Can anyone here run a 400 faster than 57 seconds at a body weight over 190? Sucks when real athletes show you all up huh?

kpch wrote:

matt_london_413 wrote:

Vids or it never happened. Anyone can say this.

Right now you're just trolling. Show a youtube page of you lifting or sprinting.

If you watched NFL football in the late 90s-early 00s, you may have seen some video of him.

I'm going light on you all.

I'm giving you all a 25 pound weight advantage and a 4 second advantage because I don't expect anyone here to reach my level of overall fitness.

I don't expect anyone here to even approach my time of 53.44 at 6'0 and 214 lbs.

And everything I say I back up with proof.

Here's the higher quality version of the 53.44 from 2013.

I mean if we could just get one person here who has proof of a sub 57 second 400 at over 190lbs then that's going to great.

matt_london_413 wrote:

kpch wrote:

If you watched NFL football in the late 90s-early 00s, you may have seen some video of him.

I'm going light on you all.

I'm giving you all a 25 pound weight advantage and a 4 second advantage because I don't expect anyone here to reach my level of overall fitness.

I don't expect anyone here to even approach my time of 53.44 at 6'0 and 214 lbs.

And everything I say I back up with proof.

Here's the higher quality version of the 53.44 from 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLntUyjekFQ

I mean if we could just get one person here who has proof of a sub 57 second 400 at over 190lbs then that's going to great.

Looks like 62-63 seconds to me.

I am within your weight and height standards and can easily dust you. I challenge you to a head to head race, fat boy. Put up or shut up. Name the time and place, cvnt.

matt_london_413 wrote:

kpch wrote:

If you watched NFL football in the late 90s-early 00s, you may have seen some video of him.

I'm going light on you all.

I'm giving you all a 25 pound weight advantage and a 4 second advantage because I don't expect anyone here to reach my level of overall fitness.

I don't expect anyone here to even approach my time of 53.44 at 6'0 and 214 lbs.

And everything I say I back up with proof.

Here's the higher quality version of the 53.44 from 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLntUyjekFQ

I mean if we could just get one person here who has proof of a sub 57 second 400 at over 190lbs then that's going to great.

Foot is waaaaaay over the line at the start. DQ'd.

I ran 53 at 175, If I was 190 with an ample amount of leg muscle I'm sure 55 would be doable. Also, look up this one workout wednesday with (I think?) Texas A and M. They are huge sprinters, at least 180 a piece dropping 48s during a workout. Im sure 10 pounds wouldn't add ten seconds.

Easy. I could do it no problem. Most people in decent shape could. 57 isnt hard.

matt_london_413 wrote:

Can anyone here run under 57 seconds at a bodyweight over 190 pounds?

I can barely run at all right now. My best "fat guy" time was 51 at 210/6'1". That was a few years and one Achilles surgery ago, though. I was pretty out of shape, but managed to hold it together ok in a dec. Im now skinnier and much slower.

I had a teammate in college that quit football because he wasnt getting play time, so he came out for track (he did track and football in hs). He ran mid 47 that year. He was 6' and 205. Definitely not much fat on him, though.

Matt, you're an above average athlete, but your weird mind games and bizarre qualifications dont make you suddenly remarkable. You're still just ordinary like the rest of us. I share your dislike of crossfit, though.

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

matt_london_413 wrote:

Can anyone here run under 57 seconds at a bodyweight over 190 pounds?

I can barely run at all right now. My best "fat guy" time was 51 at 210/6'1". That was a few years and one Achilles surgery ago, though. I was pretty out of shape, but managed to hold it together ok in a dec. Im now skinnier and much slower.

I had a teammate in college that quit football because he wasnt getting play time, so he came out for track (he did track and football in hs). He ran mid 47 that year. He was 6' and 205. Definitely not much fat on him, though.

Matt, you're an above average athlete, but your weird mind games and bizarre qualifications dont make you suddenly remarkable. You're still just ordinary like the rest of us. I share your dislike of crossfit, though.

All of this sounds good but without actual video proof nobody knows if you're trolling to make it seem like this is easy to do or if you're for real.

So far after 6 years there's not even a crossfit athlete with video proof of 57 over 190....

We need actual video proof not made up stats.

You know to go with BMI. The fixation on 190 is nonsense. 180 at only 5'3" is a lot more impressive than 5'10" 190. Give us a BMI to work with.

Jesus, dude. Stop it with the fixation on height and weight classes in running. You're worse than the JS.

matt_london_413 wrote:

So far after 6 years there's not even a crossfit athlete with video proof of 57 over 190....

We need actual video proof not made up stats.

Jurgen Hingsen 48.8 at 225 lbs

matt_london_413 wrote:

And do you have a youtube video of this? Or any type of proof?

I know of only one slow 400m runner who films himself and posts it on youtube.

matt_london_413 wrote:

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.

There is your fallacy. They are very good at lifting a lot of weight for a lot a reps. They are not very good at any kind of running.

Alan

Hingsen has 3D shoulders and steroid glow so it doesn't count.

this won't count for some reason of course... wrote:

matt_london_413 wrote:

So far after 6 years there's not even a crossfit athlete with video proof of 57 over 190....

We need actual video proof not made up stats.

Jurgen Hingsen 48.8 at 225 lbs

https://youtu.be/XyDKyEndzJE?t=183

He's 6'8 and 225.

This is where the height factor comes into play. Doesn't count. Too tall. Not compact enough.

Plus we are only doing letsrun.com runners for now. Stop trying to find PRO athletes. We already did this before. It didn't work.

Video Poof wrote:

matt_london_413 wrote:

And do you have a youtube video of this? Or any type of proof?

I know of only one slow 400m runner who films himself and posts it on youtube.

Not the time. The weight.

If you're all such great athletes then why can't at least one of you show a video of 57 or better at bodyweights over 190?

I don't get that.

I weigh 450 pounds and I can run the 400 m in 49 seconds. However my height is 6'3" so I am a pencil neck. I am in the process of curving my spine to get to down to 6 feet so my record can be valid.

dude, I ran 49. at 87kg, nearly 2 years ago and at 37 year old

Go try again

matt_london_413 wrote:

Plus we are only doing letsrun.com runners for now. Stop trying to find PRO athletes. We already did this before. It didn't work.

I know of only one letsrun.com runner weird enough to video himself running 400m.