Me too. My best was a 61 4x4 split when I was in 2:10 4:48 shape
Me too. My best was a 61 4x4 split when I was in 2:10 4:48 shape
As an old sprinter told me, they don't give speed away. I've known plenty of somewhat talented distance runners who couldn't crack 60. 4:30 mile guys, 2:30 marathoners. These guys are good runners, way above average for the population at any distance.
Distance runners think about the 400 like it's a 5k - with training you can get a lot better. Well, not really. Compare a pro sprinter's peak times to his HS times, and you'll see they are a lot closer in % terms than a pro distance runner's.
Usain Bolt's coach admitted that "he's not a hard worker."
I'm late 40s and do marathon training and have a lifetime PR from 2015 of 2:51. I went out a couple weeks ago on unrested legs and did a 60 sec flat 400. I know I could do at least a few seconds faster with rest and specific training for a month. However, I just lifetime PR'd in the 5k at only 17:40. If i can do a 60 400, why is my 5K time so slow? And, my mile is only 5:00.
JFBB wrote:
A friend of mine that is not a runner asked if any trained man can run a sub 4 mile pace for a lap. At first I thought this was way too fast for everyone to do it, but then I thought it might be possible for the average person to pull it off. Obviously an obese guy cannot run a 59 second 400, but assuming that they lost enough weight, could most young men run that time? Assuming they train properly?
There has to be a point where talent plays a factor but at what point?
And yes, I know that we\\\'ve had similar threads for longer distances (sub 5 mile, 16 minute 5K, etc), but I can\\\'t find much discussion about train-ability for sprints.
No
[quote]HR FTW wrote:
I'm late 40s and do marathon training and have a lifetime PR from 2015 of 2:51. I went out a couple weeks ago on unrested legs and did a 60 sec flat 400. I know I could do at least a few seconds faster with rest and specific training for a month. However, I just lifetime PR'd in the 5k at only 17:40. If i can do a 60 400, why is my 5K time so slow? And, my mile is only 5:00.[/quote
You have slightly more fast twitch fibers than a typical distance runner. You are more of a middle distance runner.
I can do 12 seconds at 100m, however I am unable to do 200m in 24 seconds. On a clear line I can, but for me it is inexplicable because most people can maintain the same speed on a 400m track. The curves slow me down too much, that's all.
At 400 my bp is 67 seconds.
JFBB wrote:
A friend of mine that is not a runner asked if any trained man can run a sub 4 mile pace for a lap. At first I thought this was way too fast for everyone to do it, but then I thought it might be possible for the average person to pull it off. Obviously an obese guy cannot run a 59 second 400, but assuming that they lost enough weight, could most young men run that time? Assuming they train properly?
There has to be a point where talent plays a factor but at what point?
And yes, I know that we've had similar threads for longer distances (sub 5 mile, 16 minute 5K, etc), but I can't find much discussion about train-ability for sprints.
Most sub-27.50 200 metre sprinters; most sub-2:08 800m runners can run sub-60 400m.
My HS team had 25 guys on it and all were forced to train for the 4x4. We went 53-57-60-54 for our best of the year. So with only 3 out of 25 guys in their prime going sub 60, I would say that only 5% of the population could.
Hs400 wrote:
My HS team had 25 guys on it and all were forced to train for the 4x4. We went 53-57-60-54 for our best of the year. So with only 3 out of 25 guys in their prime going sub 60, I would say that only 5% of the population could.
You can look on Athletic.net. There are many high school 4 x 400m teams across the country faster than 3:44. At least many male 4 x400m teams. I would think with a high school with 1500 kids with 750 boys, I assume there will be ten or twelve potential sub-400m athletes in a high school. Not all will go out for t&f. Once every ten years or so, a female sub-60 high school runner should pass through every high school.
A friend of mine is a 2:19 marathoner and his 400 pb is 61
qw wrote:
A friend of mine is a 2:19 marathoner and his 400 pb is 61
Seems about right for a woman sub-2:20 Marathoner. I am going to assume most male sub-2:20 Marathoners are faster 400m runners than 61.xx. Your friend's 400m PB does not change my opinion that most co-ed high schools with 1500 kids will have close to a dozen kids with sub-60 400m potential. Including JV XC, usually less than 25% of the male high school XC runners are capable of racing sub-60 for 400m. For distance runners, sub-60 400m may seem rare. I saw hockey players and basketball players in high school PE race sub-95 for 600m with no t&f training. I am sure there are soccer players in high school and high school football receivers and cornerbacks who do not participate in t&f who are capable of racing sub-60 400m.
Most guys should be able to run a sub 55 400. Sub 60 is way too easy.
Look at the guys doing the 100. Lots of lazy guys are doing it because track is usually a no cut sport and because it's easier than something like the 800. Others are only running it to get in shape for football. Despite this, the average in most schools is in the low 12s. That's equivalent to a 25 flat 200. Multiply that by 2.2, and you'll get a 55 second 400.
Not many distance runners can do that because they're predominantly slow twitch, and because running 70 miles a week kills your speed. Even some sprinters don't run sub 55 since they hate the 400 and don't want to push through the pain in that last 100.
But given enough motivation, the average guy can run 54.9 or better.
Just my experience.
At the school I was on the slower side of spectrum at the 60m and casual soccer games. At 18-20 years old I ran 100m 15.x or 16, 800m 2.38, 3000m 12.18, without any sort of training. At ~24 years old I started cycling for fun. At 25, I purposefully trained aerobic/cardiac system with 1-3 hours of hiking (130-140 heart rate) and cycling. At 26 years old (August 2014) I started to run with ~1:45 hilly trail half marathon and 46 10k, by end of 2015 I have 16.34 km hour run (about 59 min for 10 miles). In the middle of 2015, having 4.42 for 1500m, 39 for 10k, 3:08 for marathon, I run about 69 in 400m test (not on the track and I don't have any idea how to run that distance tactically). From the summer of 2016 I started training for 400m, with some distractions for long distances. From December 2016 my training was focused solely on the 400m. The results were as follows: 60.6 (January 2017) to 59.1 (July 2017, 28 years old) without blocks and spikes. Then I switched to the 600-800m and my best result was 2:12 for 800m (September 2017) 1.32.2 for 600m (October 2017). After 4:30 for 1500m (May 2018) and 17:02 5k (next day after) I switched to training for 5k instead of middle distances. I think that I can significantly improve 5k time within several months, sub 16:40 and further. Goal is sub 15:50 at some moment. I plan to run 400m in July, out of curiosity.
PBs are so strange, at about 15 years old when I set these records my 100 m was 12.6, my 200 24.8, my 400 60.1 and my 800 m 2.04.8, so my 200 and 800 was way better than my 100 and 400. I guess I had the stamina to keep my top speed for some time, but not the right endurance/speedstamina for the 400 and then enough aerobic capacity to do well in the 800 m, for other people it will be quite different.
Im going to say it is out of reach for 70% of people.
I’d say 65 seconds for most males or 75 seconds for young women if trained/good diet from a young-ish age for a couple of years is more realistic.
For the people in their 30s who are overweight and have let themselves go, I’d say if they train for a couple of years and sorted their god awful lifestyles/diets out I’d say they’d do well to get around 90 seconds.
The 30% that will succeed at sub 60 will be 25% naturally strong/athletic young males and the other 5% will be women who are genetic freaks (yes, I’d consider a sub 60 female a genetic freak).
Most people on letsrun fall into the latter catorgory so opinions will be skewed. Anybody who runs sub 60 with no or even half assed training is well above average compared to the genpop is is not a representative example of how “easy” it is to get sub 60.
Oddball wrote:
Most guys should be able to run a sub 55 400. Sub 60 is way too easy.
Look at the guys doing the 100. Lots of lazy guys are doing it because track is usually a no cut sport and because it's easier than something like the 800. Others are only running it to get in shape for football. Despite this, the average in most schools is in the low 12s. That's equivalent to a 25 flat 200. Multiply that by 2.2, and you'll get a 55 second 400.
Not many distance runners can do that because they're predominantly slow twitch, and because running 70 miles a week kills your speed. Even some sprinters don't run sub 55 since they hate the 400 and don't want to push through the pain in that last 100.
But given enough motivation, the average guy can run 54.9 or better.
This is right on. I 100% agree here. And yes, high mileage training kills your fast-twitch fibres. Most adult runners focus on high-mileage and kill their speed.
Agreed the 400 is harder than it sounds in my prime college years it was difficult. I had low 50 speed and was a distance man it hurt then no way an average joe gonna be able to unless very fit and have some natural speed.
lol why not? I have 400m pb of 54.72s and a 1500m pb of 4:30.85s. Both times were done in October last year...only started training seriously in may last year...can't imagine myself running faster than a 17:25 for the 5k. it's so long my goodness
60% of males could do it with 3 years training
20% of females cluld do it with 3 years training
A more realistic expectation would be 75 seconds in which case I assume 90% of males could achieve it and 65-70% of females.
No, most people cannot run a sub-60 400m.
Go to Wal-Mart and look around at the people there. Do you see anyone that can run a sub 60? No, I didn't think so.
When the subject line says most people that takes into account ALL people. Not just athletes, the young, the physically strong, it means everybody and most people would not be able to do this. It doesn't say anything about training or in two years time or one month of training. It's asking about now.