Run-Down Forums

[Guest]

Hello Dan,

I saw the discussion about the 800/1500 pace.
But now i want to know how fast one can run at a 5000m, when your personal best at 1500m is 4.42.9.
I've already seen some calculators on the internet, but i think they weren't very good. These calculators might work when you are a pure longdistance runner, but I've a middistance background (800m in 2.14.5).

[Dan]

That's outside my personal experience area and is a rather large increment in distance (makes any prediction pretty shaky), so I could only hazard a very rough guess... The best predictor is always going out and running it.

Dan

[Indeurr]

I am going to make a wild guess 18:00?

[Guest]

Really, there is no difference between and 800m background and a 2 miler at your level. any event over 400m is distance. The basic rule of 17 would put your 5k potential at about 17:10.

[Anonymously Posted by: 'Donk']

[Dan]

Just for the record, I strongly disagree with that. One's level is not significant here, the 800m and 3k/2 mile are very different events for most people. 400/800 is fairly common, as is 800/1500 and mile/2-mile, but 400/1500 and 800/2-mile are rarities unless the person also does well in the intermediate event (in which case, the intermediate event is probably their primary event, not either of the "bookends" ).

Dan

[Guest]

I didn't see anything about the person wanting to double up in a meet. But no one should peg themselves into one event for life. The fun in running is to run and get pesonal bests in many events; a 2 miler, instead of running the deuce in all 9 dual meets, might run the half and the quarter mile relay 2 meets before the league meet to build his speed. And most runners "graduate" to longer distances as they age-- witness eamon coughlin's move from the mile to the 5k with great success. or the guy who won the '84 olympic marathon from portugal who had been a medalist at 1500 m 12 years earlier...
Anyone who trains himself for the 800m, which is generally accepted as the toughest race in track, as it is the exact midpoint between sprinting and running, is a distance runner. His workouts will enable him to handle a 5k quite well. In fact, better than the bulk of the "joggers" who show up with no speedwork. I guarentee you, if you put this 2:14 half miler in any local 5k race, he'll finish in the top half, if not the top quarter of the field.

[Anonymously Posted by: 'Donk']

[Dan]

What I was saying has nothing to do with doubling in meets, rather it was an objection to my interpretation of your statement than anything over 400m is a toss up for a 2:14 half miler. The difference between a 2:14 runner and a 1:50 runner is ability as much as anything else, not energy systems. Now, if that 2:14 runner is at that level more or less recreationally, then it's another matter. But, if they have worked hard to get to 2:14, then it's akin to saying an Olympic 800m guy should jump in a few 5k's just for the heck of it. After all, they're all distance events.

I've always had mixed feelings about people moving up in distance over the years. There aren't many examples of people moving down in distance, but that's probably due to it being harder to develop speed later on more than anything else. If moving up were the way to go for everyone (as most people seem to think), then we'd have no sprinters and only ultra runners. Where do the 100m runners come from? Obviously they didn't move up to get to that distance, unless they ran solely the 50/55/60m indoor all the way through college...

My point is that every well trained athlete, regardless of ability level, has one event that they are best at. Some have better range than others, but they still have a primary event that they are likely to come back to time and again. Sure the 2:14 guy can beat most recreational runners, but that's a meaningless relative comparison. Put him up against guys that have trained similarly hard for the 5k and he'd probably be dead last. Just like putting those same 5k guys in the 800 against him would result in a few DNF's.

Dan

[Guest]

What I mean by anything over 800m is distance, is that is the event that defines the difference. 400m and less guys are almost pure speed (fast twitch muscles), whereas the higher events become more and more an endurance factor. A natural 800m guy will be best at 800m. But are you sure anyone can tell what someone's best event will be at a young age? You don't want to lock someone into one event just because he might be the best on the team at it. He could still be naturally better at a longer distance. And would never know if he didn't occasionally try it. The training methods, in high school and college, for 800m men, 1500m, and 5000m men are not very different. Go to any cross-country team. look at the best 7 runners on that team. who are they? they are your 800m, 1500m and 3000m runners. any 400m or less runner that's on the team is not going to be in the top, but is running because his coach convinced him it would help his endurance for track, and in the end he doesn't improve his time much. any 800m guy can safely and effectively run a 5k, and will do very well once he gets use to the race. Again, an 800m guy has to do a lot of distance, and it ends up being practically the same amount of distance, as your 5k runners in high school and college.

[Anonymously Posted by: 'Donk']

[Dan]

Hmm, I can't say I really understand what your point is...

1) "400m and less guys are almost pure speed" - I won't go so far as to presume your background is in distance running, but it sure sounds like you are making the assumption (a very common one) that people are either sprinters or distance runners, nothing in between. Although some sprinters are able to cover the range of sprints, there are very different requirements to each of the disciplines therein. The 400 is far from pure speed, although that distinction is lost when lumped together as being simply something other than distance.

2) There's no question that the longer the event, the more endurance plays a role. I agree with you there.

3) "But are you sure anyone can tell what someone's best event will be at a young age?" - Where did a young age come into this discussion? And how would you define a young age? Again, although you haven't explicitly stated it, I believe you're assuming that people should keep moving up in distance until they find their best event. That's only true if their best event is longer than the one they are currently focusing on, which theoretically should be the case less than 50% of the time. That doesn't keep people from assuming it should be done 99% of the time, though...

4) "The training methods, in high school and college, for 800m men, 1500m, and 5000m men are not very different." - I don't see how you could possibly say that, unless you're talking about an incredibly poor training program. The base training may well be similar, but that's about it.

5) "look at the best 7 runners on that team. who are they? they are your 800m, 1500m and 3000m runners." - I disagree. The 3k/5k/10k guys/gals will be well represented, with a few successful 1500 types mixed in. The 800 runners are likely to be a toss up. Some may do well, others will struggle. It isn't at all uncommon for an All-American 800 runner to be middle of the pack or slower in cross country.

6) "any 800m guy can safely and effectively run a 5k, and will do very well once he gets use to the race." - examples???

Dan

[Indeurr]

I would like to clarify.
If I remember correctly, the breakpoint between the short runs (more anaerobic) and the long runs (more aerobic) is about 1K or 1000 m. If you run 1000 m, you derive energy anaerobically and aerobically "50/50."
I, and more so Dan, can provide you with a lot of examples of great male runners who run either 400 and 800, or 1500 and 5000. I would like you to provide us with examples of great male runners who run 800 and 1500.
By the way, some athletic-track and field commentators say that "at the highest level, 800 m is a controlled sprint."

[Guest]

Ever hear of Sebastian Coe? How about Steve Ovett? Steve Cram?

[Anonymously Posted by: 'Donk']

[Dan]

I think 800/1500 is as common, or slightly more common, than 400/800 doublers. The 800 is usually pegged as the 50/50 aerobic/anaerobic split, so it makes sense a fairly even number of people would go each direction from there.

Dan

[Guest]

I said at such a young age because I'm guessing "anonymous" is probably a freshman or sophomore in high school based on his 800m time. It's unlikely anyone outside of a college or high school program runs 800m, unless they are lucky enough to have fun runs at a local track. But anonymous could be older(did say background, so it could be years ago), or could be a she. so, anonymous, how old are you?
I'm also suggesting 400m people don't do as much distance work as 800m and beyond people, and they don't need to, and wouldn't benefit from it after a point. Their workouts are heavier on track work.
Only people willing to do the necessary mileage should move up in distance. As long as they are natural 800m and up guys. And they should do so when they age enough that they no longer improve (and eventually get slower). This will happen eventually, whether it's at age 25 or 40. If you were great once, you will naturally be a very competitive person. You will no longer be satisfied running your old event you use to dominate, just to get 4ths, and lasts. So, you could call it a career. Or, you could move up in distance, where speed is less of a factor. By increasing the mileage and changing your training, you can prolong your career. Look at Bob Kennedy readying himself for the 10,000 and eventually the marathon.
A natural 100m guy can do all the endurance work he wants, and may get pretty good at longer distance, but he'll never be great because he has less slow twitch muscle fibre and more fast twitch, so will be at a disadvantage. At some point, no matter how many miles a week he ran, someone else with the opposite characteristics and high mileage will easily defeat him. I read somewhere that someone was speculating what kind of time Michael Johnson could run in the marathon, if he concentrated on it, and that they were sure of one thing, it'd be good. That's just silly.

[Anonymously Posted by: 'Donk']

[Guest]

point: "it isn't at all uncommon for an all american 800 runner to be middle of the pack or slower in cross-country"

counterpoint: That minority do so not for lack of ablility. These are runners who underperform. These gifted runners prefer the power and speed of track to cross-country, and don't take cross-country that seriously. To excel at cross-country, you must do serious work (mostly to build your mileage base) during the summer. Because their summer job takes them away from their college running group, they don't have the support system to carry them thru the drudgery of mileage. Sadly, many prefer to take it easy in the summer, and use cross-country to build their mileage base (when their support system is back in place) to prepare for the track season.

[Anonymously Posted by: 'Donk']

[Dan]

By your very argument, those 800m runners would almost certainly do worse on the track in the spring. Very few people can be good at both ends of the spectrum. You seem to think that the distance event should take priority, no matter what the person's preferred discipline is.

Dan