Is sub 2:00 800 possible for the aerobically challenged

When I saw 53.1 and 4:52, I thought your other times were gonna be much slower. I ran sub 2 when I was 53.1 and 4:33, but my longer PR's were actually worse than yours. 10:32 3200 and 17:02 3 mile xc (so like 17:45 5k). If 4:52 is your mile PR I'd say that's well below your ability and you just haven't gotten in a good mile race yet. But anyway, based off of my personal experience, you have enough speed and relatively enough endurance to get sub 2. Getting under that barrier is gonna be tough as hell running alone but that'll make the breakthrough feel even better. Good luck bro

Thank you for confirming what I’ve always suspected, your right because I’ve actually never raced a mile, I’ve only time trialed it and ran it in practice, so I was hoping my actual ability was better than 4:52 even though I’ve ran that exact time 4 times. Your right I’m gonna have to dig deep to run it solo because it seems to me that 800’s are the most difficult race to run solo except for anything above a 5k obviously.

I ran a 4:47 1600 as a sophmore but never really ran it again after that. My senior year I split a 53 in a 4x400. I also ran 1:59.6. So, yeah, you are very much able to do this.

Was your 400 on a track and FAT? Sounds like it may have been hand timed on a road. What is your real 400 PR? That is the one out of line with your other times.

It was on a track but no it was not fat. I had a friend time it and as I crossed line I had a video of the finish line with the stop watch going. My friend clicked me at 53.38 but on the video it’s clear he was way too late and I actually go by at 53.11. It’s possible there was a mess up in the beginning but I’m confident I was under 53.5 at least. The reason I don’t have a real 400 pr is because this is my first year of track. I’ve done xc every year but in the spring I play a lacrosse, so I never had a pr below 2 miles.

Totally possible. You are slower at 400 but more aerobically developed than I was when I broke 2.

I focused on 400m (and a little 200m) in my freshman and sophomore years, getting to 52.5 400m as a sophomore. I didn't run XC.

Junior year track - split 50.x on relays, probably in 50.9-51.5 open 400m shape. Got thrown in a 800m and ran 2:01, which was more competitive in my district than my 400 time. Got to 1:59 by end of season.

Ran XC for the first time my senior year, maybe trained 35 mpw over the summer with peak of 45. Ran 17:01 5K, which was hugely faster than what I could have done a few months earlier.

Ran 1:55 800m for senior track and low 51s 4x400 splits, probably still in ~17:00 XC 5K shape. Never raced a 1600 then but I suspect I would have been in 4:25-4:30.

So I think 53 and 17:00 5K makes sub 2:00 possible. Honestly, I think your 400 speed might limit you before your 5K speed. I got down to 1:53 and 3:59 1500m in college without ever breaking 27:30 for XC 8K (16:45 5K equivalent according to Daniels).

Probably not, but you could get close. In a theoretically good race, you could probably run somewhere between 2:05 and 2:00. Honestly, get down to somewhere around a 51.9 or so and a sub-2 should show up. 51.9 might sound like a lot, but it should come fairly naturally if you've run 53.1. I'm willing to bet you could already get close.

ThroughHistory wrote:

Probably not, but you could get close. In a theoretically good race, you could probably run somewhere between 2:05 and 2:00. Honestly, get down to somewhere around a 51.9 or so and a sub-2 should show up. 51.9 might sound like a lot, but it should come fairly naturally if you've run 53.1. I'm willing to bet you could already get close.

You don't need a 51-second 400m to run sub 2. I ran 53.4 on a saturday and the 800 on the sunday in 1:56.4. And my 5k was about 17:10. When I got my 400 down to 52.6, I ran 1:55.2.

When I first ran sub 2, I ran 1:58.9 and I think I ran 54.5 in the 400 that season.

It's mainly about specific endurance and speed endurance OP.

Anecdotal Arnold wrote:

You don't need a 51-second 400m to run sub 2. I ran 53.4 on a saturday and the 800 on the sunday in 1:56.4. And my 5k was about 17:10. When I got my 400 down to 52.6, I ran 1:55.2.

When I first ran sub 2, I ran 1:58.9 and I think I ran 54.5 in the 400 that season.

It's mainly about specific endurance and speed endurance OP.

I'm impressed by 53.4 - 1:56.4 - 17:10 combo, that 800 is way stronger than 400 or 5K. If you only gave me 400 and 5K times and told me you were really strong at 800 in comparison, I would have guess 1:58.5.

Do you know what you were at for 1500/1600 at that time?

To run a fast 800 meter you need to be at your leanest possible healthiest weight.

Well anybody who reads this thread later might be interested to know I ended up running 2:00:90. I was paced through 400 in exactly 60 flat and then raced some slower friends for the second 400 and came through at 2:00:91 as stated above. Agonizingly close but I honestly wasn't expecting to get that close because my fitness and workouts had actually been going backwards for the last 3 weeks. So for me at least a 53.11 400 and 10:22 2 mile converged at about 2 minutes for 800, probably faster if you have some track workouts under your belt and don't overtrain yourself in the month leading up. (btw I am the OP but it wouldn't let me use the name I first used because different device.)

AndTheResults... wrote:

Well anybody who reads this thread later might be interested to know I ended up running 2:00:90. I was paced through 400 in exactly 60 flat and then raced some slower friends for the second 400 and came through at 2:00:91 as stated above. Agonizingly close but I honestly wasn't expecting to get that close because my fitness and workouts had actually been going backwards for the last 3 weeks. So for me at least a 53.11 400 and 10:22 2 mile converged at about 2 minutes for 800, probably faster if you have some track workouts under your belt and don't overtrain yourself in the month leading up. (btw I am the OP but it wouldn't let me use the name I first used because different device.)

Or you run 57-62.9 or 58-61.9 and get it with your current fitness, not changing a thing. Was clear you wouldn't be able to do it in 60.0-59.9. You don't have the aerobic strength, but 53.1 speed, so instead of saying "something isn't possible" just think about your own ideal pacing next time and not just what your friends want.

I honestly think you’d break 2 if you can get your mile under 4:45.

I had a friend that ran 52.5, 1:59 and 4:48. He was a 200/400m guy that transitioned to Distance after having a solid first XC season (low 17s, quite fast for a sprinter type)

AndTheResults... wrote:

Well anybody who reads this thread later might be interested to know I ended up running 2:00:90. I was paced through 400 in exactly 60 flat and then raced some slower friends for the second 400 and came through at 2:00:91 as stated above. Agonizingly close but I honestly wasn't expecting to get that close because my fitness and workouts had actually been going backwards for the last 3 weeks. So for me at least a 53.11 400 and 10:22 2 mile converged at about 2 minutes for 800, probably faster if you have some track workouts under your belt and don't overtrain yourself in the month leading up. (btw I am the OP but it wouldn't let me use the name I first used because different device.)

Nicely done. You are definitely set up to be a really good 800-mile guy if you keep with it. That 4:52 is definitely not reflective at all of your ability. I could see a 4:35 or faster if you get some good training in.