Minimum drop between rolling 200m and 1km times

In case it was unclear, I should say that I am assuming that the 200m is run hard; not a one-off all out session, but as good as one can do within a session with at least a little volume and not too long rest (max 400m jog), say the fastest 200m one could hit on a good day within such a session.

In the hope of interesting somebody in this, perhaps I can make it more concrete. I can hit about 34s consistently in 3 x 5 x 200m with 200m jog, and 400m jog between sets, on a banked indoor track in the middle of a period of hard training. I can hit 32s if I push a bit harder (but not all out) early in the session. What is the best I could possibly hope to achieve for 400m intervals, 800m intervals, 1km intervals, 3km race, 5km race?

There is obviously a difference between speed-types and endurance-types, feel free to suggest an answer for both.

Sorry, for what it's worth, that should have read 4 x 5 x 200, not 3 x 5 x 200.

this is a tough question to answer as what you can do for 15 or 20 200s, is probably close to indicative of an 800 time, while 5x1000 is more indicative of what you might run 3k to 5k.

Those are not distances one is likely to be in competitive shape for at the same time, so the relationship in rep speeds might not be linear.

That said, ideally, i think 32 second 200s might turn into 3:05-3:10 1000s, which is something like 37 or 38 seconds per 200

Same person could probably do a bunch of 400s in roughly 1:10, give or take

1k times I would expect from a person’s rolling 200m speed (assuming no bias towards speed or endurance)

0:34 = 3:30

0:32 = 3:15

0:30 = 3:00-5

0:28 = 2:50

0:26 = 2:40

Thank you very much to you both for the thoughts, much appreciated!

One reason for my asking is to try to see where I might focus to try to improve. My latest training times (all on same indoor track, all in the middle of hard training) are as follows.

4 x 5 x 200 (200m jog rest, 400m jog rest between sets): 34s (can hit 32s for a few)

12 x 400: 76s to 78s (can hit 74s once or twice)

8 x 800: 2:38 - 2:40

5 x 1k: 3:24-3:26, average closer to 3:24 than 3:26

My feeling was that I am losing quite a bit of time on the 400s, but then not losing very much on the 800s and 1ks. Not sure exactly what that would indicate; maybe that I need to become a little more accustomed to the 200 pace?

High school xc coach's predictions would seem to possibly confirm that I am losing a bit more time than I optimally might. But, whilst there is not a huge difference, Jai's predictions would seem to suggest that I do not have so much room for improvement overall, and that I should rather be looking to bring down the 200m time if I am to see an improvement for longer intervals as well.

Very interesting, thanks again! Any further thoughts are very welcome!

Forgot to mention, in case it is useful, that the 400s are with 200m jog rest, and the 800s and 1ks are with 400m jog rest.

converting 0:26 to 2:40 seems ludicrous. I did 25.5 a month ago and I doubt I could break even 2:50 now. But maybe I just suck.

slow guyyy wrote:

converting 0:26 to 2:40 seems ludicrous. I did 25.5 a month ago and I doubt I could break even 2:50 now. But maybe I just suck.

Your aerobic sucks.

No offence btw, mine does too. It helps to know your weaknesses so you can work on them, though.

I don't think you're right here. The IAAF scoring doc gives 25.5 about 508 points, while a 2:40 is worth 687 points. 2:40 is waaaay better here.

I don't think you're right here. The IAAF scoring doc gives 25.5 about 508 points, while a 2:40 is worth 687 points. 2:40 is waaaay better here.

I was wondering about rolling 200s and 1k intervals done in the context of some volume (e.g. as part of 3k or 5k training), whilst the IAAF tables would presumably be taking the 200m and 1km to be events-in-themselves.

In that context, my impression from reading around (not based on personal experience of course) is that, for a speed-type runner, much lower 200m times are going to be possible, but the drop off when the distance of the intervals increases will be higher; possibly you fit into this category? Jai remarked that he was attempting to give a prediction with neither a bias towards speed nor to endurance but somewhere in the middle (which incidentally seems to be roughly where I am on the spectrum).

If you have some numbers on what you can do for 200 vs 400 vs 800 vs 1k repeats, it would be very interesting to compare with mine (as well as with somebody who has less speed than me but more endurance).

slow guyyy wrote:

I don't think you're right here. The IAAF scoring doc gives 25.5 about 508 points, while a 2:40 is worth 687 points. 2:40 is waaaay better here.

yes. but we are talking about doing 26 seconds 20 times. we are talking about doing 2:40 five times.

to put in perspective, the guy running 26x20 is trying to be a 1:45 or better 800 runner. the guy running 2:40s is aiming to be in the low 13s, give or take for a 5k.

seems somewhat equivalent to me.

If I may ask a follow up question as well: if we agree that I would need to get the rolling 200m time down to see improvements in the longer intervals as well, will an improvement in the rolling 200m be likely to 'scale up' more or less immediately, or is it likely to take time? And is it likely that improved endurance would bring down the 200m time, or would it be likely to be more effective to improve speed and rely on my existing endurance levels to 'scale up' to the longer intervals?

Improved endurance will not have an impact on your 200m time unless you are talking about somebody truly out of shape. By out of shape I’m not talking about an athlete not in season, I’m talking about truly out of shape as in an overweight person who is in such bad shape they would be winded trying to do a 200m in under 50 seconds, yes, improving their endurance and getting healthy will probably bring that 200m down to about 35 seconds.

But we aren’t talking about 5 minute ks here, we are talking about sub 3 minute ks and the majority of the time for athletes who train for distance, it is top end speed that stops them improving further once they reach a plateau.

Thanks for the thoughts! Definitely I'd be looking to improve top-end speed. But I suppose there is a distinction into (not sure of the best terminology) pure speed vs endurance at speed vs general endurance, though of course they are intertwined. I think that you were referring principally to general endurance? Whereas I was thinking more of endurance at speed.

If one can hit 32 within a 20 x 200 session on somewhat tired legs, albeit only for a few of the 200s, then presumably one's 'pure speed' 200m is somewhat lower. Perhaps it could be possible to improve 'endurance at speed' far enough to run the entire 20 x 200 in 32.

Is there any anecdotal evidence of this kind: if one can hit time X at least once or twice in a 20 x 200 session, then one should be able to improve one's endurance at speed far enough to eventually run 20 x 200 at time X?