Running a 56sec 400m without training

does he have any running or sports history? 56 with 0 training is pretty impressive, and definitely very far above average. he obviously already has a lot of natural talent but if he can run under 50 seconds in 3 months than he should definitely persue running further.

He ran some track from ages 10-13, doing some training for 100-200-300m, but has really done any running since.

Interesting! Would be fascinating to see what could happen over a 3 month timeframe.

I’d test him out in a 200m all out sprint. It’s a great distance to gauge potential 400m times off as it gives a good indication of his natural speed ability without having to do a lot of training for. Double his 200m time and add about 3.5 seconds and that should give you a good indication of his potential for the 400m with some decent training under his belt.

when I was a freshman in high school, maybe 3 or 4 weeks into xc training my team was doing 400m repeats. on the 10th one, one of our captains said that if I cracked 60 seconds that he'd buy me dinner. Ran 56 high. Lifetime PR in the 400? 53.07. 56 is not that impressive, even for someone relatively untrained.

There’s no such thing as natural talent. Running is a skill that needs to be practiced. Running 56 for 400m is not impressive whether you’ve trained for 10 years to do it or 10 minutes.

If you’re friend runs way faster, that’s great, but it won’t be because of talent, it will be through purposeful training.

To make an analogy to weightlifting, your buddy running 56 with no training would be like someone benching 75% of his body weight with no training.

to the people saying 56 with no training isn’t impressive, i challenge you to get off letsrun, go onto the street and find someone, anyone, of the same age capable of doing what was described above.

you won’t.

I ran 53 off no specific training. This was at the end of base, where I just did easy runs, tempos, and strides

Jeff Albertson wrote, in part, "There's no such thing as natural talent."

Today is July 19th, not April 1st.

Yeah! Usain Bolt just trained harder than the other ones! Probably the most delusional thing i've ever heard.

I think everyone can agree that it is fast for some random narp off the street… but it is not fast for a runner or other random athlete… like you could find tons of 56 sec hs dudes or 27 yo dudes playing pickup basketball at the park… again 56 is fast but for a person who ran as a child and obviously works out and is in good health it is no indication of being fast in the realm of actual runners.

56 is a fantastic time with no training, given his age and the shoes.

It depends on his height and weight. He could be anywhere from a sub 48 guy (probably when he was 21) to a 52 guy.

Your friend ran no such time for the 400M. Now if you had said 86 or 96 secs. Would have been more believable.

All the pathetic downvoters are committed to being pathetic.

OP already acknowledged runner is actually not untrained, but was trained for sprints for years at a young age. That is the best kind of training there is, and the source of most "talent," i.e. someone already knowing how to run pretty well.

Distance runners who are used to trying hard to go fast can't wrap their minds around the fact that going fast is actually all about how you move. They get mad and refuse to believe it.

Your friend ran no such time for the 400M. He would not have been able to complete the entire 400M without walking or jogging the last 150M at least. Now had you said 76secs or 86secs, that would have been more believable.

As a small and skinny (5'8" 130 lb) 18 year old, off of 3 months of 10 mile weeks, with the final month doing speed work once a week I ran a 56. I had pole vaulted and long-jumped in junior high, but hadn't run a race since 7th grade. Coach was at that all-comers meet and said he would have had me at 53 if I had run on the team (was all-American at 400/440 in his time, and knew his stuff). I pretty much sucked as a D3 college runner (4:31 mile/9:43 2 mile) but got better as I got older and wiser. In my 60s now and still at it, racing mile and up and age grading well for a geezer.

56 off of no training is pretty good and shows potential. But it takes time and work to get really good.

56 is crazy fast though if he isn’t trained up in either endurance or speed… I can do a 50m in low 6.x off of lifting weights, with a distant background in mid distance, but I wouldn’t be able to crack 58 right now, most likely. I know this because in 2020, I tried a 400m and let myself die out at 45 seconds for the 300m.

this is with a personal best 300m of 37 low, but the difference is that I still had a recent middle distance base within the last 2-3 months for that 37 low, but I had no such base in 2020

You think it’s impossible to find a 27-year-old who looks like he works out and that can run 56? Where do you live, Mississippi?

Point out exactly where he said "that looks like he works out". You must see something I don't. He is referring to the average 27 year old. Stop trying to create strawman arguments here.

I think it's impressive.

But lifting weights is specific training for sprinters... just saying...