|
The 400 is an interesting race. I agree it has little to do with aerobic endurance. I think it might be easier to get a 100 meter runner to do it well than a mile runner. Also it seems so hard to pass people especially indoors just from what I've seen.
A coach I had got people to race the first 40 seconds of a 400 as fast as possible because he said it takes 40 seconds to hit acidosis. Then you just try to minimize the degree to which you die at the end of the race by running with big balls.
|
I want to run the 10km in under 40:00 this year. Last year's results have been 42:xx and to improve by 2 minutes within a year is very hard but I've already set my mark for this year.
|
On February 18 2012 21:13 ShuttingFromTheSky wrote:
I want to run the 10km in under 40:00 this year. Last year's results have been 42:xx and to improve by 2 minutes within a year is very hard but I've already set my mark for this year.
How long have you been working at the 10k? Is it on a track or no?
The first season I did the 10k I improved a lot just by getting a feel for the race. It helps so much to have people to race against rather than going mostly solo and weather changes things a lot too. Most of my 10ks were me by myself with a few other guys not running anywhere near my pace.
|
On February 18 2012 16:28 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you are coming down from longer distances to run the 400m, then I suggest you start out running pretty close to full speed during the first curve. As you're coming out of the curve, find a very strong but comfortable pace, get a good rhythm. Then the rest of it is just trying to hold on to that pace. It's pretty rare for someone to have their last 100m faster than their 2nd or 3rd. In other words, 400m runners don't save energy for a kick at the end (unless they're running a strategical race for place, not time). You shouldn't feel any extreme fatigue through the first 300m. If you are, then you could probably get a faster time by slowing down the first 300m.
If you're coming up from 100m 200m, then you generally don't want to do close to full speed during the first 100m because your full speed is too fast and too taxing. You want to get a good start and then immediately find that comfortable pace.
source: I ran a 48.9 in high school. Teammate ran 46.1
48.9 for high school is very, very good. very impressed!
I only ran track in junior high but the 400 and 800 were always my most/least favorite events. I enjoyed them because I was good at them, I hated them because they are hell.
|
On February 18 2012 16:28 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you are coming down from longer distances to run the 400m, then I suggest you start out running pretty close to full speed during the first curve. As you're coming out of the curve, find a very strong but comfortable pace, get a good rhythm. Then the rest of it is just trying to hold on to that pace. It's pretty rare for someone to have their last 100m faster than their 2nd or 3rd. In other words, 400m runners don't save energy for a kick at the end (unless they're running a strategical race for place, not time). You shouldn't feel any extreme fatigue through the first 300m. If you are, then you could probably get a faster time by slowing down the first 300m.
If you're coming up from 100m 200m, then you generally don't want to do close to full speed during the first 100m because your full speed is too fast and too taxing. You want to get a good start and then immediately find that comfortable pace.
source: I ran a 48.9 in high school. Teammate ran 46.1
Yea, I'm definitely no sprinter. I think 13.5 is pretty darn slow for 100m and I'm a distance guy, though it will be interesting to see how much I can improve on that mark. Obviously going to need more speed than that to ever have a legit chance at running under say 2:00/4:30.
Might need to tone it down just a little going out as I was definitely feeling the legs start to lock up with about 120m to go, and was really tying up bad with 70m or so left to go. Felt like I went out easy enough, but it could be a combination of not being used to that sorta of race (been years since I last even raced a mile, let alone 800m or shorter) and going out harder than I need it to.
48.9's a pretty nice HS time, especially since you were more a middle distance guy right? What kind of 800/1500 times did you run; something low 1:50's or better I'd guess for the 800 and probably anywhere from 4:00 on down for 1500m?
That 46.1 your teamate ran, was that a HS time? It's damn good either way but that would be a sick, sick HS time!
|
Running is just about the only sport I'm good at and enjoy doing. That or ice skating. But throughtout my life I've had pain in the ankles after a workout, even back when I was really fit and played in a junior soccer team. It's not terribly intense but still enough to deprive sleep. It's the main reason I stopped working out.
One time when I was in an accident, I got my feet xray'd and a doctor commented that "the joints are rather loose". Anyone have some cool hunch on what this might be? Don't worry, I won't take too seriously what some guy writes on the internet.
|
On February 18 2012 17:20 AirbladeOrange wrote:
The 400 is an interesting race. I agree it has little to do with aerobic endurance. I think it might be easier to get a 100 meter runner to do it well than a mile runner. Also it seems so hard to pass people especially indoors just from what I've seen.
A coach I had got people to race the first 40 seconds of a 400 as fast as possible because he said it takes 40 seconds to hit acidosis. Then you just try to minimize the degree to which you die at the end of the race by running with big balls.
I think I'll actually try that. Sprint at the beginning, and then just carry on to the end. It kind of reminds me of Steven Prefontaine, the distance runner that said "The best pace is a suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." And of course, he had to set records that wouldn't be broken for awhile and died young in a car crash. He was such an inspirational runner. RIP ;_;
|
8748 Posts
On February 19 2012 12:57 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 16:28 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you are coming down from longer distances to run the 400m, then I suggest you start out running pretty close to full speed during the first curve. As you're coming out of the curve, find a very strong but comfortable pace, get a good rhythm. Then the rest of it is just trying to hold on to that pace. It's pretty rare for someone to have their last 100m faster than their 2nd or 3rd. In other words, 400m runners don't save energy for a kick at the end (unless they're running a strategical race for place, not time). You shouldn't feel any extreme fatigue through the first 300m. If you are, then you could probably get a faster time by slowing down the first 300m.
If you're coming up from 100m 200m, then you generally don't want to do close to full speed during the first 100m because your full speed is too fast and too taxing. You want to get a good start and then immediately find that comfortable pace.
source: I ran a 48.9 in high school. Teammate ran 46.1 Yea, I'm definitely no sprinter. I think 13.5 is pretty darn slow for 100m and I'm a distance guy, though it will be interesting to see how much I can improve on that mark. Obviously going to need more speed than that to ever have a legit chance at running under say 2:00/4:30. Might need to tone it down just a little going out as I was definitely feeling the legs start to lock up with about 120m to go, and was really tying up bad with 70m or so left to go. Felt like I went out easy enough, but it could be a combination of not being used to that sorta of race (been years since I last even raced a mile, let alone 800m or shorter) and going out harder than I need it to. 48.9's a pretty nice HS time, especially since you were more a middle distance guy right? What kind of 800/1500 times did you run; something low 1:50's or better I'd guess for the 800 and probably anywhere from 4:00 on down for 1500m? That 46.1 your teamate ran, was that a HS time? It's damn good either way but that would be a sick, sick HS time!
Yeah, 46.1 also a HS time. Really fast guy. I ran 1:54 sophomore year, 1:53 junior year, did not compete senior year. Also ran 14:59 3 mile (not 5k) junior year cross country. i ran a 9:43 3200m on the track sophomore year, but just sat behind the leader the whole race and sprinted at the end to win it. was just scoring points for team. didn't do 1500m/1600m much.. usually just for scoring points. I think my PR was something like 4:23 for 1600m
|
On February 20 2012 12:14 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 12:57 L_Master wrote:On February 18 2012 16:28 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you are coming down from longer distances to run the 400m, then I suggest you start out running pretty close to full speed during the first curve. As you're coming out of the curve, find a very strong but comfortable pace, get a good rhythm. Then the rest of it is just trying to hold on to that pace. It's pretty rare for someone to have their last 100m faster than their 2nd or 3rd. In other words, 400m runners don't save energy for a kick at the end (unless they're running a strategical race for place, not time). You shouldn't feel any extreme fatigue through the first 300m. If you are, then you could probably get a faster time by slowing down the first 300m.
If you're coming up from 100m 200m, then you generally don't want to do close to full speed during the first 100m because your full speed is too fast and too taxing. You want to get a good start and then immediately find that comfortable pace.
source: I ran a 48.9 in high school. Teammate ran 46.1 Yea, I'm definitely no sprinter. I think 13.5 is pretty darn slow for 100m and I'm a distance guy, though it will be interesting to see how much I can improve on that mark. Obviously going to need more speed than that to ever have a legit chance at running under say 2:00/4:30. Might need to tone it down just a little going out as I was definitely feeling the legs start to lock up with about 120m to go, and was really tying up bad with 70m or so left to go. Felt like I went out easy enough, but it could be a combination of not being used to that sorta of race (been years since I last even raced a mile, let alone 800m or shorter) and going out harder than I need it to. 48.9's a pretty nice HS time, especially since you were more a middle distance guy right? What kind of 800/1500 times did you run; something low 1:50's or better I'd guess for the 800 and probably anywhere from 4:00 on down for 1500m? That 46.1 your teamate ran, was that a HS time? It's damn good either way but that would be a sick, sick HS time! Yeah, 46.1 also a HS time. Really fast guy. I ran 1:54 sophomore year, 1:53 junior year, did not compete senior year. Also ran 14:59 3 mile (not 5k) junior year cross country. i ran a 9:43 3200m on the track sophomore year, but just sat behind the leader the whole race and sprinted at the end to win it. was just scoring points for team. didn't do 1500m/1600m much.. usually just for scoring points. I think my PR was something like 4:23 for 1600m
You must have had an insane 4x4 team. How did your training change when you went to college? Was it a major change or just building on what you had done in HS?
|
Fuck, and I thought my 19:37 for 3 miles my sophomore year was pretty good.
|
8748 Posts
On February 20 2012 14:22 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 12:14 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 19 2012 12:57 L_Master wrote:On February 18 2012 16:28 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you are coming down from longer distances to run the 400m, then I suggest you start out running pretty close to full speed during the first curve. As you're coming out of the curve, find a very strong but comfortable pace, get a good rhythm. Then the rest of it is just trying to hold on to that pace. It's pretty rare for someone to have their last 100m faster than their 2nd or 3rd. In other words, 400m runners don't save energy for a kick at the end (unless they're running a strategical race for place, not time). You shouldn't feel any extreme fatigue through the first 300m. If you are, then you could probably get a faster time by slowing down the first 300m.
If you're coming up from 100m 200m, then you generally don't want to do close to full speed during the first 100m because your full speed is too fast and too taxing. You want to get a good start and then immediately find that comfortable pace.
source: I ran a 48.9 in high school. Teammate ran 46.1 Yea, I'm definitely no sprinter. I think 13.5 is pretty darn slow for 100m and I'm a distance guy, though it will be interesting to see how much I can improve on that mark. Obviously going to need more speed than that to ever have a legit chance at running under say 2:00/4:30. Might need to tone it down just a little going out as I was definitely feeling the legs start to lock up with about 120m to go, and was really tying up bad with 70m or so left to go. Felt like I went out easy enough, but it could be a combination of not being used to that sorta of race (been years since I last even raced a mile, let alone 800m or shorter) and going out harder than I need it to. 48.9's a pretty nice HS time, especially since you were more a middle distance guy right? What kind of 800/1500 times did you run; something low 1:50's or better I'd guess for the 800 and probably anywhere from 4:00 on down for 1500m? That 46.1 your teamate ran, was that a HS time? It's damn good either way but that would be a sick, sick HS time! Yeah, 46.1 also a HS time. Really fast guy. I ran 1:54 sophomore year, 1:53 junior year, did not compete senior year. Also ran 14:59 3 mile (not 5k) junior year cross country. i ran a 9:43 3200m on the track sophomore year, but just sat behind the leader the whole race and sprinted at the end to win it. was just scoring points for team. didn't do 1500m/1600m much.. usually just for scoring points. I think my PR was something like 4:23 for 1600m You must have had an insane 4x4 team. How did your training change when you went to college? Was it a major change or just building on what you had done in HS?
Yeah we had a pretty good 4x4, but not the best in Texas. Texas is really fast at pretty much every event. I'm not sure what our best time ever was, maybe 3:13 or so.
In college I did a lot more mileage. In HS I was only doing about 30 miles a week. College I bumped up to 60, but coach wanted me at around 70 eventually. I had some pretty good practices the fall of my freshman year, like a 13 mile run in 1:13 and a track workout of 3200m in 9:30, 10 min rest, 12x400 starting a 400 every 2 minutes I was doing 62-63, then at the end I still had so much left that I did 59 58 53 for the last three. But got depressed that December and had a pretty terrible first half of the track season in spring and then quit =[
|
If you can do 17 5k you can do sub 5 mile no problem.
Either way it's pretty obvious why your injured: your training WAY to hard and extremely inefficiently. There are 13-14 minute guys who don't run most of their mileage at 6:20 pace. If your say a 17:00-17:30 guy you should be running the majority of your mileage at around 7:15 pace give or take 15-20 seconds depending on how your feeling.
There should be faster stuff in there once or twice a week (say a tempo run of 3-4 miles @ around 5:45-6 flat pace) and some sort of longer interval workout (something like 5-8x1K in 3:20-3:30/K w 3:00 jog recovery).
The rest of your running should be easy mileage around something like 7:15 pace, where running slower is always fine even if you feel beat-up from a previous days workout.
but i havent tried a 17 min 5k, thats the thing, im just guessing its what i can do. i run a flat pace all the time and im not training for speed. Im not training to hard of inefficiently and im not injured because of that, i got put into the wrong shoes and thats why im injured i havent had any injuries because of my training. 5k is 3 miles, i run a 6:20 pace thats 19 minutes total and maybe a 17:30 if i go full board but i havent tried that. i know what i can and cant run.
|
On February 21 2012 02:30 Nazeron wrote:Show nested quote +
If you can do 17 5k you can do sub 5 mile no problem.
Either way it's pretty obvious why your injured: your training WAY to hard and extremely inefficiently. There are 13-14 minute guys who don't run most of their mileage at 6:20 pace. If your say a 17:00-17:30 guy you should be running the majority of your mileage at around 7:15 pace give or take 15-20 seconds depending on how your feeling.
There should be faster stuff in there once or twice a week (say a tempo run of 3-4 miles @ around 5:45-6 flat pace) and some sort of longer interval workout (something like 5-8x1K in 3:20-3:30/K w 3:00 jog recovery).
The rest of your running should be easy mileage around something like 7:15 pace, where running slower is always fine even if you feel beat-up from a previous days workout.
but i havent tried a 17 min 5k, thats the thing, im just guessing its what i can do. i run a flat pace all the time and im not training for speed. Im not training to hard of inefficiently and im not injured because of that, i got put into the wrong shoes and thats why im injured i havent had any injuries because of my training. 5k is 3 miles, i run a 6:20 pace thats 19 minutes total and maybe a 17:30 if i go full board but i havent tried that. i know what i can and cant run.
If you were really in the wrong type of shoes that could very well be the problem, though it's certainly possible it was exacerbated by running too hard all the time (unless your like a sub 15:30 5k guy). Running at marathon pace or faster all the time is just flat out tough on the body, and it's very common to break down from this sort of training.
I guess it all depends on you goals. If your not training for speed, I'm not sure what you are training for...unless your just running for health/because you enjoy it. If so that's awesome and if your enjoying your current running routine then by all means continue doing whatever you enjoy the most.
Im not training to hard of inefficiently
Yes, you are.
Just running at a steady pace is great for a beginner and they will improve significantly, but for someone of your caliber it's at best very inefficient and possibly even ineffective.
There are many demands running puts on your body, and just going out for a bunch of moderate effort runs is ignoring many components of what is required to run good times. Not to mention when you do the exact same thing over and over your body adapts to it and the improvement from it becomes slower and slower until it's next to nothing.
|
On February 20 2012 23:12 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 14:22 Runnin wrote:On February 20 2012 12:14 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 19 2012 12:57 L_Master wrote:On February 18 2012 16:28 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you are coming down from longer distances to run the 400m, then I suggest you start out running pretty close to full speed during the first curve. As you're coming out of the curve, find a very strong but comfortable pace, get a good rhythm. Then the rest of it is just trying to hold on to that pace. It's pretty rare for someone to have their last 100m faster than their 2nd or 3rd. In other words, 400m runners don't save energy for a kick at the end (unless they're running a strategical race for place, not time). You shouldn't feel any extreme fatigue through the first 300m. If you are, then you could probably get a faster time by slowing down the first 300m.
If you're coming up from 100m 200m, then you generally don't want to do close to full speed during the first 100m because your full speed is too fast and too taxing. You want to get a good start and then immediately find that comfortable pace.
source: I ran a 48.9 in high school. Teammate ran 46.1 Yea, I'm definitely no sprinter. I think 13.5 is pretty darn slow for 100m and I'm a distance guy, though it will be interesting to see how much I can improve on that mark. Obviously going to need more speed than that to ever have a legit chance at running under say 2:00/4:30. Might need to tone it down just a little going out as I was definitely feeling the legs start to lock up with about 120m to go, and was really tying up bad with 70m or so left to go. Felt like I went out easy enough, but it could be a combination of not being used to that sorta of race (been years since I last even raced a mile, let alone 800m or shorter) and going out harder than I need it to. 48.9's a pretty nice HS time, especially since you were more a middle distance guy right? What kind of 800/1500 times did you run; something low 1:50's or better I'd guess for the 800 and probably anywhere from 4:00 on down for 1500m? That 46.1 your teamate ran, was that a HS time? It's damn good either way but that would be a sick, sick HS time! Yeah, 46.1 also a HS time. Really fast guy. I ran 1:54 sophomore year, 1:53 junior year, did not compete senior year. Also ran 14:59 3 mile (not 5k) junior year cross country. i ran a 9:43 3200m on the track sophomore year, but just sat behind the leader the whole race and sprinted at the end to win it. was just scoring points for team. didn't do 1500m/1600m much.. usually just for scoring points. I think my PR was something like 4:23 for 1600m You must have had an insane 4x4 team. How did your training change when you went to college? Was it a major change or just building on what you had done in HS? Yeah we had a pretty good 4x4, but not the best in Texas. Texas is really fast at pretty much every event. I'm not sure what our best time ever was, maybe 3:13 or so. In college I did a lot more mileage. In HS I was only doing about 30 miles a week. College I bumped up to 60, but coach wanted me at around 70 eventually. I had some pretty good practices the fall of my freshman year, like a 13 mile run in 1:13 and a track workout of 3200m in 9:30, 10 min rest, 12x400 starting a 400 every 2 minutes I was doing 62-63, then at the end I still had so much left that I did 59 58 53 for the last three. But got depressed that December and had a pretty terrible first half of the track season in spring and then quit =[
Dang, those are some legit workouts! Sounds like you were definitely heading for a good season, especially with all that extra strength from more mileage. Do you run much at all nowadays?
Oh, you totally should've had the MLG relays be 400m legs...that woulda been sweet!
|
On February 21 2012 03:01 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 23:12 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 20 2012 14:22 Runnin wrote:On February 20 2012 12:14 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 19 2012 12:57 L_Master wrote:On February 18 2012 16:28 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you are coming down from longer distances to run the 400m, then I suggest you start out running pretty close to full speed during the first curve. As you're coming out of the curve, find a very strong but comfortable pace, get a good rhythm. Then the rest of it is just trying to hold on to that pace. It's pretty rare for someone to have their last 100m faster than their 2nd or 3rd. In other words, 400m runners don't save energy for a kick at the end (unless they're running a strategical race for place, not time). You shouldn't feel any extreme fatigue through the first 300m. If you are, then you could probably get a faster time by slowing down the first 300m.
If you're coming up from 100m 200m, then you generally don't want to do close to full speed during the first 100m because your full speed is too fast and too taxing. You want to get a good start and then immediately find that comfortable pace.
source: I ran a 48.9 in high school. Teammate ran 46.1 Yea, I'm definitely no sprinter. I think 13.5 is pretty darn slow for 100m and I'm a distance guy, though it will be interesting to see how much I can improve on that mark. Obviously going to need more speed than that to ever have a legit chance at running under say 2:00/4:30. Might need to tone it down just a little going out as I was definitely feeling the legs start to lock up with about 120m to go, and was really tying up bad with 70m or so left to go. Felt like I went out easy enough, but it could be a combination of not being used to that sorta of race (been years since I last even raced a mile, let alone 800m or shorter) and going out harder than I need it to. 48.9's a pretty nice HS time, especially since you were more a middle distance guy right? What kind of 800/1500 times did you run; something low 1:50's or better I'd guess for the 800 and probably anywhere from 4:00 on down for 1500m? That 46.1 your teamate ran, was that a HS time? It's damn good either way but that would be a sick, sick HS time! Yeah, 46.1 also a HS time. Really fast guy. I ran 1:54 sophomore year, 1:53 junior year, did not compete senior year. Also ran 14:59 3 mile (not 5k) junior year cross country. i ran a 9:43 3200m on the track sophomore year, but just sat behind the leader the whole race and sprinted at the end to win it. was just scoring points for team. didn't do 1500m/1600m much.. usually just for scoring points. I think my PR was something like 4:23 for 1600m You must have had an insane 4x4 team. How did your training change when you went to college? Was it a major change or just building on what you had done in HS? Yeah we had a pretty good 4x4, but not the best in Texas. Texas is really fast at pretty much every event. I'm not sure what our best time ever was, maybe 3:13 or so. In college I did a lot more mileage. In HS I was only doing about 30 miles a week. College I bumped up to 60, but coach wanted me at around 70 eventually. I had some pretty good practices the fall of my freshman year, like a 13 mile run in 1:13 and a track workout of 3200m in 9:30, 10 min rest, 12x400 starting a 400 every 2 minutes I was doing 62-63, then at the end I still had so much left that I did 59 58 53 for the last three. But got depressed that December and had a pretty terrible first half of the track season in spring and then quit =[ Dang, those are some legit workouts! Sounds like you were definitely heading for a good season, especially with all that extra strength from more mileage. Do you run much at all nowadays? Oh, you totally should've had the MLG relays be 400m legs...that woulda been sweet!
The first thing I thought about before I watched that relay video was what the distance was going to be. Maybe at the next event you can go find a track and have all teams 4x400 against Tyler's mile. Make it real legit.
|
On February 20 2012 23:12 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 14:22 Runnin wrote:On February 20 2012 12:14 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 19 2012 12:57 L_Master wrote:On February 18 2012 16:28 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you are coming down from longer distances to run the 400m, then I suggest you start out running pretty close to full speed during the first curve. As you're coming out of the curve, find a very strong but comfortable pace, get a good rhythm. Then the rest of it is just trying to hold on to that pace. It's pretty rare for someone to have their last 100m faster than their 2nd or 3rd. In other words, 400m runners don't save energy for a kick at the end (unless they're running a strategical race for place, not time). You shouldn't feel any extreme fatigue through the first 300m. If you are, then you could probably get a faster time by slowing down the first 300m.
If you're coming up from 100m 200m, then you generally don't want to do close to full speed during the first 100m because your full speed is too fast and too taxing. You want to get a good start and then immediately find that comfortable pace.
source: I ran a 48.9 in high school. Teammate ran 46.1 Yea, I'm definitely no sprinter. I think 13.5 is pretty darn slow for 100m and I'm a distance guy, though it will be interesting to see how much I can improve on that mark. Obviously going to need more speed than that to ever have a legit chance at running under say 2:00/4:30. Might need to tone it down just a little going out as I was definitely feeling the legs start to lock up with about 120m to go, and was really tying up bad with 70m or so left to go. Felt like I went out easy enough, but it could be a combination of not being used to that sorta of race (been years since I last even raced a mile, let alone 800m or shorter) and going out harder than I need it to. 48.9's a pretty nice HS time, especially since you were more a middle distance guy right? What kind of 800/1500 times did you run; something low 1:50's or better I'd guess for the 800 and probably anywhere from 4:00 on down for 1500m? That 46.1 your teamate ran, was that a HS time? It's damn good either way but that would be a sick, sick HS time! Yeah, 46.1 also a HS time. Really fast guy. I ran 1:54 sophomore year, 1:53 junior year, did not compete senior year. Also ran 14:59 3 mile (not 5k) junior year cross country. i ran a 9:43 3200m on the track sophomore year, but just sat behind the leader the whole race and sprinted at the end to win it. was just scoring points for team. didn't do 1500m/1600m much.. usually just for scoring points. I think my PR was something like 4:23 for 1600m You must have had an insane 4x4 team. How did your training change when you went to college? Was it a major change or just building on what you had done in HS? Yeah we had a pretty good 4x4, but not the best in Texas. Texas is really fast at pretty much every event. I'm not sure what our best time ever was, maybe 3:13 or so. In college I did a lot more mileage. In HS I was only doing about 30 miles a week. College I bumped up to 60, but coach wanted me at around 70 eventually. I had some pretty good practices the fall of my freshman year, like a 13 mile run in 1:13 and a track workout of 3200m in 9:30, 10 min rest, 12x400 starting a 400 every 2 minutes I was doing 62-63, then at the end I still had so much left that I did 59 58 53 for the last three. But got depressed that December and had a pretty terrible first half of the track season in spring and then quit =[
Omg that's amazing. You ran 13 miles at a pace faster than my best mile time.  I need to motivate myself so much harder, I'm such a lazy runner.
|
8748 Posts
On February 22 2012 20:09 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 23:12 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 20 2012 14:22 Runnin wrote:On February 20 2012 12:14 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 19 2012 12:57 L_Master wrote:On February 18 2012 16:28 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you are coming down from longer distances to run the 400m, then I suggest you start out running pretty close to full speed during the first curve. As you're coming out of the curve, find a very strong but comfortable pace, get a good rhythm. Then the rest of it is just trying to hold on to that pace. It's pretty rare for someone to have their last 100m faster than their 2nd or 3rd. In other words, 400m runners don't save energy for a kick at the end (unless they're running a strategical race for place, not time). You shouldn't feel any extreme fatigue through the first 300m. If you are, then you could probably get a faster time by slowing down the first 300m.
If you're coming up from 100m 200m, then you generally don't want to do close to full speed during the first 100m because your full speed is too fast and too taxing. You want to get a good start and then immediately find that comfortable pace.
source: I ran a 48.9 in high school. Teammate ran 46.1 Yea, I'm definitely no sprinter. I think 13.5 is pretty darn slow for 100m and I'm a distance guy, though it will be interesting to see how much I can improve on that mark. Obviously going to need more speed than that to ever have a legit chance at running under say 2:00/4:30. Might need to tone it down just a little going out as I was definitely feeling the legs start to lock up with about 120m to go, and was really tying up bad with 70m or so left to go. Felt like I went out easy enough, but it could be a combination of not being used to that sorta of race (been years since I last even raced a mile, let alone 800m or shorter) and going out harder than I need it to. 48.9's a pretty nice HS time, especially since you were more a middle distance guy right? What kind of 800/1500 times did you run; something low 1:50's or better I'd guess for the 800 and probably anywhere from 4:00 on down for 1500m? That 46.1 your teamate ran, was that a HS time? It's damn good either way but that would be a sick, sick HS time! Yeah, 46.1 also a HS time. Really fast guy. I ran 1:54 sophomore year, 1:53 junior year, did not compete senior year. Also ran 14:59 3 mile (not 5k) junior year cross country. i ran a 9:43 3200m on the track sophomore year, but just sat behind the leader the whole race and sprinted at the end to win it. was just scoring points for team. didn't do 1500m/1600m much.. usually just for scoring points. I think my PR was something like 4:23 for 1600m You must have had an insane 4x4 team. How did your training change when you went to college? Was it a major change or just building on what you had done in HS? Yeah we had a pretty good 4x4, but not the best in Texas. Texas is really fast at pretty much every event. I'm not sure what our best time ever was, maybe 3:13 or so. In college I did a lot more mileage. In HS I was only doing about 30 miles a week. College I bumped up to 60, but coach wanted me at around 70 eventually. I had some pretty good practices the fall of my freshman year, like a 13 mile run in 1:13 and a track workout of 3200m in 9:30, 10 min rest, 12x400 starting a 400 every 2 minutes I was doing 62-63, then at the end I still had so much left that I did 59 58 53 for the last three. But got depressed that December and had a pretty terrible first half of the track season in spring and then quit =[ Omg that's amazing. You ran 13 miles at a pace faster than my best mile time. I need to motivate myself so much harder, I'm such a lazy runner.
oh oops it was actually 1:18. i was right at 6:00min/mile pace. dunno how i wrote 1:13. that's pretty fast. im sorry if this is still faster than your mile PR
|
I think I would die happy if I ever ran 13 miles in 1:18. I'm currently training up for a local half marathon (any of you running in the Air Force half marathon coming up this September? YOU SHOULD.), and I have no idea what kind of time I should be aiming for. Right now, on the weekends, I run for about an hour on a threadmill, doing an 8 minute mile for most of that time. For half marathon training, should I focus on getting faster or just going longer? I definitely feel like I could do either, just not sure where it's better to spend my time.
|
On February 23 2012 03:39 ghost_403 wrote:
I think I would die happy if I ever ran 13 miles in 1:18. I'm currently training up for a local half marathon (any of you running in the Air Force half marathon coming up this September? YOU SHOULD.), and I have no idea what kind of time I should be aiming for. Right now, on the weekends, I run for about an hour on a threadmill, doing an 8 minute mile for most of that time. For half marathon training, should I focus on getting faster or just going longer? I definitely feel like I could do either, just not sure where it's better to spend my time.
How long have you been training? Are you only running on the weekends? If so, just get out there and run more often. Very gradually build up the amount you are running and don't worry about training faster until you are training more.
|
On February 23 2012 03:55 AirbladeOrange wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 03:39 ghost_403 wrote:
I think I would die happy if I ever ran 13 miles in 1:18. I'm currently training up for a local half marathon (any of you running in the Air Force half marathon coming up this September? YOU SHOULD.), and I have no idea what kind of time I should be aiming for. Right now, on the weekends, I run for about an hour on a threadmill, doing an 8 minute mile for most of that time. For half marathon training, should I focus on getting faster or just going longer? I definitely feel like I could do either, just not sure where it's better to spend my time. How long have you been training? Are you only running on the weekends? If so, just get out there and run more often. Very gradually build up the amount you are running and don't worry about training faster until you are training more.
This man speaks truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
