What is a good 400m time for a 24 year old man?

Keep going to the gym. Run some short intervals (60m-200m) at close to 100% intensity every Monday, an easy run (no more than 30 minutes) every Wednesday, and two kinds of longer intervals (250-400) at 80% intensity every other week, and in weeks between those run intervals of 300-600 at 40-65% on Fridays. That should get you below a minute and your wife below 65 secs in a month or two.

Repetition and good diet. I wouldn't worry about time too much. Just go all out on the 400m and have fun. Race your girlfriend and give her a 5-10 second head start.

Congratulations, you're both quite fit. You're probably faster than most distance runners. I am routinely surprised at the amount of guys running 18 minute 5ks who barely break 70 in the 400.

Having said that, any true 400m pure sprinter in training could destroy those times any day of the week.

As a breakdown of where you stack up:

Men 400m times

0:43 - 0:49 world class/approaching world class

0:50 - 0:57 national class/pro and semi pro footballers/trained sprinters

0:58 - 1:05 athletic and sporty men/good distance running potential

1:06 - 1:10 sporty men in good shape/average in shape distance runner

1:11 - 1:15 decent compared to general population

1:16 - 1:19 above average compared to general population

1:20-1:39 average

1:40+ consider improvement

For women:

0:47 - 0:53 world class/approaching world class

0:54 - 1:05 national class/pro and semi pro footballers/trained sprinters

1:06 - 1:15 athletic or sporty women/good distance running potential

1:16-1:19 sporty women in good shape/average in shape distance runner

1:20-1:24 decent compared to general population

1:25-1:33 above average compared to general population

1:34 - 1:54 average

1:55+ consider improvement

If you want to get around 60 for a minute, this may be doable quite within a few months for you. Just do some fast 150s at or faster than race pace. Practice longer and short distances.

As for your girlfriend, getting around 60 actually requires the right genetic make up (and I will be honest- a lot of women couldn't get this fast even if they trained to their potentials) so she would just have to train and hope for the best. I suggest you get some decent coaching. Even more some men, this time can be out of reach but for most men it is doable with structured training. You need to bring your 100m times down to 13-13.5 to break 60.

How do you go to the gym for 2-3 hours a day and run that slow? 0/10.

A good time for post college is to take your age and add 25. It keeps you in the upper 1% throughout life.

That other poster gave you too specific of workouts. Just hit the track a few times per week and do a couple laps slow jogging as a warmup, then do 10x200m at a controlled effort. keep in mind you need to be able to do ten so you can't go all out. these might be around 35-40 seconds each but that's fine. they key is to shorten the amount of time you spend between them. at first you might need a minute or two, but you shouldn't need as much after a few weeks. or you could take more rest and do them faster.

Basically, the more running you do, the faster you will get. you could even just do slower running and still improve at the 400m.

Rather of 400s wrote:

You're probably faster than most distance runners. I am routinely surprised at the amount of guys running 18 minute 5ks who barely break 70 in the 400.

I don't know anybody who can run an 18min 5k who can't break 70 for 400m. an 18min 5k is about as good as a 2:19 800m according to McMillan.

If you're just content with being in decent shape for sport, 60-75 seconds is fine.

If you want to excel on the track, aim for 55.

reed wrote:

Rather of 400s wrote:

You're probably faster than most distance runners. I am routinely surprised at the amount of guys running 18 minute 5ks who barely break 70 in the 400.

I don't know anybody who can run an 18min 5k who can't break 70 for 400m. an 18min 5k is about as good as a 2:19 800m according to McMillan.

Yeah, most guys who are running 18s will be around 60s or just under but I have come across quite a few guys in my time who can only barely muster sub 70 (65-67 sec all out) who can hit 18:xx

On the other end of the spectrum I know a guy who runs 52:xx who struggles to get under 20 in the 5k half the time.

It has everything to do with what sort of muscle fibres you have. Some people are heavily fast twitch, others are heavily slow twitch. Most are in the middle. I'd expect the mean 18:00 guy to run 60 flat but there are exceptions. If you picked every 18 minute guy in the world the 400 times would highly vary (range between 50-70 sec)

With an 43.02 a 24 year old shouldn't be ashamed too much of himself.

You asked about where your times stack up compared to people who 'dedicate their lives to training for this sort of thing'.

I would say someone who trains seriously for 400 m usually runs at least 10 - 15 seconds faster than you. Someone who dedicates his live runs 15-22 seconds faster. So there is still a long way to go. But for the average 24 year old active guy your times is ok and with a bit of specific training sub 60 might be possible within a few month.

Rater of 400s wrote:

Yeah, most guys who are running 18s will be around 60s or just under but I have come across quite a few guys in my time who can only barely muster sub 70 (65-67 sec all out) who can hit 18:xx

On the other end of the spectrum I know a guy who runs 52:xx who struggles to get under 20 in the 5k half the time.

It has everything to do with what sort of muscle fibres you have. Some people are heavily fast twitch, others are heavily slow twitch. Most are in the middle. I'd expect the mean 18:00 guy to run 60 flat but there are exceptions. If you picked every 18 minute guy in the world the 400 times would highly vary (range between 50-70 sec)

Not exactly scientific, but in HS our 4x400 team (I was on) all ran cross as well (sub 16, sub 18, mid-18s), and all ran the 400 in 51/low 52. We were a mix of muscle types, heights, builds, etc. but with moderate training, at 18 years old, that wasn't too fast.

Where I think you stack up.

Good would be under 74

Great would be under 63

Outstanding would be under 52

Olympic would be under 45

Add 8 seconds for women on the upper end and 3 seconds on the lower end.

Rater of 400s wrote:

Yeah, most guys who are running 18s will be around 60s or just under but I have come across quite a few guys in my time who can only barely muster sub 70 (65-67 sec all out) who can hit 18:xx

I've broke 17 quite a few times and have never managed 400m any faster than around 65 seconds. Then again, I'm almost 50 and didn't start running 'till later in life and have never trained for anything less than 5km. I wonder if I worked on 400m speed (and faster) if it would help the 5k time other than possibly improving my kick a little.

When I was your age I was running about 50 for the 4. That's a decent time, still nothing special. You aren't fast, but you are faster than most people. You probably have the potential to be pretty fast.

When Wayde van Niekerk was 24 he ran a 43.03. I would certainly call that a good time for a 24 year old.

Didn’t realise gym worked cardio for running? Oh wait it doesn’t. Benching doesn’t mean nothing for a run. Fastest medium/long distance runners are all slim

I ran 62 seconds in 8th grade, just a PE thing, no training at all.

As we know college 400 sprinters are running sub 47, so as just some non 400 guy........how about.....55ish, you did say "good".

uanidiot wrote:

Didn’t realise gym worked cardio for running? Oh wait it doesn’t. Benching doesn’t mean nothing for a run. Fastest medium/long distance runners are all slim

Bumping a 2 year old thread for this makes “u an idiot”.