Someone tell me if 1:55 is reasonable or if it's not gonna happen

OP's times are almost exactly mine, going into my senior year of high school. I had never broken 2, but dropped all the way to 1:54 in 1 outdoor season.

Difference was I ran more miles the summer/fall/winter before. Ran 15:45 for xc 5k and was in sub-4 1500 shape when I ran my 1:54.

Forget 1600 benchmark times or anything like that. You can make it through 600m at 1:55 pace, you just don't have the endurance to finish that last 200m. Increase your weekly mileage as much as possible without having it take away from your workouts. That will help you feel a whole lot better in your tempo workouts and eventually translate into better races.

Ben there wrote:

OP's times are almost exactly mine, going into my senior year of high school. I had never broken 2, but dropped all the way to 1:54 in 1 outdoor season.

Difference was I ran more miles the summer/fall/winter before. Ran 15:45 for xc 5k and was in sub-4 1500 shape when I ran my 1:54.

Forget 1600 benchmark times or anything like that. You can make it through 600m at 1:55 pace, you just don't have the endurance to finish that last 200m. Increase your weekly mileage as much as possible without having it take away from your workouts. That will help you feel a whole lot better in your tempo workouts and eventually translate into better races.

That's the whole point about the 1600 benchmark, man. It is just an indicator of relevant endurance.

The OP said he struggles with longer stuff and is clearly more of a speed guy. If you had a similar 400m time, but could also run 15:45 (and then sub 4 for 1500)....then we are comparing apples to oranges.

No one is saying he needs to go out there and actually run a 4:40 or whatever in a 1600. It is just that with just 51 second 400m speed, the level of endurance needed to get down to 1:55 in the 800m would probably be indicated by roughly a 4:40 1600m. If his speed has improved, then the required endurance would be less.

Again, these are all ballpark times, and there are exceptions, but the general premise -- that to run a particular time you need X amount of speed and Y amount of endurance, with those things being inversely proportional to some degree -- holds up.

Yeah, run 1600m to build strength to run 800m faster. Every runner should double UP from their main event to get stronger at running their main event.

100 meter runners also run 200m. 400m runners also run 800m. 800m runners also run 1500m. 1500m runners also run 5000m. And 5000m runners also do 10000m, etc, etc.

You will definitely generate more power at 800m, and your times will get faster as well.

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Yeah, run 1600m to build strength to run 800m faster. Every runner should double UP from their main event to get stronger at running their main event.

100 meter runners also run 200m. 400m runners also run 800m. 800m runners also run 1500m. 1500m runners also run 5000m. And 5000m runners also do 10000m, etc, etc.

You will definitely generate more power at 800m, and your times will get faster as well.

^^this. Also racing above your main event makes your main event feel MENTALLY shorter which helps you to stay focused when racing.

Also race below your race distance. Open 400 and 4x400.

With 51 open speed you could be a 1:54 guy. Your 400 speed isn't holding you back.

Months later, I figured I'd come back to this post and update it with what happened eventually.

My fastest 800 split of the season was 1:56.2. I never raced a 1600. Still struggle with mileage and tempos.

Took 4 seconds off my 800 time from junior to senior year. Never hit my 1:55. Still happy with how everything went.

Best actual 800 race time?

Good result wrote:

Best actual 800 race time?

1:59. Only ran it open a couple times though. The relay split was FAT.