| Pages: | 1 | 2 | |
| sloworwha?! |
| ||
|
A guy I know, aged 37, has run a 4:53 mile this year, but can't do any better than 61 for the quarter. How is that right? I would have thought that any sub 5 miler could run under 60 for the 400m. |
| bangalangadanga |
| ||
|
i'm right there, and i can't get under 65 |
| agip |
| ||
|
holy cow I ran 4:57 last year and doubt I could run a 66 |
| PhatTongue |
| ||
|
I've done a 4:47 1600m...a 30s 200m is all out for me. |
| Flagpole |
| ||
There are LOTS of people who have broken 5 but can't run under 60 seconds for 400m. |
| kinda fast |
| ||
|
i broke 50 on a dirt track in the rain a couple of months ago. i'm a sub 5 minute miler, but then again, i just ran 3:29 for 1500. |
| Le plus lente coureur |
| ||
|
I've done 8.22 for 3k, 14.32 for 5k and 30.33 for 10k. The fastest I've ever done was 59sec. |
| Oel apel |
| ||
|
How does this surprise you in the slightest? I would have raised an eyebrow if he was a 4 minute miler but 5? Come on. |
| Tortoise |
| ||
|
My 1600m PR is 4:21 and I don't think I could ever have run under :58 or :59. My all-time PRs are 14:56 (5k) and 31:13 (10k) and I would have had a tough time doing 8 x 400m in under :65 with any amount of recovery in the best shape of my life. My amazement is the reverse - if one is a properly trained distance runner and can run sub :60 for a 400m easily, why can't you slow down just a bit and go a fair bit farther? |
| the average male runner |
| ||
|
Another point of data - 4:15 PR and 14:44 5k, never broken 2 min 800 or ran faster than 57. Always outsprinted in workouts in HS and college. |
| molasses. |
| ||
|
I broke 9:00 for 2 miles, no sub 60. Also ran 48:24 for 10 miles without breaking 2:10 for an 800 either. |
| Shoebacca |
| ||
|
The bigger question is how does one improve their 400m time without training like a 400m specialist? Just do lots of 200s? My strides are rarely faster than mile pace. I've heard of doing all-out sprints every other week or so, but usually I just save that effort for hill sprints, which are hard to translate into something worthwhile for 400m speed. Is weight training necessary? |
| heres the deal yo |
| ||
|
i feel like most people with a mile best of 4:50s usually cant run sub 60. i ran that in 8th grade and could run like 59-60 all out, it was close though. i feel like even more so for someone who is over 35, when speed starts to fade. |
| no advice but |
| ||
|
really, so you averaged 2:15 per 800m for four 800's in a row, but never broke 2:10 in the 800 riiiiiight |
| Comes with age |
| ||
|
I was a 4:30 miler in high school and couldn't break 60 for 400. Senior year of college I ran 4:07 for the mile, and ran 55s pretty smoothly. |
| dontflushwhileyousit |
| ||
|
High school - 4:31, 58 College - 4:18, 57 Now - 4:46, 60 |
| Wrong event |
| ||
|
I'm 50 years old, can run a mile in about 5:05, and can run about 58 for 400. I normally run 5k fun runs as a hobby jogger - hard time breaking 19 these days. Sounds like i should switch to the shorter stuff! |
| HSXCRunner |
| ||
|
I ran 56 and 4:39 sophomore track. Then did a hard wieghts curcuit (non-stop rotating between exercises for 25 mins) instead of hills once a week over the winter going into junior year track to go with my running (1 day off, 3 Long Runs, 1 Interval workout, 1 Moderate Fartlek) and ran 53 400 / 4:26 1600.. So wieghts were good for me, give them a try.
|
| Stock LRC Response |
| ||
|
I ran 1:59 in the 800 and couldn't break 60 for the 400. |
| HC |
| ||
|
I would have had the same perspective as a 20-something year old. As a 37 year old who's right at about 5 flat for a mile now in less than tip top shape, I know my days of sub 60-ing are well over. |
| Pages: | 1 | 2 | |