(Men) 10 Round Numbers- how many of these can you run in 2012?

donothoponpop

I've decided to keep this challenge as simple as possible- these are all "10 Round Numbers" that a common-or-garden club runner should be able to hit at some stage in their career. Rather than go with ranking, or points, or multiple tables, or whatever, this thread is primarily about hitting these targets, and a bit of comment on what it took for you to hit them. We'll try and organize a few mile and 1k races during the year, to help runners get those times.

The idea came from last years "Big 8 Challenge", hopefully we'll get a bit more banter on this thread. Otherwise, it's nice and simple, see if you can run under:

400m - 1 minute
1 kilometer- 3 mins
1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 1 hour
Half Marathon - 90 mins
Marathon - 3 hours.

How many of these 10 Round Numbers can you run in a year? Let us know how you ran, each time you tick one off.:)

Name|400m<60 secs|1 kilometer<3:00|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs

AN Other||||||||||


(edited to add - the "common-or-garden club runner" discussed above is a man, far fewer women would hit most/all of these times. An equivalent thread has been set up for women)

dna_leri

Don't want to reopen the thread about the thread but do training runs count?
Otherwise I can't see most of us getting the 1K target.
Can't we go back to the standard distance of 800m?

donothoponpop

dna_leri wrote: »

Don't want to reopen the thread about the thread but do training runs count?
Otherwise I can't see most of us getting the 1K target.
Can't we go back to the standard distance of 800m?

No problem with time trials. Once its on a track, its easy to measure. Garmin's don't count for any of the distances. We'll organize a few 1k races throughout the year.

This is all about round numbers. So either we use a 2 min 800m (way too fast in comparison), or a 3 min 800m (way too slow in comparison), or use a 3 min 1000m, and that time fits in nicely within the spectrum of the others. Once you start using a 2:20 sort of time, you open up the others to similar breakdown. The 3 min 1k is a perfect fit.

ecoli

Now that the challenge has been set and the year has begun I think its a good idea to start getting discussion regarding how people are going to approach these targets

I did up two 18 week generic plans for the shorter distances just for anyone who may be interested or even to getting people talking about what the feel is wrong with the programs or how they think they should be improved just to generate a bit of discussion

The plans themselves include and aerobic endurance building phase followed by race specific paced work in the later stages

Getonwithit

ecoli wrote: »

Now that the challenge has been set and the year has begun I think its a good idea to start getting discussion regarding how people are going to approach these targets

I did up two 18 week generic plans for the shorter distances just for anyone who may be interested or even to getting people talking about what the feel is wrong with the programs or how they think they should be improved just to generate a bit of discussion

The plans themselves include and aerobic endurance building phase followed by race specific paced work in the later stages

When are you planning on staging the first race and where...???

donothoponpop

Getonwithit wrote: »

When are you planning on staging the first race and where...???

No dates have been organized yet, it will be closer to the start of the track season though. Anyone who fancies organizing any time trials (1000m, mile, 3k, etc), please do so, and post up here.

Timmaay

If you want to do any in the greystones track, let me know, I'll be happy to help organize them.

Pisco Sour

Good work ecoli with that spreadsheet.

The 400m here will probably be a bit like the 1500m in the decathlon, where nobody will want to train specifically for it, as to do so may compromise performances in other events (Daley Thompson never trained for the 1500m as he said it would take away from his other 9 events to do so). In any case I thought I'd throw in a bit on that:

Good info here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056304229

At the moment I'm doing 4 days a week:

1) 5x100m hills, around 90-95%, with 2 minute breaks between each
2) 4x200m flat, around 90-95%, with 3 minute breaks between each
3) 3x300m flat, around 90-95%, with 4 minute breaks between each
4) Flying 30's, around 6 reps, with just over 1 minute break between each (only started doing these and probably not doing them 100% properly)

Effort levels will rise and fall based on many factors: heat, recovery session etc etc

In addition, core strength about 3-4 days a week.

Lots of people can sprint well over 100m, but strength and speed endurance is really important over 400m, and since doing the above my time has gone down from 63.9 hand timed to 60.35 electronic, and expecting to smash 60 next day out (based on relay performance 2 weeks ago).

Hopefully others will have more to add on the 400m, but hope that helps for anybody wishing to come over to the bright side

donothoponpop

04072511 wrote: »

The 400m here will probably be a bit like the 1500m in the decathlon, where nobody will want to train specifically for it, as to do so may compromise performances in other events (Daley Thompson never trained for the 1500m as he said it would take away from his other 9 events to do so).

Good point. Part of the reason for adding a couple of shorter distances was to even things up a bit for the fast and short guys. It will be interesting to see how this plays out- I reckon someone training for the mile/3k could knock out the first five distances over the same training cycle- but would find the last five a lot tougher. The reverse is true too, someone training for the 10 miler could knock out 5 (or 6 or 7) of the longer ones, but will find the 400m hardest.

donothoponpop

ecoli wrote: »

Now that the challenge has been set and the year has begun I think its a good idea to start getting discussion regarding how people are going to approach these targets

I did up two 18 week generic plans for the shorter distances just for anyone who may be interested or even to getting people talking about what the feel is wrong with the programs or how they think they should be improved just to generate a bit of discussion

The plans themselves include and aerobic endurance building phase followed by race specific paced work in the later stages

Silly question maybe, but what sort of pace should these be ran at? For instance, if I was looking to follow the 800m-1500m plan, does "2x (6x200) @ 1500m off 1 min rec, 5 min between sets" in the transition phase mean running at goal 1500m pace, or current 1500m pace? Sorry if thats a dumb question, my only knowledge of pace in training schedules comes from marathon schedules:o

ecoli

donothoponpop wrote: »

Silly question maybe, but what sort of pace should these be ran at? For instance, if I was looking to follow the 800m-1500m plan, does "2x (6x200) @ 1500m off 1 min rec, 5 min between sets" in the transition phase mean running at goal 1500m pace, or current 1500m pace? Sorry if thats a dumb question, my only knowledge of pace in training schedules comes from marathon schedules:o

Current 1500 / mile pace is best used. The idea is to get your body comfortable running at these speeds. There are other sessions to work on form and speed (i.e the 800/400 paced sessions)

Also the wave tempos are also known as alteration meaning rotating pace on ever lap between 5k/10k pace and MP

Pisco Sour

donothoponpop wrote: »

Good point. Part of the reason for adding a couple of shorter distances was to even things up a bit for the fast and short guys. It will be interesting to see how this plays out- I reckon someone training for the mile/3k could knock out the first five distances over the same training cycle- but would find the last five a lot tougher. The reverse is true too, someone training for the 10 miler could knock out 5 (or 6 or 7) of the longer ones, but will find the 400m hardest.

Indeed. I'm actually facinated to see how some people get on over 400m. I doubt many here have tested themselves over the distance. Some people could have a talent for it that they never realised, while others may have no speed and are stamina kings. Trying different events is part of the fun. Hopefully a fair few of our sub 3 marathon guys will give the event a shot

--amadeus--

04072511 wrote: »

Indeed. I'm actually facinated to see how some people get on over 400m. I doubt many here have tested themselves over the distance. Some people could have a talent for it that they never realised, while others may have no speed and are stamina kings. Trying different events is part of the fun. Hopefully a fair few of our sub 3 marathon guys will give the event a shot

I ran 400 and 800m in school. I was utter crap

If this thread pans out as intended with discussion on how goals were reached rather than just pages of tables it could be very good, no reason why people running longer couldn't benefit from some of the training that goes into running short.

Pisco Sour

Name|400m<60 secs|1 kilometer<3:00|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs

04072511|59.44|||||||||


Thought I'd start off this table fest, which will ineviatbly lead to Robinph's insanity

First one to tick off a Big 10 mark in 2012 Cant see me getting any more of them however!

donothoponpop

04072511 wrote: »

Thought I'd start off this table fest, which will ineviatbly lead to Robinph's insanity

First one to tick off a Big 10 mark in 2012 Cant see me getting any more of them however!

Well done on that sub 60, that is some achievement for you! (Now lets see if you're a real runner and can tick that sub 3 marathon box :D)

From your experience of training for the sub 60 400m, what elements in your training were most beneficial?

RayCun

04072511 wrote: »

Thought I'd start off this table fest

but next time, please remove the quote tags

Pisco Sour

donothoponpop wrote: »

Well done on that sub 60, that is some achievement for you! (Now lets see if you're a real runner and can tick that sub 3 marathon box :D)

From your experience of training for the sub 60 400m, what elements in your training were most beneficial?

It's all about speed endurance. The 3x300m sessions I do with 4 minute breaks at around 90-95% effort levels are the key sessions. I have naturally decent speed (off no training I was running in the 13's for 100m last year) so I needed to build endurance. Anybody who can run 13's for 100m is capable of going sub 60 over 400m, but without the speed endurance training you will get nowhere over 400.

The hill sessions are also huge and since I started doing the 5x100 on the hill by the Tan (which is steep) I have felt a lot stronger.

Core is obviously huge aswell. I didnt do it earlier in the year and got injured. I've learned from my mistakes.

My issue now is my speed. While my natural speed is good, I cant seem to get my 100 and 200 times up to the level of my 400 times. Hoping that by doing flying 30s that it will improve my top end speed which is what will be needed if I'm to get down into the 56 range.

BeepBeep67

donothoponpop wrote: »

Well done on that sub 60, that is some achievement for you! (Now lets see if you're a real runner and can tick that sub 3 marathon box :D)

McMillian says your 59 is the equivalent of a 2:41, get out for some long runs and enter an Autumn Marathon - simples

Well done btw

ecoli

04072511 wrote: »

It's all about speed endurance. The 3x300m sessions I do with 4 minute breaks at around 90-95% effort levels are the key sessions. I have naturally decent speed (off no training I was running in the 13's for 100m last year) so I needed to build endurance. Anybody who can run 13's for 100m is capable of going sub 60 over 400m, but without the speed endurance training you will get nowhere over 400.

The hill sessions are also huge and since I started doing the 5x100 on the hill by the Tan (which is steep) I have felt a lot stronger.

Core is obviously huge aswell. I didnt do it earlier in the year and got injured. I've learned from my mistakes.

My issue now is my speed. While my natural speed is good, I cant seem to get my 100 and 200 times up to the level of my 400 times. Hoping that by doing flying 30s that it will improve my top end speed which is what will be needed if I'm to get down into the 56 range.

To me low 13 sec is plenty speed to hit 56. I would be looking more to the drop off in your 800 time and think that is where you will see most improvement by focusing on the endurance more and address training for the next while as a 400/800 runner.

I can see where you are coming from but running 60 and seeing the huge drop off in your 800 time of more than 25 seconds its quite clear that is what you need to address and could yield most benefits

donothoponpop

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

McMillian says your 59 is the equivalent of a 2:41, get out for some long runs and enter an Autumn Marathon - simples

Well done btw

Just to show how hard this will be for any of us oul fella's BB...

59:xx would have got 6th at the National Masters Indoors M35

Would have been good for 3rd in the wrinkly M40's :eek:

BeepBeep67

donothoponpop wrote: »

Just to show how hard this will be for any of us oul fella's BB...

59:xx would have got 6th at the National Masters Indoors M35

Would have been good for 3rd in the wrinkly M40's :eek:

Was checking those times out myself, might have a crack at the M45 3k next year!

Pisco Sour

ecoli wrote: »

To me low 13 sec is plenty speed to hit 56.

You could be right but 56-57 would be right on the very limit for somebody only going low 13s over 100m. My current 400m PB equates to a high 12 for 100m, and if you look at the guys who are going 56 in my races, they are the same guys who are going low to mid 12’s.

ecoli wrote: »

I would be looking more to the drop off in your 800 time and think that is where you will see most improvement by focusing on the endurance more and address training for the next while as a 400/800 runner.

I can see where you are coming from but running 60 and seeing the huge drop off in your 800 time of more than 25 seconds its quite clear that is what you need to address and could yield most benefits

Good point and it’s funny you should mention this as last night one of the coaches suggested I add in some 500m reps into my training to help with endurance, so considering dropping the flying 30s for now and doing 2x500m at 95% pace effort with walk back break (probably 5-6 minutes).

There is a huge drop off in my 800m time but to be fair I don’t train for the event and I’m sure if you took many of our top 400m runners (Gregan, Bergin, Heffernan etc) you would see large drop offs over 800m also. 800m runners require high mileage (70 miles a week) while 400m runners do “long runs” of 5km once, maybe twice at a push, a week during the winter phase of their training. The 2 events couldn’t be more different.

Michael Johnson is an interesting example. 43.18 for 400m, and only just squeezed under 5 minutes for the mile. Dont know what his 800m times were (or whether he did any time trials for it in training) but I’d suspect a huge drop off.

--amadeus--

donothoponpop wrote: »

Just to show how hard this will be for any of us oul fella's BB...

59:xx would have got 6th at the National Masters Indoors M35

Would have been good for 3rd in the wrinkly M40's :eek:

Really?

Very surprised at that, seems quite soft. Don't get me wrong I applaud the effort from anyone who has run it and don't want to re-open the debate on relative difficulty but it doesn't seem *that* hard. For example I have zero natural speed and last week I did 10*400m reps off 45 sec recoveries in ordinary trainers aiming at 10k pace and they were in an average of 90secs each. Now I know that's 50% off a sub 60 so it's a little like saying I ran 60 mins in a 10k training run so I can run 40 mins in a race. And they were from a running rather than standing start but even so; I'm sure in spikes, in a race and rested and prepped I could take a huge chunk out of my rep pace. So if a bog standard punter like me can get into the top 10 or so at the Nationals why is that? Is it that no-one runs those races or am I missing something?

donothoponpop

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Really?

Very surprised at that, seems quite soft. Don't get me wrong I applaud the effort from anyone who has run it and don't want to re-open the debate on relative difficulty but it doesn't seem *that* hard. For example I have zero natural speed and last week I did 10*400m reps off 45 sec recoveries in ordinary trainers aiming at 10k pace and they were in an average of 90secs each. Now I know that's 50% off a sub 60 so it's a little like saying I ran 60 mins in a 10k training run so I can run 40 mins in a race. And they were from a running rather than standing start but even so; I'm sure in spikes, in a race and rested and prepped I could take a huge chunk out of my rep pace. So if a bog standard punter like me can get into the top 10 or so at the Nationals why is that? Is it that no-one runs those races or am I missing something?

10x 90 secs has no bearing on a sub 60 400m race, that's a marathon runners stride reps. If it seems soft, try to break 70 secs, and I daresay you'll reconsider the effort a sub 60 requires. (That's one of the reason's for bringing in the shorter distances to this challenge, to show the plodders just how hard running short and fast can be).

The standard in the Masters is good at the podium end, judging from some of the names there. Bear in mind that this was indoors- tighter bends so slightly slower times. Here's a comparison, the faster Masters outdoor results from last year.

Pisco Sour

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Really?

Very surprised at that, seems quite soft. Don't get me wrong I applaud the effort from anyone who has run it and don't want to re-open the debate on relative difficulty but it doesn't seem *that* hard. For example I have zero natural speed and last week I did 10*400m reps off 45 sec recoveries in ordinary trainers aiming at 10k pace and they were in an average of 90secs each. Now I know that's 50% off a sub 60 so it's a little like saying I ran 60 mins in a 10k training run so I can run 40 mins in a race. And they were from a running rather than standing start but even so; I'm sure in spikes, in a race and rested and prepped I could take a huge chunk out of my rep pace. So if a bog standard punter like me can get into the top 10 or so at the Nationals why is that? Is it that no-one runs those races or am I missing something?

Do you really think that doing 90 second reps means you can run sub 60 in a 400m race? It has zero relevance whatsoever. What is more relevant is how fast you can sprint 100m full speed? If you are running 13s then you have it in you. If you are limping to mid to high 14s then you could struggle.

There’s a lad in my club (over 40) who is a sub 3 marathonner and sub 5 miler, but cant go faster than 62 over 400m.

Have a read of this thread:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4097790

Fascinating stuff and really shows how some people struggle at getting their speed up, particularly older guys, in their 40s.

robinph

If you have a chance to enter a masters M35 category then do it. Gets a whole lot more competitive once you reach the M40 and M45 categories from looking at results of a UK event I did. People who still consider themselves halfway decent before age 40 wouldn't contemplate entering a masters event so you get a slightly weaker field. Chance to win prizes.

robinph - UK M35 10km team silver medalist

Pisco Sour

donothoponpop wrote: »

10x 90 secs has no bearing on a sub 60 400m race, that's a marathon runners stride reps. If it seems soft, try to break 70 secs, and I daresay you'll reconsider the effort a sub 60 requires. (That's one of the reason's for bringing in the shorter distances to this challenge, to show the plodders just how hard running short and fast can be).

The standard in the Masters is good at the podium end, judging from some of the names there. Bear in mind that this was indoors- tighter bends so slightly slower times. Here's a comparison, the faster Masters outdoor results from last year.

+1

You say yourself that you have zero leg speed so I find it baffling that you think a 10x90 second 400m reps are an indicator of your ability to run sub 60.

The next day you are at a track, put on a pair of spikes and get somebody to time you doing a 400m, flat out, and then report back. I'd be very surprised if you broke 70.

You need to actually attempt the distance properly first before we contemplate your potential greatness :)

dna_leri

donothoponpop wrote: »

The standard in the Masters is good at the podium end, judging from some of the names there. Bear in mind that this was indoors- tighter bends so slightly slower times. Here's a comparison, the faster Masters outdoor results from last year.

The times in the 400m were on the slow side this year. Two years ago the winner in M40 was 55.7s and I was lucky to get third with 57.1s (this year's winner was 5th). The standard does vary from year to year and event to event depending on who turns up on the day. Once you hit 40, being fit enough to toe the line is often the achievement, especially in events like the 400m.

On the subject of correlation between 100m & 400m times, I would say the ratio is about 4.5. So a 12.0 100m will give a 54.0s 400; 13s -> 58.5, etc. So to get your 400 under 57s, you want to be running a 12.7s for 100m.

--amadeus--

04072511 wrote: »

You need to actually attempt the distance properly first before we contemplate your potential greatness :)

Nonsense, my superiority at all distances and events is always assumed. That - along with my modesty - is what makes me so damn wonderful

I think my point has been lost in translation. These are supposed to be average times for a good standard runner not someone placing top 6 or whatever in teh Nationals. Having hit the targets on the list that I have raced against (with the exception of a hung over 10 mile, my only crack at that distance) I would consider myself to be more or less the demographic these standards are pointed at. And 60 secs is a good time, no one denies that.

But runners in the 36 min 10k range are ten a penny. And at that pace they would be lapping a standard track in 90secs for 24+ consecutive laps. In that context for a runner of that standard getting down to say 55 - 65 for a single lap shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as impossible.

And yet that sort of time could put you in the top 10 of the National Masters? That seemed out of whack - either the 60sec 400m is a whole lot harder than I thought (in which case the target is too hard for this challenge) or the Nationals times were unusually slow. That's what I queried - and it turns out that they were slow, both because of an unusually slow field and because they were run indoors. Which answered my question!

(Besides which we all know 400m is a girly distance for people who can't run proper races )

ecoli

One point which people seem to have ignored when comparing with National masters is that its very different running 60 on an outdoor track in the middle of the summer season and 60 at the start of indoor season coming off winter training on a banked 200m track

ecoli

04072511 wrote: »

Good point and it’s funny you should mention this as last night one of the coaches suggested I add in some 500m reps into my training to help with endurance, so considering dropping the flying 30s for now and doing 2x500m at 95% pace effort with walk back break (probably 5-6 minutes).

There is a huge drop off in my 800m time but to be fair I don’t train for the event and I’m sure if you took many of our top 400m runners (Gregan, Bergin, Heffernan etc) you would see large drop offs over 800m also. 800m runners require high mileage (70 miles a week) while 400m runners do “long runs” of 5km once, maybe twice at a push, a week during the winter phase of their training. The 2 events couldn’t be more different.

Michael Johnson is an interesting example. 43.18 for 400m, and only just squeezed under 5 minutes for the mile. Dont know what his 800m times were (or whether he did any time trials for it in training) but I’d suspect a huge drop off.

I think the Micheal Johnson point is irrelevant simply because the mile is predominantly aerobic (roughly 95%). Looking at others yes there will be a drop off but nearly 15 seconds a lap sets off alarm bells.

Regarding The likes of Gregan and them and the training often you will see many of them doing the likes of 600m TT and reps of 400 and 500m on top of the kinda sessions you have been doing

My point was that if there is such a drop off in your 800 time my guess is you may be losing alot more time in the second half of you 400m than you should be as a result of the lack of strength and it can be easier to train the body to maintain the pace compared to trying to shave 10ths of seconds off you hundred time not saying this should be ignored but simply you may get better bang for your buck in training to maintain.

Admittedly you are in the middle of your summer season so not always ideal at the moment but a point to look into for next season

(Just to clarify not having a pop at you but simply think you have the potential to drop your time by even more)

donothoponpop

ecoli wrote: »

One point which people seem to have ignored when comparing with National masters is that its very different running 60 on an outdoor track in the middle of the summer season and 60 at the start of indoor season coming off winter training on a banked 200m track

There's also the factor in loss in leg speed with age, and the disproportionate numbers of sprinters who retire from athletics from mid 30's. I know some old Irish Record holders for sprints from the 80's- they'd look at you with two heads if you suggest they should continue competing in the Masters.

But even then the winning times weren't especially slow- you're talking in the range of a second slower than what dnaleri mentioned, nothing in comparison to your equating going from 10x90 secs reps to Masters 400m glory. Amadeus you will change your mind once you try to run a 70 sec lap.

ecoli

donothoponpop wrote: »

But even then the winning times weren't especially slow- you're talking in the range of a second slower than what dnaleri mentioned, nothing in comparison to your equating going from 10x90 secs reps to Masters 400m glory. Amadeus you will change your mind once you try to run a 70 sec lap.

Agreed I would do same session in sub 80s yet I am about 57ish at fastest (though hopefully quicker this year;) )

oldrunner

Probably worth pointing out that the o55 400 was won in 60.59 and the o50 in 62.31 (by me - in the spirit of full disclosure). Of course, I had run an easy 2:16.6 800m 75 minutes before.

Times in all distances improve on a steep curve. The closer you get to a faster time the harder the relative improvement. Going from 90 to 70 should be easy - going from 70 to 60 a lot harder.

Edit: my point is that breaking 60 for the 400 for a young runner should be an easy enough target.

robinph

?!"$W"£%$

Was expecting to be able to knock off the first of these times tonight but stupid race along a seafront with effectively constant head wind meant I missed out by 30'odd seconds on the five mile one. Everyone was well over a minute off their usual times on the course. :mad:

RandyMann

Great thread idea and will watch with interest. I was wondering would any of you guys be willing to attempt the shorter sprints too like 100m and 200m to see how they compare to the longer distances.
My pb's to date for 100m are 12.48 and 25.35 for 200m yet I really struggled in a 3k in the same year to get a time of 12:09
I plan to try a 400m soon to see what I can do for curiousity.

P.S it would also be nice to see some more interest in sprint distances or maybe just to see more people giving it a go for the fun of it.

Pisco Sour

RandyMann wrote: »

Great thread idea and will watch with interest. I was wondering would any of you guys be willing to attempt the shorter sprints too like 100m and 200m to see how they compare to the longer distances.
My pb's to date for 100m are 12.48 and 25.35 for 200m yet I really struggled in a 3k in the same year to get a time of 12:09
I plan to try a 400m soon to see what I can do for curiousity.

P.S it would also be nice to see some more interest in sprint distances or maybe just to see more people giving it a go for the fun of it.

With those PB's over 100 and 200 you have the potential to be hitting 56 I'd say. Just need to do a lot of speed endurance work. A guy at my club has runs high 25/ low 26's for 200m and cant run faster than 65 for 400m. He doesnt do the work for the event and gets punished as a result.

RandyMann

04072511 wrote: »

With those PB's over 100 and 200 you have the potential to be hitting 56 I'd say. Just need to do a lot of speed endurance work. A guy at my club has runs high 25/ low 26's for 200m and cant run faster than 65 for 400m. He doesnt do the work for the event and gets punished as a result.

I am guessing that too, around 65 with with my current lack of speed endurance.
As you know yourself its hard to fit in many speed endurance sessions in a week(to factor in recovery days) so my attempt will be just for to see how I do without actually training for it this year.
Maybe next year, I might train for it depending if I plateau at the 100/200
I see what some of the 400 guys do at my club and the training looks daunting. All of them are late teens/early 20s and their recovery between intervals really shows while I am on my knees between sets

RandyMann

donothoponpop wrote: »

I've decided to keep this challenge as simple as possible- these are all "10 Round Numbers" that a common-or-garden club runner should be able to hit at some stage in their career. Rather than go with ranking, or points, or multiple tables, or whatever, this thread is primarily about hitting these targets, and a bit of comment on what it took for you to hit them. We'll try and organize a few mile and 1k races during the year, to help runners get those times.

The idea came from last years "Big 8 Challenge", hopefully we'll get a bit more banter on this thread. Otherwise, it's nice and simple, see if you can run under:

400m - 1 minute
1 kilometer- 3 mins
1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 1 hour
Half Marathon - 90 mins
Marathon - 3 hours.

How many of these 10 Round Numbers can you run in a year? Let us know how you ran, each time you tick one off.:)

Name|400m<60 secs|1 kilometer<3:00|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs

AN Other||||||||||

So any chance of adding in another 2 headings for 100m and 200m? I was thinking <13.5secs and <27sec respectively.

donothoponpop

RandyMann wrote: »

So any chance of adding in another 2 headings for 100m and 200m? I was thinking <13.5secs and <27sec respectively.

Sorry RandyMann, no chance. The reason being they aren't round numbers- its as unscientific as that. One you start putting in figures like 27 etc, you open it up to changing all the others to comparatively equivalent times.

However, it would be a shame *not* to start a similar type challenge for purely track-based events in another thread. Something like a decathlon (or heptathlon) challenge, based on IAAF scoring tables? Best 5 T&F scores? Something to be started in another thread.

RayCun

RandyMann wrote: »

So any chance of adding in another 2 headings for 100m and 200m? I was thinking <13.5secs and <27sec respectively.

How many people run those distances? Recreational runners not at all, I'd guess, and even very few club runners. I get the impression, though I could be wrong, that there's an enormous drop-out rate from sprinting when people hit 20ish. It's much more specialised than other running - I do training sessions that are useful down to maybe 400m races, but nothing shorter, and I think (?) that's fairly typical. So I guess I'd wonder what the point is in even having targets at that distance - are they times that a good club runner would aspire to run?

(it's dp's table though, completely up to him)

RandyMann

donothoponpop wrote: »

Sorry RandyMann, no chance. The reason being they aren't round numbers- its as unscientific as that. One you start putting in figures like 27 etc, you open it up to changing all the others to comparatively equivalent times.

However, it would be a shame *not* to start a similar type challenge for purely track-based events in another thread. Something like a decathlon (or heptathlon) challenge, based on IAAF scoring tables? Best 5 T&F scores? Something to be started in another thread.

Ok fair enough. I did think of that idea but decided not to as it seems that most of the posters here are long/distance to marathon runners with a middle distance minority.
I am guessing that there only 2 posters here in A/R/T competing/interested in sprinting (myself included) so I was trying to gather more interest in these distances. Worth a try but no problem, I can take rejection

RayCun

donothoponpop wrote: »

However, it would be a shame *not* to start a similar type challenge for purely track-based events in another thread. Something like a decathlon (or heptathlon) challenge, based on IAAF scoring tables? Best 5 T&F scores? Something to be started in another thread.

Well, the 'Best of 2012' thread doesn't have to be just running, of course, it could also record best jump distances and heights, best throws, highest points recorded in decathlon and heptathlon. But there's an obvious problem with that idea.

RandyMann

RayCun wrote: »

How many people run those distances? Recreational runners not at all, I'd guess, and even very few club runners. I get the impression, though I could be wrong, that there's an enormous drop-out rate from sprinting when people hit 20ish. It's much more specialised than other running - I do training sessions that are useful down to maybe 400m races, but nothing shorter, and I think (?) that's fairly typical. So I guess I'd wonder what the point is in even having targets at that distance - are they times that a good club runner would aspire to run?

(it's dp's table though, completely up to him)

Not many at all it seems. It would also depend on the club you run for but I would estimate for my own club the sprinting group represents roughly 5% of the total.
I only took it up last year when I turned 38 so I would be the 2nd oldest there and the rest would be in their early 20s.
I picked those times as I hit them without sprint training but off the back of 5 months of middle distance training. I think they would be very achieveable for most of the runners here that are able to hit the other targets stated in the OP.
Also I thought it would be a bit of fun too and it wouldnt take much out of someone's time to try it on a track some day.

donothoponpop

RandyMann wrote: »

Ok fair enough. I did think of that idea but decided not to as it seems that most of the posters here are long/distance to marathon runners with a middle distance minority.
I am guessing that there only 2 posters here in A/R/T competing/interested in sprinting (myself included) so I was trying to gather more interest in these distances. Worth a try but no problem, I can take rejection

You don't get off that easy:D If you want to increase exposure and interest on shorter track distances, I'm 100% behind you. I set up a thread here that is just track and field based- best 5 performances at different distances/events in 2012, ranked using the IAAF tables.

Personally I'd love to see more T&F chatter on the forum, so be all means use that thread as you wish, or set up a better one as you see fit.

RandyMann

donothoponpop wrote: »

You don't get off that easy:D If you want to increase exposure and interest on shorter track distances, I'm 100% behind you. I set up a thread here that is just track and field based- best 5 performances at different distances/events in 2012, ranked using the IAAF tables.

Personally I'd love to see more T&F chatter on the forum, so be all means use that thread as you wish, or set up a better one as you see fit.

Jazus, that was quick !

donothoponpop

RandyMann wrote: »

Jazus, that was quick !

Well. we had discussed doing something T&F, and ranking based, earlier in this thread, your post was the catalyst. I want to try some T&F myself this summer, so will be putting up some scores hopefully.

Anything that gets the majority distance road runners trying a few new things, that might end up suiting them better than road running, is good in my book. I'm the anti-Gerry Keirnan; Haile should move down to 1500m George, I'll give you 10/3 that Fionnula is a 100 high hurdler gone astray, and that Enduro fellow will be a 60m dash specialist yet.

RandyMann

donothoponpop wrote: »

Well. we had discussed doing something T&F, and ranking based, earlier in this thread, your post was the catalyst. I want to try some T&F myself this summer, so will be putting up some scores hopefully.

Anything that gets the majority distance road runners trying a few new things, that might end up suiting them better than road running, is good in my book. I'm the anti-Gerry Keirnan; Haile should move down to 1500m George, I'll give you 10/3 that Fionnula is a 100 high hurdler gone astray, and that Enduro fellow will be a 60m dash specialist yet.

Well I look forward to some friendly competition! T&F is great fun and it would to good to bring back some of the older generation of athletes into it and not leave it just for the younger guys.

drquirky

I've run two so far but don't know how to add them to a table... Cavan X-Mas Dash- 5k 17:39 Eircom BHAA XC 5 mile 29:57 can someone tell me how to add them?? Thanks! DQ

Sandwell

I was considering adding my 5 mile time from todays BHAA race but it came up as 4.9 miles on my Garmin. I guess that's par for the course with XC races. The question is, should they be included here?

Krusty_Clown

Name|400m<60 secs|1 kilometer<3:00|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs

04072511|59.44|||||||||
drquirky|||||17:39|29:57||||