2:06:13

Mile 4:28.25 Mary Cain (Converts to 4:26.75 1600m) #10 4:41.56 (4:39.9)

FYI Samantha Watson was the only person who made the 600 and 800 all time performers/performances.

#5 Performance

800 2:04.13 Ajee Wilson

Mile 4:38.36 Alexa Afraimson (Converts to 4:36.7)

#5 Performer

800. 2:04.90 Tamieka Grizzle

Mile 4:39.0 Lynn Jennings

Watson is a speed based runner with a 4:42 mile. I didn’t even bother to look up Wilson’s 1600/Mile time. Slaney is the only one who made both top 10s. Slaney’s indoor mile time is soft but it’s probably due to the quality of the tracks and opportunities for her to run fast in the early 70s. If Cain decided to run a fast 800 indoors she probably makes the top 10 since she has the outdoor record, 1:59.51.

The original poster has shown very good aerobic ability but is lacking in the speed department based on the times he provided. Should he go out and run close to 1:31-60-27 the next time, it would change the prediction to 2:04 and maybe high 2:03.

1:29 600 TT not 1:31 for the next time.

I wasn’t trying to argue with you Iowa 800. I was just mentioning that the heat affected me, and goal on the 400,300,200 was to run at the same pace as 600 TT and I think I underestimated the effort needed so I started out slow on the 400.

Regardless, I guess 2:08 is probably more realistic, but maybe I can run 2:05 by the end of the season! I think people saying 2:03 must have been trolling.

Although I will say I don’t think I am usually aerboically super strong- for example, I did much worse in xc than indoor track this year, despite trying to peak for xc and just base building during indoor. Maybe my base really worked this time.

I'll finally butt in and say you can break 2:05 assuming you pace correctly, and you may be able to dip down near 2:02-2:03 by the end of the season

You’re no 800m runner, buddy.

Xcool wrote:

G ooo wrote:

Agreed in concept with this poster, but I will give you 2:08.

2:08 is stupid or a troll guess. He ran 2:10 when he was in 4:50 shape last year per his PRs. Now he’s run 4:36 and you think he can only run 2:08?

Less idiotic than thinking he can run 2:02 based on 1:31, 10 minutes rest, 64.