Pleasantly shocked at cracking the 80 second barrier!

Nice man. With that sub 14 100m speed you should aim for a 60 second 400 though. I know people who could barely touch 14.00 and were closing in on 16:00 for 5k.

troll_69 wrote:

Nice man. With that sub 14 100m speed you should aim for a 60 second 400 though. I know people who could barely touch 14.00 and were closing in on 16:00 for 5k.

Thanks, yes, definitely going to work more on 400 and 800 as they seem like the bottleneck to improving even my mile and beyond speeds.

Good job

Is this SprintGeezer's alt?

Anyway, a breakthrough is always something to celebrate... keep it going!

arunaround wrote:

troll_69 wrote:

Nice man. With that sub 14 100m speed you should aim for a 60 second 400 though. I know people who could barely touch 14.00 and were closing in on 16:00 for 5k.

Thanks, yes, definitely going to work more on 400 and 800 as they seem like the bottleneck to improving even my mile and beyond speeds.

That is a huge drop off from 100m to 400m.

Maybe do a 200m time trial? I'm curious what that would be.

You should be a able to run a 200 in under 30.00, or close to it.

If you can do that, under 1:06 should be doable for 400m.

Well done, good goal. 2x the 10000 WR will need some work.

Breaking 50 at 50 here ;) Yep within 50% of WRs at 50 ... you've got 10 years of training time!

The infamous sub 80 second 400m means NOTHING until you crack the NOTORIOUS 220 second 800m, 135 minute half marathon and the BILLION second ULTRA MARATHON.

Absolutely love this. You go big guy.

Good job!

Ernest wrote:

Is this SprintGeezer's alt?

Anyway, a breakthrough is always something to celebrate... keep it going!

Nope not me, but good thread!

Hey OP if that 1:20 is accurate and you are just toying around, you might have some good potential in the 4, especially if you are in your mid/upper 40’s. Work on that 4 and 8 and tell us what happens!

Great job. The mid-distance sprints are obviously way harder than the distance ones. Anyone over a mile seems pedantic? can you really not run a 10k under 56 min? My wife who's not a runner can still eeek out a 55' 10k. You'd crush her on the mile or faster. That 27' 5k looks terrible too. Like just doing 3 miles with intervals and walking alone should get you under 27min.

Also the 100m wr is also not much of a challenge of 19". But clearly you have speed if you're 14" flat.

Hurno wrote:

troll_69 wrote:

Nice man. With that sub 14 100m speed you should aim for a 60 second 400 though. I know people who could barely touch 14.00 and were closing in on 16:00 for 5k.

That is a huge drop off from 100m to 400m.

Maybe do a 200m time trial? I'm curious what that would be.

You should be a able to run a 200 in under 30.00, or close to it.

If you can do that, under 1:06 should be doable for 400m.

Yes, huge drop off indeed. I tried timing a 200m too yesterday with blind faith that I could just run balls-against-walls like 100m all the way but fizzled and had to give up at the 150m mark 😅and the time was 25”. So I’m guessing my 200 is currently no worse than 32-35” if I pace myself properly with fresher legs. Will try again this weekend, my next speed workout on track day.

I think I at least know my problem better now. My first ATP energy system is decent but that only helps for 10-15 seconds. My second Anaerobic Glycolysis phase is broken and doesn’t take over quickly enough or doesn’t go very far until aerobic eventually has to take over.

The above would also explain why I’m able to run-walk 10K at like 9’20” average pace but have not run it continuously at faster than 10’. The walk portions keep clearing lactate that keeps accumulating too quickly.

1:06 sounds fantastical right now but thanks for the encouragement.

cruising usa wrote:

Great job. The mid-distance sprints are obviously way harder than the distance ones. Anyone over a mile seems pedantic? can you really not run a 10k under 56 min? My wife who's not a runner can still eeek out a 55' 10k. You'd crush her on the mile or faster. That 27' 5k looks terrible too. Like just doing 3 miles with intervals and walking alone should get you under 27min.

Also the 100m wr is also not much of a challenge of 19". But clearly you have speed if you're 14" flat.

Nope, I can’t yet *run* 10K under 56’. I have run-walk 5+ miles at 9’20” average pace (or 58’ for 10K) without stopping the clock the whole time, but the fastest I’ve continuously run 10K is at 10’ pace. This run-walking being faster than running drives me crazy.

Up to 5K, I am thankfully faster just running than run-walking, but my training PB is still currently 27’+. I’ve not tried to race or even seriously time trial 5K, so it wasn’t an all out effort, but I never had the confidence yet to aim higher on my 5K training runs. Before yesterday, my 400m/100” PB corresponded to a 6’40” pace and my mile PB was 7’40”, so 8’45” pace for 5K seemed par for the course.

But now that I have more confidence that I can improve my 400 and 800 a fair bit more, I hope to do that and then build upon it to improve the mile and beyond as well.

Congrats! (and ignore any trolls that pop up here) It feels great breaking a personal barrier like that.

drtoneill wrote:

Breaking 50 at 50 here ;) Yep within 50% of WRs at 50 ... you've got 10 years of training time!

That’s amazing and encouraging to hear. “Breaking 50 at 50” has a great ring to it. One step at a time…

ok fair enough. those should be easiest to beat - just some base building will get you there.. good luck!

This brought a smile to my morning - good work!

Well done. Nice work.

And to letsrunners, great supportive comments.