Has anyone moved down from the mid-distances to the sprints? How did it turn out?

Have zero talent wrote:

I was a 2:11/4:30 guy in the 800/1500 in college. I took a few years off, tried the 200/400 in my late 20s out of curiosity, and ended up with an electronic 25.1/56.0 by my early 30s. I still got my ass kicked in most races, but I wonder if my 200/400 times weren't as bad as my 800/1500 PRs.

IAAF tables for men:

200: 549 points

400: 540 points

800: 514 points

1500: 537 points

IAAF tables for women:

200: 933 points

400: 976 points

800: 974 points

1500: 976 points

Your PR divided by the men's WR:

200: 1.308 = 30.8% slower

400: 1.301 = 30.1% slower

800: 1.298 = 29.8% slower

1500: 1.311 = 31.1% slower

Looks equal to me.

stats geek wrote:

Have zero talent wrote:

I was a 2:11/4:30 guy in the 800/1500 in college. I took a few years off, tried the 200/400 in my late 20s out of curiosity, and ended up with an electronic 25.1/56.0 by my early 30s. I still got my ass kicked in most races, but I wonder if my 200/400 times weren't as bad as my 800/1500 PRs.

IAAF tables for men:

200: 549 points

400: 540 points

800: 514 points

1500: 537 points

IAAF tables for women:

200: 933 points

400: 976 points

800: 974 points

1500: 976 points

Your PR divided by the men's WR:

200: 1.308 = 30.8% slower

400: 1.301 = 30.1% slower

800: 1.298 = 29.8% slower

1500: 1.311 = 31.1% slower

Looks equal to me.

Just for the hell of it:

Average IAAF points (IAAF tables for men + IAAF tables for women, divided by 2):

200: 741 points

400: 758 points

800: 744 points

1500: 756.5 points

Your PR divided by the women's WR:

200: 1.176 = 17.6% slower

400: 1.176 = 17.6% slower

800: 1.156 = 15.6% slower

1500: 1.174 = 17.4% slower

I used to coach with a guy who was a state mile champ in high school, then moved down in distance and was a (D1) conference champ in the 440.

Have zero talent wrote:

You always hear about runners who move up in distance as they age, but what about the opposite? I know it sounds weird, but has anyone here moved down and found out that they were just as good or better at the sprints?

I hesitate to use myself as an example since my times are/were slow, but I was a 2:11/4:30 guy in the 800/1500 in college. I took a few years off, tried the 200/400 in my late 20s out of curiosity, and ended up with an electronic 25.1/56.0 by my early 30s. I still got my ass kicked in most races, but I wonder if my 200/400 times weren't as bad as my 800/1500 PRs.

My times are almost identical to yours, as I moved from long distance to mid distance. I ran a 5:10 1600, and now I do 800 at 2:12 and 400 at 56.5, I find injuries are more common in sprinting as it hurts alot more than distance

Your 800/400 times are better than your 1600 time, so it looks like you made the right decision. BTW, what was your mileage when you were doing long distance, and how old were you at that time?

As far as injuries go, I got injured slightly less often doing the sprints than when I was doing the distances. But the injury types were different. Sprinting injuries were muscle-related like hamstring and quad pulls, while distance injuries were tissue and tendon-related like Achilles tendonitis, posterior tibial tendonitis, and plantar fascitis.

Have zero talent wrote:

Tedrunner029 wrote:

My times are almost identical to yours, as I moved from long distance to mid distance. I ran a 5:10 1600, and now I do 800 at 2:12 and 400 at 56.5, I find injuries are more common in sprinting as it hurts alot more than distance

Your 800/400 times are better than your 1600 time, so it looks like you made the right decision. BTW, what was your mileage when you were doing long distance, and how old were you at that time?

As far as injuries go, I got injured slightly less often doing the sprints than when I was doing the distances. But the injury types were different. Sprinting injuries were muscle-related like hamstring and quad pulls, while distance injuries were tissue and tendon-related like Achilles tendonitis, posterior tibial tendonitis, and plantar fascitis.

I ran the 5:10 last year and the 800/400 times are this year. My coach is having me run the 1600 this Thursday too see where I'm at but I still don't think I'll break 5 min. Went mid distance mostly for the 4x400 so I could get a spot at post season for HS.

For mileage, as distance I would do about 20 - 30 MPW usually closer to 20, keeping in mind two of those days are speed days a week

As for injuries idk, I've been hit with shin splints now as a sprinter maybe cuz I was lazy during off season, and idk I find it harder on the knees personally.

Also I think those sprinting times line up pretty well with your mid distance splits, 25 200 is rly good

I stepped down from the 5K/10K to the 800. My 800 times were much better than my 5K/10K times, but that's probably because injuries stopped me from doing the miles necessary to succeed in the longer events.

25 secs for 200 is garbo my dude.

WiseOldOwl wrote:

25 secs for 200 is garbo my dude.

Then why is it so hard for most people to achieve even after they've trained for it?

Letsrun is contradictory wrote:

WiseOldOwl wrote:

25 secs for 200 is garbo my dude.

Then why is it so hard for most people to achieve even after they've trained for it?

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8679766

Because they train for it incorrectly. Not that many people (especially endurance athletes) know how to train sprinting properly.

In the 90s There was a German who started out as a long distance runner then medaled in the 400