400m time improvement

Dude - OPs friend timed him - he is long off 49. I'll bet any amount of money he'll never crack 49

More sets wrote:

Dude - OPs friend timed him - he is long off 49. I'll bet any amount of money he'll never crack 49

I'll bet any amount of money none of this happened in the first place.

More sets wrote:

Dude - OPs friend timed him - he is long off 49. I'll bet any amount of money he'll never crack 49

Ahh, now I understand.

Predictions so far :

distance runner1 : 50 -55 seconds, then going to 49 then going back to 51-52.

distance runner2: 60 seconds

P2 : 46 seconds

P3 : 47 seconds

Wrong.

I said with your friend timing it could be anywhere from 50-55 - probably closest to 52-53.

Based on that if you trained hard over a couple years you may crack 50...which would get you in a high school finals.

I am not a distance runner as well - did you even read my posts or just decide to disregard anyone who says you aren't Olympic material (ie realists)

Hi there, 21

I have a different set of questions.

1. What are your 100, 200m times??, 300 if u have run one.

2. What have you been doing in the way of training up to now.

3. What do you plan on doing for training for the next 8 months

4. When are you going to run track meets?

5. When was the last time you ran track meets?

Read above - he's never run a track meet and his buddy was hand timing him.If he even is telling the truth it's certainly a long way off 49.99% chance he is either exaggerating his time, his friend was way off or this never happened. Don't waste your breath.

pinoyathletics.info wrote:

Hi there, 21

I have a different set of questions.

1. What are your 100, 200m times??, 300 if u have run one.

2. What have you been doing in the way of training up to now.

3. What do you plan on doing for training for the next 8 months

4. When are you going to run track meets?

5. When was the last time you ran track meets?

ok unless he posts a video.

I would have posted a video but the comments are too aggressive and anonymous. I am 100 percent sure the time is not far off the time I ran. How this guy magically managed to come up with 52 - 53 s 400m is is beyond me. If it was something like 100m of even 200m I could understand the margin of error. It is best to ignore him.

How are you so sure your friend has accurate times? I tend to believe the other guy over you (anonymous guy claiming he ran 49. Off no training, won't provide any sort of evidence and somehow magically knows the timing was accurate and rejects even the possibility it could have been slower)Your story would have been more believable if you would have atleast said "yah it's totally possible I could have been around 51-53"I think you're the one we should be ignoring.

21cm wrote:

I would have posted a video but the comments are too aggressive and anonymous. I am 100 percent sure the time is not far off the time I ran. How this guy magically managed to come up with 52 - 53 s 400m is is beyond me. If it was something like 100m of even 200m I could understand the margin of error. It is best to ignore him.

What are your 100, 200m times??, 300 if u have run one.

I don't have any times. I wanted to get timed for 100m but made second thoughts because it's too inaccurate. Like I said before I ran to 23 mph against a speedometer, it's all I know about the speed.

2. What have you been doing in the way of training up to now.

Leg workouts. I can squat 275

3. What do you plan on doing for training for the next 8 months

I'm not sure, but I'm not going to be as busy these 8 months before I graduate., so I have time to just relax and workout seriously.

4. When are you going to run track meets?

I want to run them next summer.

5. When was the last time you ran track meets?

Never.

OP 100% trolling - thread over

You are completely ridiculous. If you wanted to ignore me , you could have simply discarded this thread.

[quote]Ignore you wrote:

How are you so sure your friend has accurate times?

I tend to believe the other guy over you (anonymous guy claiming he ran 49. Off no training, won't provide any sort of evidence and somehow magically knows the timing was accurate and rejects even the possibility it could have been slower)

Your story would have been more believable if you would have atleast said "yah it's totally possible I could have been around 51-53"

I think you're the one we should be ignoring.

[quote]21cm wrote:

+1 why do people even engage this guy

Troll town wrote:

OP 100% trolling - thread over

I ran 46.71 for my first run ever. My friend timed me on his iPhone and it is 100% accurate - I'm 100% sure of this because my friend is the best timer ever.

OP we should train together! Please disregard anyone who says we can't be Olympians in 8 months!!

21cm wrote:

If I ran a 400m time of 49 seconds how much can I improve if I train for 8 months?

I figure no reason not to believe you. People come on here and state they run sub-4:30 1600m or mile. If we believe them, why not you?

Prove people wrong. Get a coach, any coach from a high school or college to time you in 200m. If you don't train and really ran 49+ you will be able to run sub-22.50 200m.

Physiologists such as David Martin, PhD. and Owen Anderson, PhD. prefer to analyze the talent of runners by observing a 200m TT. 100m relies too much on the start. Give us a sub-22.5 200m. After said 200m, get back to us!

OP just get it on video. No one will believe you and give you real advice until you have proof (race results, video etc.). Anyone can say they ran a time. I ran 46.77, see I just said it.

Go to the pick up the Sprinter's Compendium. The book covers four different plans dedicated to different types of sprinters that can guide you to quicker times.

Anyone have any comments on the brianmac 200m training program? I am starting that out. Is it okay to skip phase 1 and 2 because the sets are too slow? I feel like I'm not developing my speed well.