400s

[Buk]

Does anybody run them? What times do you get compared to your 5k, 10k, half, and marathon times?

I went to the track the other day, but gave up after 2(using full recovery rest breaks). There was something either wrong with my shoes or my form, because the outside of my left(inside) foot was really getting torn up. I think it might have been more form than shoe because the second turn(more tired) seemed worse, but it could have also just been a compounding effect.

My times for the 400s were:
1:07, 1:06
Then I ran two, 200s
0:36, 0:29

You can see that I was really struggling on the first 200, it was planned as a 400(I was fading very quickly), but I knew best to cut it short. These were my first sprints in a long time, I would expect sustainability to improve after a few sessions.

The last time I ran a 5k distance(not race), I finished around 24:something. I did a half in February in 2:06:15, a pace of 9:38.

[BamaDave]

The McMillan calculator says that a 1:06 400 meters predicts a 5:21 mile, an 18:33 5K, and a 38:33 10K. I would say those are really good 400 meter sprints! Factor in that you don't really run that often, and I would say they are stellar.

I haven't done 400 meter sprints except after a series of 800's. Most of mine after several 800's were 1:14 to 1:20 as I recall. My current PRs on distance races are 19:04 for 5K, 39:04 for 10K, 1:24:53 for 1/2-M, 3:04:21 for Marathon. I suspect I could shave a little time off my 5K, 10K, and possibly even 1/2-M if I entered one right now, though not a tremendous amount since I have been training for marathon distance.

[kmwest]

From my log, here was the last time I did 400s. Actually, they were quarter-miles so maybe subtract a second off of the times:
-------
17 Jan 06

Intervals


1:1 work:rest for all

1 mile warmup - 8:00 on treadmill

1/2 Miles:
1) 3:00 still warming up during this one
2) 2:45 hard effort
3) 2:51 moderate intensity
4) 2:48
5) 2:50

1/4 Miles:
1) 1:15
2) 1:19
3) 1:16
4) 1:20 yeah, it's time to quit.
-------
I agree with Dave, those are great 400 times you posted, although I dispute the accuracy of the McMillan calculator past maybe the mile.
My PRs:
5k: 18:19
1/2-M: 1:25:32
Marathon: 3:34

[BamaDave]

Technically the McMillan Calculator is supposed to compare best times, which are presumably during a race. So you can't really go by your 1/4 mile times that follow a series of 1/2-mile times. And, yeah, it assumes that you have trained to run the distances spit out by the calculator. Plus it can't account for individual variation - fast sprinters vs. endurance types. I actually find it to be accurate for my racing distances -- almost spooky!!

[Buk]

I laugh at being able to do a 5k or 10k as fast as the McMillan Calculator suggest! But I do wonder how much specific training it would take to reach those times. In high school I ran a 5k sub 18, and only ever ran one 10k, but was sub 40 with plenty to spare - I expected it to be longer, sprinted the last 1/2 mile when I realized the end was in sight. The 400s I did with no specific training. I think when I was running fast 5ks I would have destroyed 400s though.

I think any running I do for a while will be short distance. Long duration efforts are going to come on my new bike, but I plan to keep the 400s up and eventually work up from there to longer sprints and shorter rests, but not endurance runs for a while.

[BamaDave]

Craig, you're not human. Who jerks 1.5x their bodyweight, Overhead squats ATG well over 200, and waltzes out onto a track with barely any training and busts out a 1:06 400 meters?? Oh yeah, and turns his diet around on a whim and drops to 9% bodyfat in a manner of weeks. LOL!!

[kmwest]

Originally Posted by Buk

In high school I ran a 5k sub 18, and only ever ran one 10k, but was sub 40 with plenty to spare - I expected it to be longer, sprinted the last 1/2 mile when I realized the end was in sight.

That's an ego killer... In high school, I was mainly trying to limit the development of my man-boobs...