I ran 54 at 190.
52 at 170.
51 at 165.
And, for all of those weight and times, no one cared. I barely cared and it was me.
Maybe a sub 50 at 230+ would be noteworthy. Or a 42 whatever weight.
Besides that, once again, no one cares.
I ran 54 at 190.
52 at 170.
51 at 165.
And, for all of those weight and times, no one cared. I barely cared and it was me.
Maybe a sub 50 at 230+ would be noteworthy. Or a 42 whatever weight.
Besides that, once again, no one cares.
I'm 188.
And I run a 61-62 every few weeks. Almost exactly a year ago I ran a 59.
And as I type I'm 54. Get back to me on that, matt_london_413
Used to be speedeee wrote:
I'm 188.
And I run a 61-62 every few weeks. Almost exactly a year ago I ran a 59.
And as I type I'm 54. Get back to me on that, matt_london_413
188 is not greater than 190.
I'm 5-8, 367 lbs. and have a 400m PR of 44.58 in my wheelchair.
when I was racing, I grew a couple of inches and ballooned to 209, and ran high 46.
It was all down hill from there
Ran in a "Corporate Cup" race as an attorney. 5-11, 205, 35 years old. 3 weeks of training and ran 54.7. PR in high school was 51.4. Never ran an open 400 in college, (I was a jumper. )
Seriously, for anyone with a speed background, a sub 57 400 is a piece of cake, even carrying 20 extra pounds.
Matt, you are fat, not phat.
If I was 190 I can guarantee you I’d run 57 or faster. But why would I want to put on excess weight for no reason? I actually don’t I could put on the weight if I wanted. I eat McDonald’s 3-4 days a week and dominoes a few days a week and I’ve gone from 140 to 150 in 6 years.
Bob Tokyo wrote:
What exactly is really athletic about sub 57 at 190 plus?
It's really slow and not really of much use in any sort of athletic event.
It's athletic because nobody currently in the crossfit world can even approach this time at over 190.
And they are the fittest in the world.
This ain’t that hard wrote:
7/10. You realize 57 seconds won’t even win you a junior high race, right? Good trolling though.
The emphasis here is on bodyweight. Not time. Well time too but more on bodyweight. It's a body weight event. If you're not below 170 then you will never be a professional 400 runner.
The average Olympic 400 body weight is only 157.
I'm going to look up stats from the Wall street decathlon.
Some of those guys aren't natural though but I heard one guy did a 52 at around 205 lbs and 6'1 tall.
I'll have to get the exact stats on it.
Heath Irwin wrote:
I played OL at the University of Colorado in the 1990s. I like reading this board because the Buffs XC teams were awesome in my day and still are. When I was 295 I could run a 54.5. You are a puny man with moderate speed.
Vids or it never happened. Anyone can say this.
Right now you're just trolling. Show a youtube page of you lifting or sprinting.
jacktard wrote:
I went sub-50 at 205#. What of it?
What was your height? What's your youtube page? Show a youtube page of current lifting vids or sprinting vids so we can get an idea of your bodyweight....
3D Shoulders wrote:
matt_london_413 wrote:
We will start with just the 57 at over 190 without adding in the height requirement of you have to be less than 6'0 tall.
Meaning pencil neck Trey Hardee and his 47 seconds at a full 6'5 tall and only 210 pounds doesn't count.
Doesn't the first sentence mean that Trey Hardee's time would count since you explicitly said, "without adding in the height requirement of you have to be less than 6'0 tall. "
I agree with others, please seek treatment.
Here's how we are going to do it.
First show me someone or one of you running faster than 57 at bodyweights over 190. Let's start there.
Then if you can do that then great.
After that we will take a look at your height. If you're like 6'5 and 190 then it's really not that impressive.
What i'm saying is that Hardee isn't really that heavy for that height. And so his 47 is something that you would expect of someone that tall and that light for that height and with that type of stride.
longjack wrote:
bolt,blake,asafa powel, ran 46 or better in spring training.
they be in the 180 to 200lb range,...
Ok great.
Blake is listed at 5'11 and 176. Who cares?
Asafa Powell is listed at 6'3 and 192. That's one person. Look at his height though. He's 6'3. That's not very heavy for that height.
Plus we are talking about everyone on Letsrun right now.
Can anyone on here run faster than 57 at over 190?
Macdaddy wrote:
I ran 54 at 190.
52 at 170.
51 at 165.
And, for all of those weight and times, no one cared. I barely cared and it was me.
Maybe a sub 50 at 230+ would be noteworthy. Or a 42 whatever weight.
Besides that, once again, no one cares.
What was your height at 190?
And that's a decent time for that weight.
Do you have a youtube page to back this up ?
Used to be speedeee wrote:
I'm 188.
And I run a 61-62 every few weeks. Almost exactly a year ago I ran a 59.
And as I type I'm 54. Get back to me on that, matt_london_413
What's your height?
You're faster than 88 percent of the crossfit world then at 54 years old.
sillyman wrote:
when I was racing, I grew a couple of inches and ballooned to 209, and ran high 46.
It was all down hill from there
What was your height?
And do you have a youtube video of this? Or any type of proof?
sbeefyk2 wrote:
If I was 190 I can guarantee you I’d run 57 or faster. But why would I want to put on excess weight for no reason? I actually don’t I could put on the weight if I wanted. I eat McDonald’s 3-4 days a week and dominoes a few days a week and I’ve gone from 140 to 150 in 6 years.
Too tough to say that for sure.
There's a reason why the average body weight of a 400 runner is 157.
You will find out the hard way how hard this is to do even 10 pounds heavier than your current weight.
Each 10 pound increase slows your time by alot.
I can so do that.
I just forgot to videotape it.