How fast can you run a Mile if you run the first 400 all out?!

Run an all out 400 one week and then the next week run all out 400 and then continue to complete the mile. If you are not within a second of the time from the previous week, then you need to try again. It's an interesting idea. It makes me think of John Lewis at NBNO 2015 in the 800. He went out in 48 and finished with a 60 second last lap. His HS pr was 47.6 but that was pretty close to being all out.

I doubt you'd be able to hit your 400 pb, so it would be sunk from the start. Solo a pb to start will suck the marrow out of the rest of it. 5:30 plus

The nice thing is that you can try it. First time you do it, I'll expect you to walk at the 1200

You will be in shuffle jog hell for 2-3 minutes after the all out 400.

6:45.

Curious miler wrote:

Alright LetsRun, me and the boys need this settled...

Assume I am a 4:10 miler and I run a mile time trial and open the first 400 all out (roughly 50 seconds) if I kept going, how fast could I run the Mile?

I’m thinking 4:30ish, but others are saying there is no chance and sub 5:00 isn’t even possible.

What do you all think?

it seems everyone on here doesnt understand the concept of an "all out" 400 meter run. i remember a couple of 4x400 relays in high school where that last 100 meters left it where i litteraly couldnt run more than 12 min pace for 1 minute. here are two responses as the question is not well posed

if you truly went "all out" on first lap:

49,150, 90, 70

if you held back a little on the last 100m of the first lap

50, 120, 90, 65

It's going to be something like 8 or 9 minutes, if you physically get around.

Have you ever raced a 400?

Half of you are crazy.

You could certainly run a PR effort 400m to open a mile. If you ‘mind’ won’t let you then you are weak.

Secondly, I’ve done a few workouts where we would finish with an all out 400m, go right into a 200m jog then finish with an all out 200m. All out. Like arms flailing, nearly blacking out etc. that 200m jog is one of the hardest things in the world. But you do recover.

I guessed 5:10 with splits of: 50, 1:40 (60/40), 80, 80.

I think It would have to be more of a progression. With that first 200-300 meters being super slow, but surely 6:00 could be broken at minimum.

Back in the day I taught a jogging class when I was a graduate student. Part of their grade was their improvement over the semester as evaluated by pre-post mile time trials. At the end of the semester I told the guys that if they could run their first lap in under 60-s they could stop and I'd give them an "A". Girls had to do the first lap in 70-s. The catch was, if they were 60.0 (70.0) or slower they had to keep going. 4 guys took me up on the offer and no girls. When I said "GO" the 4 guys took off like they were running for their life. All four hit the 200 in about 27 seconds, one got smart and decided it was going to be pretty ugly and he settled into a reasonable pace, but the other three kept at it. One came through in ~58, one ~59 but the third guy crossed at 60.5. He stopped and looked at me and I told him "60.5, keep going. Your clock is still running". He let out a few choice words and then started back to running. I think he ran about 9+ minutes and collapsed at the finish. Was the most memorable event of the class!

If you ran 50 flat (all out) for your first lap I'd be VERY impressed if you were able to get in under 6 min.

Curious miler wrote:

400: 49.7

800: 1:52.5

1600: 4:09.3

I think I could break 5 because I would run 50-90-80-80, I think the 90 second 400 would be enough to recover but maybe not?

I would think a 49.7 400m guy could run under 1:50 for the 800m pretty easily

Just another example of why the 800m is the hardest event in all of T&F

^ 49.7 guy shouldn't 'easily' be able to run sub 1:50. There are tons of guys in high school that are running 49.7 for 400, far fewer run under 1:50. And since he's also run 4:09, I imagine that 49.7 was a split on a 4x4 at some point, so the open is probably 50 and change.

If you literally do it all out, and I mean seriously all out as if you were racing for an Olympic medal, then any normal runner should DNF.

Curious miler wrote:

Alright LetsRun, me and the boys need this settled...

Assume I am a 4:10 miler and I run a mile time trial and open the first 400 all out (roughly 50 seconds) if I kept going, how fast could I run the Mile?

I’m thinking 4:30ish, but others are saying there is no chance and sub 5:00 isn’t even possible.

What do you all think?

I think you'd run close to 4:00, maybe even dip under, and inspire everyone who watched.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

Half of you are crazy.

You could certainly run a PR effort 400m to open a mile. If you ‘mind’ won’t let you then you are weak.

Secondly, I’ve done a few workouts where we would finish with an all out 400m, go right into a 200m jog then finish with an all out 200m. All out. Like arms flailing, nearly blacking out etc. that 200m jog is one of the hardest things in the world. But you do recover.

I guessed 5:10 with splits of: 50, 1:40 (60/40), 80, 80.

I think It would have to be more of a progression. With that first 200-300 meters being super slow, but surely 6:00 could be broken at minimum.

What are your times? Could you make a video of this? I think a lot of people would be curious to see this attempted.

all out is ALL out wrote:

If you go "all out" that implies you have literally used up everything in the tank and there is no way you could continue at all. If you can keep running at any pace, it wasn't all out.

I don't think this is quite right. Someone who runs optimally will have a lot of fatigue, but someone who basically collapses at the line will have started slowing earlier and that means they went too fast earlier.

Consider the small variation in 1500m and mile paces. Do you think if someone ran at 1500m pace for the first 1500m of a mile that they wouldn't finish the mile? Or that they would really tie up terribly after 1500m?

Also, there was a 3000/5000m indoor race some years ago (I think it might have been about 10 years ago) in the UK. I think the original plan was just to have a 5000m race, but then several UK runners wanted a 3000m race (I think they were trying to run a qualifying time - probably for the world indoors). They received times at 3000m, but they had to finish the full 5000m (I'm not sure why this was, but apparently this was required). They jogged the final 2000m, but didn't seem to struggle too much from what I remember. Does anyone else remember this race?

So I think someone could keep running, but it would probably be very slow. There's no way to really verify all-out either. Say your 400 time is 50. If you come through in 51-2, does that mean you were holding back, or might you just not be in as good shape. If you run 50, how do we know you aren't capable of 48-9?

all out is ALL out wrote:

If you go "all out" that implies you have literally used up everything in the tank and there is no way you could continue at all. If you can keep running at any pace, it wasn't all out.

I agree with this. But you could never really test it if people knew they were going to have to continue. The only way would be to tell people it was a 400m race...and then tell them when they hit the line that they had to do another 3+ laps.

We don't. We only know this if someone frequently runs the 400m.

But you cannot compare such an experiment 400/mile to running 3000m and then continuing until 5000m. These two events are very similar; runners will often only have a pace difference of around 2 sec./lap between these two. (say, the run 9:00 for 3k and 15:30 for 5k) So running the 3000m slightly below your best effort will be only marginally faster than your best 5000m effort and in an unevenly ran 5k race with surges one will have to be able to switch between those paces anyway.

Between 400 and mile pace there are about 8 or more seconds difference per lap. Furthermore, the 400m will even slightly below full effort really tie up one's legs.

The best peformer in such an experiment would be a relatively slow runner 5k/10k runner, I assume. Their 400/800/Mile paces would be closer together than in the case of a 1500m runner, because they simply could not run a very fast 400m anyway. Recall that Canova story when they timed that Italian 10k runner in the 1980s and his all out 400m was only marginally faster than his fastest last lap in a 10k race.

fisky wrote:

duh2 wrote:

I imagine anyone doing this would be well off the pace on the first lap for psychological reasons.

This.

The difference between an all-out 400m and a 400 only a few seconds slower will be huge.

Plus, read Brain Training for Runners by Matt Fitzgerald. He explains why runners cannot do what you are proposing. Your body and mind will know that you plan to continue running after 400m and will conserve effort in the first 400m.

This is why you have to run stupidly fast on the first 400 to trick the brain.