My 10k time has imporved but 400m speed still same . Please help

ooopsss how did i even type that wrong ..... i mean 70-72 seconds , not 60-62

just different neuromuscular pathways and coordination skills

Internetsherlock wrote:

I am self trained and a fan of high mileage . I have managed to go from 43 to 36 at the 10K in like a year but 400m speed is still around 60-62 seconds just like when i was doing 43 min at the 10k, maybe 1-3 seconds faster if i wear right shoe . What is going on here? i feel like i wont get any much faster at the 10k if my 400m doesn't improve as it is quite evident from the small improvements thats happening right now .

I rarely do speed work . Is speed work a mandatory if you want to get to 30-33 min 10k ?

Thanks

There are kenians very slow on 100-200m, but they are strong on distance.

If you wanna go down to 30-33 minutes for 10k, you must have better speed than 70-72 seconds for 400m. Actually it’s quite impressive to run 36 minutes with a speed of 70 seconds 400m. No runner on earth can run 30-33 minutes 10k and have speed of 70-72 seconds 400m- impossible. You can’t run 72 seconds laps and have a speed of 70. All those Kenyans who run sub 30 and sub 28 for 10k are very fast as well. All of them run sub 55 seconds and even close to 50 for 400m. The top ones run even sub 50. The only way to gain speed is by lifting heavy (relative to your body weight) and do some plots as well

How can you run fast if you don't do any speed work? Your body doesn't know how to run fast. Add in some strides and hills each week in addition to what you're doing and it will improve your power and speed without being detrimental to your endurance.

Ggggg wrote:

The only way to gain speed is by lifting heavy (relative to your body weight) and do some plots as well

So says the 400 pound gym rat who can't run.

Even though I ran strides, hills and lifted weights, I improved from 63/10:38 as a Sophomore to 60/9:28 as a Senior. There's not much that can be done to improve top-end speed and it's why I wasn't a 9:00 guy.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Even though I ran strides, hills and lifted weights, I improved from 63/10:38 as a Sophomore to 60/9:28 as a Senior. There's not much that can be done to improve top-end speed and it's why I wasn't a 9:00 guy.

Sure but 3 seconds is 3 seconds and OP appears to not be doing any of what you did which could mean that there is a potential for large improvement.

I thought the world champs 10k was astounding. If you put Cheptegei's finishing time (26:48) into the McMillan calculator, you get the following speeds:

100m 10.9

400m 45.6

800m 1:40.1

Mile 3:43

He closed the race in :55 seconds and ran AWAY from the current indoor mile world record holder. Amazing!

So do you need better speed? You tell me...

Why do you care about your 400m time?

Top-end speed is to a large extent, luck of the draw... you got it or you don't.

Differing energy systems for these events... 400 = 60-65% aerobic, 10K = 90-95% aerobic.

So relative improvements like you experienced aren't atypical.

Jeez Ernest, I sure hope you don't advise runners...

Hadd-like wrote:

I thought the world champs 10k was astounding. If you put Cheptegei's finishing time (26:48) into the McMillan calculator, you get the following speeds:

100m 10.9

400m 45.6

800m 1:40.1

Mile 3:43

He closed the race in :55 seconds and ran AWAY from the current indoor mile world record holder. Amazing!

So do you need better speed? You tell me...

Yep it's about how fast you can run when you're tired. Some of this race had to do with Kejelcha foolishly trying to run around on the final bend instead of waiting for the straight and swinging wide to attack late. Would that have been enough to win I'd say probably not but it would undoubtedly been closer.

When I ran 43:10 in the 10k, my 400 PR was 63.

When I ran 32:10, my 400 PR was 62.

I don't advise runners - except when on Letsrun (when solicted), just like everyone else here. Though I am a trained/certified Distance Running Coach and do have personal competitive running experience, competing up to the National level. I will be the first to admit there are many here more qualified and knowledgeable - but nothing indicates you're one of them, since you're an anonymous poster with a throw-away handle and whose thread contribution consists running a World-class result through an online calculator and deeming that somehow relevant/insightful. Please explain what I just posted which is factually incorrect. How about some facts to go with your opinion?

Hadd-like wrote:

Jeez Ernest, I sure hope you don't advise runners...

Exactly... there is now tight correlation between 400m top speed and 10K top speed. When I was running 10K in 39:xx minutes, my top 400 speed was 56s. When I was running 10K in 34:xx minutes, my 400 was only 57 (slower). Take 20 women/guys running, say 37 minutes for 10K, and you see 400m speeds all over the place... easily 10-15 second variation within that population.

Trumpkin wrote:

When I ran 43:10 in the 10k, my 400 PR was 63.

When I ran 32:10, my 400 PR was 62.

There is no tight correlation...

Ernest wrote:

Exactly... there is now tight correlation between 400m top speed and 10K top speed.

When I was running 10K in 39:xx minutes, my top 400 speed was 56s.

When I was running 10K in 34:xx minutes, my 400 was only 57 (slower).

Take 20 women/guys running, say 37 minutes for 10K, and you see 400m speeds all over the place... easily 10-15 second variation within that population.

Trumpkin wrote:

When I ran 43:10 in the 10k, my 400 PR was 63.

When I ran 32:10, my 400 PR was 62.

Thank for all the inputs. Translation between 400m and 10k seems to be more complicated than i thought . I guess

speed is not extremely vital unless you are world class trying to close a gap in the last lap or so but nonetheless i would be so happy to be able to run few seconds off sub 60 400m speed

Ernest wrote:

There is no tight correlation...

Strong correlation is close to 1. Who states, "Tight" correlation?

O.P. runs a 400m in 72 seconds. That does limit him.

Elite Marathoners race Marathon roughly 32 to 38 times one's 1500m potential. Since 400m speed correlates to 1500m, one's 400m is correlated to one's 10K. Most elite 10000m runners are able to sprint 400m much faster than did Al Salazar. Salazar is the slow man's hero with his 57.xx 400m. Runners should not count on being successful with that 400m spreed. I am defining runner as one who races 800m to Marathon.

I started out by asking why you care about your 400 time. It wasn’t entirely rhetorical.

It looked like improved distance running was your primary training goal, eg a faster 10k.

If so, train for that and accept your 400 for whatever it is. As the 400 is still largely aerobic, improving your 10k may improve your 400 - though it isn’t necessarily significant or linear or the same for everyone.

The point is fast 400 speed isn’t required for a decent 10k.

Also, online calculators extrapolating distance results aren’t reliable at predicting sprinting performance for most, partly due to changes in mix of contributing energy systems by event - but also due to variations in native ability. Some people just have more fast twitch, musculature, etc. making them more or less suited to particular distances.

If a fast 400 is your real goal, adopt a training approach specific to it - but it looks like that’d be pounding a square peg into a round hole. Doesn’t play to your strength.