There is no way to find out unless he has a time machine.
There is no way to find out unless he has a time machine.
Why on earth do you want to do this?
It’s totally pointless and nobody would care or even understand. You’d be better off focusing on a 5k, 10k, HM or Marathon as people get those distances and hobby joggers do them.
Kim Collins says you probably can.
I believe you can get fairly close to your potential in your early 30s. I didn’t start running track until I was 45, after never having been “one of the fast guys “growing up.
I focused on the 800 m and was fairly successful – fifth at outdoor nationals in my 50s, typically ranked in the top 10 for US 800 m in my age group. Then I had two knee surgeries and found it was difficult to do distance training. I switched to sprinting as a last hope to continue my track career in my late 50s.
Last year I was second at indoor nationals, set the state age group record for the 200 and 400 m, and was world ranked In the 400 m, running times I had not hit for the past 10 years. I believe a combination of some untapped natural talent, smart training, and high motivation made a difference.
Don’t let anyone tell you what you can do - find out yourself!
Train like MAD.
Training will get you closer to whatever your "potential" is/was than if you never tried. If you want to run 400s, then train for 400s and forget about what you "could've" run. Good luck and have fun.
Are we really talking about running a 400 in 55 sec? That's cool if you are like 13. 27 sec 200 is really slow even for a 31 year old.
dafilthiest wrote:
Are we really talking about running a 400 in 55 sec? That's cool if you are like 13. 27 sec 200 is really slow even for a 31 year old.
Ha, you are probably 2-5 years past 13 yourself, if I had to guess.
And a 27 second 200 is likely in the top 1% of 31 year olds, particularly if we are just looking at their ability to jump onto the track right and race a 200.
As a 30 year old, I ran a 25 (flying start) 200 and a 54 second 400, both in practice. This was done off of training as a middle/long distance runner. If I had jumped into a 400 meter race (off 1500 training), I imagine I'd have run something like 52 seconds.
I don't think my lifetime potential was as fast as 47 seconds for a 400 - probably 49, had I really trained for it full-time. And I think I could have at least run 51 seconds at 30 years of age with a season of 400 meter training.
So, I think the OP should be able to get within 2-3 seconds of his lifetime potential, with proper dedication.
Everybody is different, trains differently, and ages differently. That said, here is an actual progression:
440 - age 16 - 55.3
440 - age 18 - 52.4
440 - age 22 - 50.2
400 - age 40 - 52.8
400 - age 50 - 55.5
400 - age 60 - 56.7
It's easier when you're younger.
Go for it.
ancient wrote:
Assuming I have some basic fitness from a jog here and there and ok'ish starting speed from a session of "strides" and speed drills every now and then for soccer (time trialed a 27.02 200m a few days ago), how close could I get to my lifetime potential in the 400m if I trained properly, diligently and consistently starting now for the next 5-6 years?
For example, assuming a 55 second lifetime ceiling that I could hit if I started at 14 and trained well and consistently, what are the chances I could hit that 55 second 400m starting at the age of 31? I definitely expect the odds to be unfavorable, but is there a decent chance I'd be at least reasonably close?
Would really appreciate any help or insight offered with those with experience
You can hit a 55. This just requires you extend your current 200m race pace to 400m. That is challenging, but if you have no specific sprint training, this is definitely doable.
Now, what was your lifetime potential? We will never know. No 31 year-old is running their lifetime best as a sprinter without the aid of drugs (certainly there are distance runners that peak in their 30s but not sprinters, you start losing spead in your mid to late 20s). That said, there are sprinters who have maintained elite level times close to their lifetime bests, but still slower, into their 30s. If you hit a 55 now with training, you certainly would have been at least as fast as low 50s if you dedicated your younger years to running. But if at 22 you embarked in a year of training , you might not do that much better than doubling your 200 pace at that time either, you'd just be faster at the 200.
2 years go!!!!
This one is even better.
440 - age 16 - 55.3
440 - age 18 - 52.4
440 - age 22 - 50.2
400 - age 40 - 50.0
400 - age 50 - 49.9
400 - age 60 - 49.8
I don’t disagree with the general point, but 56 seconds for 400 m would be close to the world’s fastest time this year for a 60 year old.
Near yes, better no.
You can probably get to 3 seconds off of your PR.
But here's the thing :
The training regimen is very important. Because basically to achieve your lifetime potential, you'd have to train 7 days a week, sometimes twice a day, with a very good coach, no 9-5, proper daily rest, good physio etc.
That's different than if you trained 4-5 times a week, with an average coach, in an average college track team, not the ideal rest time etc.
With proper motivation and if you have the right work out plan, you could even be better than the "you" from the second case, even if you start at 31.
For the "record" You can shoot for these world master's 400m records:
M35- 44.54
M40- 47.81
M45- 49.09
M50- 50.73
M55- 52.24
M60- 53.88 (I saw this one run)
M65- 56.09
M70- 57.26
M75 - 62.40
