2:05 fitness? (800 workout)

Even the 29, 31, 31 600m isn’t worth 2:05, totally alone or not.

Predictor wrote:

You aren’t far from 1:59. Most people can’t hit times by themself without a coach. Anything that you can hit solo for 3/4 of goal distance is a good indicator of what you can run so you are ready for about 2:02 race now.

Absolutely not. The difference between 600 and 800 is huge, solo or not.

the magic rat wrote:

Predictor wrote:

You aren’t far from 1:59. Most people can’t hit times by themself without a coach. Anything that you can hit solo for 3/4 of goal distance is a good indicator of what you can run so you are ready for about 2:02 race now.

Absolutely not. The difference between 600 and 800 is huge, solo or not.

It depends on how well you respond to race conditions. Some people are workout monsters who get too tense around race time, or just don't have the competitive fire. Those are the ones that PR in practice, and fizzle out when the going gets hot.

You’ll all hate me for this wrote:

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.

he h8 me,

Not sure what happened with XC season but you had a solid indoor campaign. By the end of the season you could run sub 2:03 with continued speed improvement and excellent race execution. I just don't have enough information about your speed or how much more your strength will develop.

BTW

I'm no 2:04 plus troll, ran 1:55.2x FAT. Based off the posters times, he could run anywhere between 2:05-2:09 right now. Lots can happen in a race and there isn't enough data to suggest he's a lock for sub 2:05 at this point. I was in a similar position JR and SR year but with much different training circumstances and being speed based.

I don’t think you’re a troll. I’ll probably never be that fast...

I hope I can get to like 2:02 (optimistically) this season. I hope I can see a big improvement this season because:

a) last year I only got to run the open 8 like 3x, so I’m still learning the race

b) I still seem to be improving quickly (I’m 16 and didn’t train very seriously my freshman year)

c) This was my first real track workout this year and I haven’t really ever done one like that (gone to 800 pace or faster for longer than 200-300m)

I wasn’t trying to be uppity or insult you or anything- I was just trying to communicate that I didn’t think the rest of the workout really portrayed my speed. I know it makes it less valuable as a predictor.

I kind of regret this thread now... I don’t think it really helped anything. Oh well.

At least I know I can run somewhere between 2:00 and my current PR, and I have somewhere between no speed and adequate speed. Ha.

Thanks everyone.

OP,

I think you have some talent and ambition. The troll reference was directed at other trolls and nonsensical posters. Don’t limit your potential based off what people on the Internet say. Your 1600 progression shows you can improve and adapt during the season. You could potentially own that school record by or before senior.

YMMV wrote:

the magic rat wrote:

Absolutely not. The difference between 600 and 800 is huge, solo or not.

It depends on how well you respond to race conditions. Some people are workout monsters who get too tense around race time, or just don't have the competitive fire. Those are the ones that PR in practice, and fizzle out when the going gets hot.

Still, no. This is an absurd conversion that only applies to the most extreme outliers. I would hesitate to agree with this as even a projection of what one could do a few months into the future. A 600 and an 800 are different animals, to suggest someone can maintain their 600TT pace for an 800m race, assuming they were actually giving an honest effort in the time trial, is ludicrous.

Op: F these idiots. Who cares if they’re right or wrong about what you can run right now. You’ve gotta have faith you can run 1:59 this spring. None of the trolls, dumbasses, or even wise coaches on LRC can run your races for you, so ignore the message boards, train hard, and f’ing do it.

the magic rat wrote:

YMMV wrote:

It depends on how well you respond to race conditions. Some people are workout monsters who get too tense around race time, or just don't have the competitive fire. Those are the ones that PR in practice, and fizzle out when the going gets hot.

Still, no. This is an absurd conversion that only applies to the most extreme outliers. I would hesitate to agree with this as even a projection of what one could do a few months into the future. A 600 and an 800 are different animals, to suggest someone can maintain their 600TT pace for an 800m race, assuming they were actually giving an honest effort in the time trial, is ludicrous.

You are clearly someone who has never coached or run the 800 with success. You have no concept of contextual training.

YMMV wrote:

the magic rat wrote:

Still, no. This is an absurd conversion that only applies to the most extreme outliers. I would hesitate to agree with this as even a projection of what one could do a few months into the future. A 600 and an 800 are different animals, to suggest someone can maintain their 600TT pace for an 800m race, assuming they were actually giving an honest effort in the time trial, is ludicrous.

You are clearly someone who has never coached or run the 800 with success. You have no concept of contextual training.

Agreed with YMMV. Don’t think OP will go faster than about 2:05 right now, but I’m a months time he could very well run 2:02. And maybe under 2 by late May

YMMV wrote:

the magic rat wrote:

Still, no. This is an absurd conversion that only applies to the most extreme outliers. I would hesitate to agree with this as even a projection of what one could do a few months into the future. A 600 and an 800 are different animals, to suggest someone can maintain their 600TT pace for an 800m race, assuming they were actually giving an honest effort in the time trial, is ludicrous.

You are clearly someone who has never coached or run the 800 with success. You have no concept of contextual training.

I'll admit, I haven't run the 800 with much success, or at least certainly not to the level I had hoped. I ran 1:18.5 in a 600TT in college (in November) and couldn't run close to 1:45 for 800, even in May. I ran 1:24.5 three years ago as a 33 year old washed up never-was, and I couldn't run anywhere near 1:53. I could probably run 1:30 right now, but certainly can't run 2 flat.

I do think I've had some success coaching though. I've coached numerous high schoolers who have run between 1:51 and 2:XX, none of whose times lined up anywhere near the pace they could run for a 600m solo in practice. I've also known many other 800 runners, of varying abilities, and again, I've never once seen this 3/4 projection come even close to being accurate. MAYBE a complete slow-twitch aerobic monster could approach it, but for a typical 800m runner, it just doesn't hold up.

Again, the 600 and 800 are just too different.

And for the record, I'm not rooting against the kid, and I know plenty of fitness can be gained in the next few months. I hope he breaks 2.

2/10, and only for effort. You tried way too hard with the made up PRs.

I'm not sure what part of my post seems so unbelievable that you would think I was trolling. and that's a pretty lazy reply.

But fine! Take my supposed made up times out of it. That doesn't suddenly create a bunch of people who are running 800s at the same pace as their 600 time trials.

Anyway, it seems like we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll stick with my first hand experience with myself and hundreds of other athletes I've either run with or coached, and you can stick to whatever the basis is for your position.

the magic rat wrote:

I'm not sure what part of my post seems so unbelievable that you would think I was trolling. and that's a pretty lazy reply.

But fine! Take my supposed made up times out of it. That doesn't suddenly create a bunch of people who are running 800s at the same pace as their 600 time trials.

Anyway, it seems like we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll stick with my first hand experience with myself and hundreds of other athletes I've either run with or coached, and you can stick to whatever the basis is for your position.

Although, the weird thing to me is that based on your actual replies to the OP, it seems like we agree! You said you ran the same workout and splits (with less rest!) and ran 2:05. And you said that you thought he could run 2:05... after a few races. So what are we even arguing about?

OP, as someone who knows what it's like to progress a lot on one year, please keep us updated on how your races go.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

OP, as someone who knows what it's like to progress a lot on one year, please keep us updated on how your races go.

sure thing!