Becoming a Real Runner

menoscemo · 25-04-2012 11:41pm

04072511 wrote: »

What sort of footwear were you wearing? Spikes I assume?

How is your running technique. Are you getting up onto your toes or are you heel striking.

Get a bit of sprint coaching and you'll improve.

Yeah I was wearing xc spikes with 5mm track spikes

I deffo don't heel strike, not even in ultras.:D

I would love to but this stuff is just a sideshow. My goal is sub 3 in Berlin and I am following my coaches programme

If this involves lots of sprint training I'll follow that but somehow I doubt it.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 12:02am

menoscemo wrote: »

Yeah I was wearing xc spikes with 5mm track spikes

I deffo don't heel strike, not even in ultras.:D

I would love to but this stuff is just a sideshow. My goal is sub 3 in Berlin and I am following my coaches programme If this involves lots of sprint training I'll follow that but somehow I doubt it.

Yeh of course. Don't lose sight of the main goal. But the track is a nice distraction. Also it's good to take part in a high quality meet like that. I feel more is learnt in competitions like that, where you are exposed on the track, out of your comfort zone, than in the middle of a mass participation race where you are amongst people running the same times as you.

Larry Brent · 26-04-2012 12:15am

04072511 wrote: »

Bit of an eye opener with regards the the sub 60 400m though eh? Bit of work to be done.

I think he'll be very close to the 60.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 12:21am

Larry Brent wrote: »

I think he'll be very close to the 60.

Around 63 I would predict, which isn't close to 60 at all really. With specific training he could go under 60, but he wont do it just rocking up to track off marathon training, and he knows this himself.

menoscemo wrote: »

Deffo, Based on my 71 second first lap in the 800m, I'd say I could squeeze out a 65 second one lapper at best.

Larry Brent · 26-04-2012 12:50am

04072511 wrote: »

Larry Brent wrote: »

I think he'll be very close to the 60.

Around 63 I would predict, which isn't close to 60 at all really. With specific training he could go under 60, but he wont do it just rocking up to track off marathon training, and he knows this himself.

menoscemo wrote: »

Deffo, Based on my 71 second first lap in the 800m, I'd say I could squeeze out a 65 second one lapper at best.

61/62 with no training I'd say. 57/58 with a bit of training.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 1:00am

Larry Brent wrote: »

61/62 with no training I'd say. 57/58 with a bit of training.

What on earth are you basing this on?

You need at least one of 2 things to run under 60: A lot of natural speed, or lots of speed endurance. He has neither at this moment in time. With a lot of speed endurance work you could get under 60 with a 100m time of 13.4-13.5. But without any 400m speed endurance work, you'd want to have a hell of a lot more speed over 100m than a high 13 (assuming he'd run that with better conditions).

Look at RandyMan's log. He's 12.2 for 100m, and high 24 for 200m, but has done no speed endurance work for 400m, and would be just about go under 60. Maybe low 59 based on his recent 61 4x400 relay split on a grass track.

Earlier this year when I ran sub 60 for the first time, I beat a lad by almost a second. This guy was a low 12 and low 24 runner. Told me he has never worked on his 400m. Enough said.

You're completely underestimating how fast some of the targets over shorter distances can be.

Larry Brent · 26-04-2012 1:03am

04072511 wrote: »

You're completely underestimating how fast some of the targets over shorter distances can be.

Maybe you're right. I'm just going from knowing a bit about meno and my own experience of being maybe a 14-15s 100m runner on a good day but doing just under 61s for 400m in the first half of a 2:07 800m.

I also recall training with a group of around 12 people for a while. 10k times ranging from 35-45mins. At the end of a track session, the likes of 12 400s or 400s 800s and 1600s the last rep (unwisely) often turned into a bit of a burn up. Off a slower first 200 it would often finish in 65/66. Half the group could get close to that time, the other half couldn't break 73/74 no matter what. This was totally regardless of 10k time. So I think lots of people will find it very easy to get close to 60, some will find it very hard, or impossible. The only 2 people in that group who ever raced a 400 that I am aware of both ran 56. I can't see the rest of the lads who could close a hard session in 65/66 being far behind those two in a race knowing them all.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 1:11am

Larry Brent wrote: »

Maybe you're right. I'm just going from knowing a bit about meno and my own experience of being maybe a 14-15s 100m runner on a good day but doing just under 61s for 400m in the first half of a 2:07 800m.

Yes but is meno a 2:07 800m runner? He went 71 for his first lap and blew up. That doesn't bode well for a sub 60 400m.

As I said, with specific training he could manage it. But we'll never know as he's targetting the sub 3 in Berlin.

You must be an exception by the way. I know not one 14-15 100m runner who could go 61 enroute to a 2:07. Most 14 second runners I know are 63-67 in a one lap race. Anybody in the 15s would be over 70.

Larry Brent · 26-04-2012 1:20am

04072511 wrote: »

You must be an exception by the way. I know not one 14-15 100m runner who could go 61 enroute to a 2:07. Most 14 second runners I know are 63-67 in a one lap race. Anybody in the 15s would be over 70.

Sorry I edited the above post before I saw this.

Certainly my view of the 400 is probably clouded by the fact that I always found 400s easier than other reps, shorter or longer, in training.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 1:27am

Larry Brent wrote: »

Sorry I edited the above post before I saw this.

Certainly my view of the 400 is probably clouded by the fact that I always found 400s easier than other reps, shorter or longer, in training.

400m is one of the most painful distances around if you are running it properly. You are making all these predictions off your knowledge of distance runners. I'm making my predictions off my knowledge of sprinters. Big difference. He needs a lot faster that 14.00 and needs speed endurance work to get under 60. There's no ifs, buts and maybes about it.

Larry Brent · 26-04-2012 1:39am

Sorry for the hijack meno.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 1:40am

Larry Brent wrote: »

Sorry for the hijack meno.

Ah it's all topical.

RayCun · 26-04-2012 9:19am

menoscemo wrote: »

By the way ray, Our guy won the 100m A race. I didn't see any of your boys tonight :rolleyes:

We had runners on Bray head last night, you can be sure they weren't complaining about the weather

(The sprinters in Bros Pearse are either kids or old stagers, who I think compete in the masters competitions. The main adult group don't do any sprint training)

Brianderunner · 26-04-2012 10:40am

Meno, i wouldnt worry about it too much. You cant just jump in to a track race from years of slow mileage. I found out the hard way last summer, running only 2'22 (14 secs slower than my pb). All those miles have stunted your fast twitch fibres. A few strides at the end of your run wouldn't hurt. That said you should be under 2'30 on a better day, a 71 sec first lap was madness in hindsight, i know it meant staying with the field but its a long way home from the bell.

shels4ever · 26-04-2012 10:43am

Brianderunner wrote: »

Meno, i wouldnt worry about it too much. You cant just jump in to a track race from years of slow mileage. I found out the hard way last summer, running only 2'22 (14 secs slower than my pb). All those miles have stunted your fast twitch fibres. A few strides at the end of your run wouldn't hurt. That said you should be under 2'30 on a better day, a 71 sec first lap was madness in hindsight, i know it meant staying with the field but its a long way home from the bell.

Yep i'd agree but i think he did the right thing last night, the only way to learn to run 800's is to run them the hard way first and learn from it. If he did a little more training i'd prob tell him to go out at 69 next time

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 11:37am

Yeh the 800 certainly is a tough one to get right. It's rare you will see even the top guys do even splits though, so the first lap should be a bit quicker. I think Rudisha went 49-52 :eek: when he set his WR (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I wouldn't be the best person to give 800 advice but when I set my PB I went 71-76 I think it was. Your second lap should be a little slower. I guess with more practice you will know how much to give in the first lap, and how much to hold back.

shels4ever · 26-04-2012 11:53am

04072511 wrote: »

400m is one of the most painful distances around if you are running it properly. You are making all these predictions off your knowledge of distance runners. I'm making my predictions off my knowledge of sprinters. Big difference. He needs a lot faster that 14.00 and needs speed endurance work to get under 60. There's no ifs, buts and maybes about it.

I dont think you need to be a lot faster than 14 second to run a sub 60 400m, I know iI was useless over 100m and 200m as a junior but could run a 60's 400m fairly easy. Would have gone out in 800m @ 62/3 usually but my pb was a 59/69 run. Never races a 400m itself so dont know how fast i could have gone but I wouldnt have been fast at all over the distance. Just because one person needs to be quicker over 100/200m doesnt mean the rule applies to everyone the great thing about running is most people are differeent and I think memo would be very close to a 60 second 400m if he did a few week training for it. In regards to the 71 and a blow up on the second lap most of that is down to it been a new event for him and the mental side is huge in this. 2-3 800m races and he'd easly reduce the positive split on that by a large amount.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 12:22pm

shels4ever wrote: »

I dont think you need to be a lot faster than 14 second to run a sub 60 400m, I know iI was useless over 100m and 200m as a junior but could run a 60's 400m fairly easy. Would have gone out in 800m @ 62/3 usually but my pb was a 59/69 run. Never races a 400m itself so dont know how fast i could have gone but I wouldnt have been fast at all over the distance. Just because one person needs to be quicker over 100/200m doesnt mean the rule applies to everyone the great thing about running is most people are differeent and I think memo would be very close to a 60 second 400m if he did a few week training for it. In regards to the 71 and a blow up on the second lap most of that is down to it been a new event for him and the mental side is huge in this. 2-3 800m races and he'd easly reduce the positive split on that by a large amount.

To be honest, I'd be pushing the limits of how slow you can be over 100m and still go sub 60. I have a 12.96 (wind aided) and a 58.68. When I went sub 60 for the first time I was around 13.4 for 100m. Most people who run my sort of times over 400m are a good deal quicker than me over 100 and 200. Speed endurance was my strong point last season, rather than my top speed. I don't believe 14.00 is quick enough speed to go sub 60, so he'd need to have serious speed endurance to make up for that. The slower your 100m speed, the more speed endurance work needed to get under 60. I don't think a few weeks would cut it. It would want to be significantly more than that.

It's also a tough race to run. Like the 800m you can bollox it up very easily.

The anticipation is building now. When are ya running it meno?

RayCun · 26-04-2012 12:38pm

04072511 wrote: »

To be honest, I'd be pushing the limits of how slow you can be over 100m and still go sub 60.

You're coming at it from the perspective of a sprinter, shels and Larry are looking at it as longer distance runners. For you, the limit is endurance, your pace drops off dramatically at distances over 400m. For them the limit is speed, they can maintain something close to that pace but can't go much faster.
Meno is a distance runner, he doesn't do any sprint training, so it's more useful to ask "what kind of mile/5k/10k time do you need to do for a sub 60 400m?" than "what kind of 100m time do you need?"

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 12:48pm

RayCun wrote: »

You're coming at it from the perspective of a sprinter, shels and Larry are looking at it as longer distance runners. For you, the limit is endurance, your pace drops off dramatically at distances over 400m. For them the limit is speed, they can maintain something close to that pace but can't go much faster.
Meno is a distance runner, he doesn't do any sprint training, so it's more useful to ask "what kind of mile/5k/10k time do you need to do for a sub 60 400m?" than "what kind of 100m time do you need?"

Incorrect. An 800m would have some relevance but a mile/5k/10k has zero relevance to what somebody can run over 400m. There's a huge difference between distance endurance and speed endurance. They are 2 very differnt things. Having good endurance over 39-40 minutes of racing does not have any significance with regards to holding 14.9x 100m pace for a full 400m and dealing with the lactic acid build up. The 400m is a sprint. You simply can't look at it through the eyes of a distance runner no matter how much you want to. It is the wrong approach.

menoscemo · 26-04-2012 12:55pm

Hey lads, Interesting debate!!

Disappointed with the 100m time alright I should have been in the 13's if I had any clue about how to come out of the blocks etc. I felt like I could have kept going at the end of the 100 at the same speed, so it will be interesting to see how I go in the 200. I guess that will give more indication of a 400 time? I really don't think I will go sub 60 for 400 tbh or even close but I'll give it a bash.

The 800m was a real eye opener alright I had no clue how to run it and paid the price. I also definitely got demoralised in the 2nd lap as I was able to pick up the pace over the last 150m and was not properly wrecked at the end. It was very simialr to when I did my first mile in tallaght last year. Made a hames of the race but went 15 seconds quicker just a month later due to experience.

The weather took about 6 seconds of most peoples normal 800m times last night according to most of the other lads.

Anyway to answer your question 0407: The next meets are on 16th May (200/1500m) and a week later is the 400m. I have the first one scheduled into my training progarmme already so now I just have to convince LB to let me run the one on the 23rd as well

Thing is everytime I do a race like this I have to cancel a session which would probably be more useful in the long run, so I'll have to see what LB says. If I can't do the graded one, I should be able to do a club TT in the summer.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 12:59pm

menoscemo wrote: »

Anyway to answer your question 0407: The next meets are on 16th May (200/1500m) and a week later is the 400m. I have the first one scheduled into my training progarmme already so now I just have to convince LB to let me run the one on the 23rd as well Thing is everytime I do a race like this I have to cancel a session which would probably be more useful in the long run, so I'll have to see what LB says. If I can't do the graded one, I should be able to do a club TT in the summer.

Well LB can't go making claims like that and then not at least let his runner have the chance to try validate his predictions. The man has to run. Give the fans what they want.

RayCun · 26-04-2012 1:06pm

04072511 wrote: »

Incorrect. An 800m would have some relevance but a mile/5k/10k has zero relevance to what somebody can run over 400m.

A 100m time would be a great predictor if meno was doing sprint intervals every week, weight training, plyometric work... in short, if he was a sprinter. But he isn't. He has raced one 100m in 20 years (?) and didn't even know how to start out of the blocks. And since he isn't going to train for the 100m, using his time in that event to predict anything is pointless.

Meno's longer distance times, and the times he does for shorter intervals in training, are a better predictor in this case. Because those are distances he runs regularly, they are a much better indicator of where he is now. Larry Brent's experience of distance runners, the times they did at longer distances and in training and the times they could do over 400m, is much more relevant here than your experience of 100m sprinters and 400m runners, because meno is a distance runner and not a sprinter.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 1:12pm

RayCun wrote: »

A 100m time would be a great predictor if meno was doing sprint intervals every week, weight training, plyometric work... in short, if he was a sprinter. But he isn't. He has raced one 100m in 20 years (?) and didn't even know how to start out of the blocks. And since he isn't going to train for the 100m, using his time in that event to predict anything is pointless.

Meno's longer distance times, and the times he does for shorter intervals in training, are a better predictor in this case. Because those are distances he runs regularly, they are a much better indicator of where he is now. Larry Brent's experience of distance runners, the times they did at longer distances and in training and the times they could do over 400m, is much more relevant here than your experience of 100m sprinters and 400m runners, because meno is a distance runner and not a sprinter.

I don't mean any offence by this, but you don't have a notion about sprinting. Running 10x400m reps in 80 seconds or whatever has no relevance whatsoever towards what somebody can sprint 400m in. A mile time? 5k? 10k? Really? That's like predicting how fast I could run a 5000m based on how fast my 400m time is.

The only distances that have relevance is the 100, 200 and 800. Both his 100 and 800 times do not indicate anything close to sub 60 currently. A sub 60 equates to a 2:15 800m. It's not slow running.

Woddle · 26-04-2012 1:16pm

menoscemo wrote: »

The weather took about 6 seconds of most peoples normal 800m times last night according to most of the other lads.

You'd want to hope so, otherwise you'll be behind me :P

shels4ever · 26-04-2012 1:22pm

04072511 wrote: »

I don't mean any offence by this, but you don't have a notion about sprinting. Running 10x400m reps in 80 seconds or whatever has no relevance whatsoever towards what somebody can sprint 400m in. A mile time? 5k? 10k? Really? That's like predicting how fast I could run a 5000m based on how fast my 400m time is.

The only distances that have relevance is the 100, 200 and 800. Both his 100 and 800 times do not indicate anything close to sub 60 currently. A sub 60 equates to a 2:15 800m. It's not slow running.

I don't mean any offence either but you have no idea what your talking about either, running a 60 second 400m is not sprinting at all. 10 X400m is a great session and people running this in 80 second prob wont run a 60 second 400m, but people running 75's would have a great chance. The leg turnover required to run a 60's 400m is not out of this world and is possible. Your taking a total balck and white approach to the whole thing and this is simply not the case. If you say 100,200,800 have more relavence I would agree but there is some relevance in other aspects of distance running also.
Where are my bloody spikes....

sorry memo i'll leave yoru log alone now.

RayCun · 26-04-2012 1:22pm

04072511 wrote: »

I don't mean any offence by this, but you don't have a notion about sprinting. Running 10x400m reps in 80 seconds or whatever has no relevance whatsoever towards what somebody can sprint 400m in. A mile time? 5k? 10k? Really? That's like predicting how fast I could run a 5000m based on how fast my 400m time is.

The only distances that have relevance is the 100, 200 and 800. Both his 100 and 800 times do not indicate anything close to sub 60 currently. A sub 60 equates to a 2:15 800m. It's not slow running.

If meno was a runner who trained equally for 100m sprints and 5k races, I would completely agree with you that his 100m time was a better indicator of his 400m potential than his 5k time.
But he isn't.
You think 10 x 800 reps, or a mile time, say nothing about 400m potential, but a completely untrained 100m and a first ever 800m are good indicators?
You think you are better at estimating a distance runner's potential than Larry Brent?

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 1:31pm

shels4ever wrote: »

I don't mean any offence either but you have no idea what your talking about either, running a 60 second 400m is not sprinting at all.

Well it's all relative. There are many people who say that 2:59 marathon is not even running, but do we really need to go down that road? Of course sub 60 is sprinting.

shels4ever wrote: »

10 X400m is a great session and people running this in 80 second prob wont run a 60 second 400m, but people running 75's would have a great chance. The leg turnover required to run a 60's 400m is not out of this world and is possible. Your taking a total balck and white approach to the whole thing and this is simply not the case. If you say 100,200,800 have more relavence I would agree but there is some relevance in other aspects of distance running also.
Where are my bloody spikes....

sorry memo i'll leave yoru log alone now.

I really don't see how running say a sub 40 minute 10k can tell us anything about somebody's potential over 400m. Running a sub 14 second 100m tells us more. It doesn't matter if he is not trained for 100m, it is still a very natural event, and is a good test of what sort of natural speed somebody has. If you don't have some level of natural speed then you are nowhere over 400m.

I actually think he could break 60, but not in his current state. He'd need to do proper specific 400m training.

RayCun · 26-04-2012 1:33pm

04072511 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if he is not trained for 100m, it is still a very natural event

.

04072511 wrote: »

This is very incorrect. The 100m is all about technique.

Pisco Sour · 26-04-2012 1:35pm

RayCun wrote: »

If meno was a runner who trained equally for 100m sprints and 5k races, I would completely agree with you that his 100m time was a better indicator of his 400m potential than his 5k time.
But he isn't.
You think 10 x 800 reps, or a mile time, say nothing about 400m potential, but a completely untrained 100m and a first ever 800m are good indicators?
You think you are better at estimating a distance runner's potential than Larry Brent?

The 100m is a very natural event. Even without any 100m training, it, as I said above, gives an idea of what somebody's natural speed is like, something which is very important towards running a sub 60.

Please enlighten me as to how a 5k time is a good indicator of 400m potential. I'm facinated. Do bear in mind though that sprinting form is completely different to how a 5k athlete would run, but I'm sure you know this.

Becoming a Real Runner

Comments