2:50 marathonner can't break 70 seconds for 400m.

I’ve run 2:40 and I’m not sure if I can break 70 or go sub 17, but I haven’t tried in sometime.

I find a lot of these stats really hard to believe and surprising. In high school, I would race the 400 m in 70 s in a good day. I never broke 21:00 for the 5K, and my half marathon PR is 1:43. (I'm a woman.) I placed better as a 21 minute cross country runner than as a 400 m runner and only competed the 400 when our normal relay runners were out for some reason.

And, I'm nearly 100% sure it's not physiologically possible for me to break 3:00 in the marathon. I'd say if I only did light to moderate training (say 45 mpw), I'd be lucky to break 4:00, never mind 3.

fgfgfgfgfgf wrote:

A guy I know has run a marathon in 2:50, yet can't even break 70 seconds sprinting 400m. How can this be right? Does this make sense?

He can he just hasn't.

17:30 for a 40 year old is not far from world class. LOL

Very fast regardless.

Super Hobby Jogger . Hobby Jogger on EPO

asdjfk;sfsfs wrote:

I find a lot of these stats really hard to believe and surprising. In high school, I would race the 400 m in 70 s in a good day. I never broke 21:00 for the 5K, and my half marathon PR is 1:43. (I'm a woman.) I placed better as a 21 minute cross country runner than as a 400 m runner and only competed the 400 when our normal relay runners were out for some reason.

I have similar PRs to you (also female). I can run a 70 second quarter any day of the week but I can’t break even 24 in the 5k right now (or barely could-23:59 and I’d have to kill myself to do it).

I’m willing to bet most of the people claiming they were so slow just simply weren’t trying or running 100% milage and seriously neglecting speed.

2:54 last year and ran an eyeballs out 78! 63 in HS. Other HS PB's = 13, 28, 2.27, 5.12 for 100, 200, 800, 1500. Then at age 39 - 17:08, 34:35, 57:15, 75:18, 2:06 & 2:47 for 5k, 10k, 10M, HM, 20M and Marathon all off 30-40 mpw. Age 44 now and can't get close to any of those times and slipped to mid 80's for the 400.

Vinnieftw wrote:

I’m willing to bet most of the people claiming they were so slow just simply weren’t trying or running 100% milage and seriously neglecting speed.

I'm sure that has something to do with it, but there's a huge influence of innate ability for different types of running.

When I was a little kid (8-10 years old), I always came in about 28th out of 30 in my class in the 50-yard dash which we had to do annually as part of a national physical fitness test. I liked running, I ran my guts out, but I just didn't have any speed. I could only beat a couple of really fat kids.

Fast forward to freshman year in high school, when they added the 12-minute run to the test. I could literally lap every other girl in my PE class in 12 minutes--I could cover over 1.5 miles and no one else could even get to 1.25 miles.

In neither case was there any "training" involved. None of us were involved in organized sports. Those results were largely reflective of natural ability. I was slow but could run for a long time without getting any slower.

As you get older, your speed goes away pretty quickly if you don't work on it. I'm 35, and I just do steady mileage every day, but I never sprint. If I lost 10 pounds, I think I'd be able to run a marathon in the 2:50-3:00 range, but I think I'd have a stroke trying to break 70 in a 400. If I worked on my sprint speed, I'd just get injured at this point I think. I don't race a ton, but when I do race (mainly half marathons), the only time I really notice a lack of speed is if anyone is around me with 400 to go because it's likely they will beat me. I have no kick, but I usually only run fairly big races (I don't see the point in running races where I could actually win because winning a race with a 19 minute 5k seems kind of silly to me), and I don't see much of a difference between finishing in 35th or 40th, so I don't have the desire to work on it.

You stated you don't race in smaller 5k's, the one's in which a person may win with a 19:00 5K. If you race the bigger 5K's, the one's won with a time of 14:30 to 15:30, you will still finish in the top 25 with a 19:00 5K. Don't you sprint out the first 400m in sub-70 sec.? If not, are you not worried about getting crushed by the masses?

In my early 40s, running low 2:50s was routine, but there was no way I could run 70. My knees would start to bother me if I did anything faster than 6:00 pace (90/400). So, I did a lot of 6:20-7:00 pace runs, long runs at 8:00. Even 1 stride at a faster pace would leave my knees sore the next day. I assumed it was normal with aging.

yes, age is the limiting factor wrote:

In my early 40s, running low 2:50s was routine, but there was no way I could run 70. My knees would start to bother me if I did anything faster than 6:00 pace (90/400). So, I did a lot of 6:20-7:00 pace runs, long runs at 8:00. Even 1 stride at a faster pace would leave my knees sore the next day. I assumed it was normal with aging.

I'm in my early 40s now and have been running for 12 years or so but was a competitive tennis player before running. I always found the shorter races to better suit my physiological abilities, no matter how much I trained. I never ran super high mileage but did reach 100 miles once in training. My best 400 was 62 seconds but as the distance increased my times sucked more and more.

200: 25'5

400: 62'1

Mile : 5'10

5k: 18'20

10k: 38'40

Half : 1:28:00

Full : 3:23:25

Now I'm training for a 3K and have run between 40 to 55 miles in training for the last 6 months and hoping to break 10 min. I have no problem doing 1:20 400m repeats in training but doing 1k in 3:30 is a lot harder. My all out 400 right now is probably around 64 seconds. I've accepted that because of my physical abilities and probably thanks to many years doing short sprints for tennis, I still am faster than most people my age in shorter events. I could probably never break 3 hours in the marathon. I actually enjoy doing anaerobic workouts more than tempo runs or fartleks.

This makes total sense to me. I'm 45 and have been hobby jogging for 15yrs. I have never even been close to 70 s for 400 and my marathon times are numerous between 2.51 - 2.58. I can maybe do 76 s in the 400.

I run approx 40-45mi/wk with peaks around 50. My race times:

5k: 18:10

10k: 37:12

HM: 1:22:23

M: 2.51.57

Long M type work like 10-12mi at 6'24-pace feels invigorating to me, whilst Vo2 max intervals and 400s totally kills me!

Everytime I read about the mileage people do to hobby jog 2.50 in the marathon I'm amazed. I do that on approx. half their mileage. And then when I read about how fast people are running alomost without any speed training I feel like a loser. It's weird how different it can be.

I guess I'm pretty much slow twitch through and through.

Like some others have posted, getting under 70 isn't that hard if you do some strides after each run in addition to these workouts:

10 x 10 seconds up a very steep hill

8-10 x 200m all out with full jogging recoveries.

I ran a 63 at age 35. I was running 5Ks at 17:30, but my half is 1:30:49. No way I could run a marathon under 3:30.

No marathon finished yet...

Half marathon best 1:40:55,

3000m: 11:59.2

My 400m PB without much specific training: 65.9 (at 33) during a "hobby" decathlon

5:10 is about as good as 18:20 which is about as good as 3:23. You dont suck at distance other distance runners suck at sprints. The only thing that makes 64 suprising is youre in your 40s, honestly if I were you my goal would be to break 60 while I can.

I've run 1:15 for a half (probably could have run more like low 1:14, high 1:13, as I jogged the first couple miles because I had initially only intended to help pace a friend), and I think I would have been around 6 minute pace for a marathon if I had run one when I was in that shape. With that said, I highly doubt I would have run much faster than 70 seconds for a 400 at that point. I ran a 4:40 1600 in high school, and the fastest 400 I ever ran was 63. Granted, I've never been one to really work on my speed, but I don't think 400 speed is that relevant for longer races.

I’ve met people who can run a 400 in the 60-72 second range not a problem but would struggle to get half way through a 5k without walking.

These tend to be young lads (18-30) trying to get jacked who weight train and do HIIT cardio (sport explosive sprints, push ups, jump squats) and are strictly against endurance training for multiple reasons:

1) slow twitch muscle fibre recruitment would kill explosiveness

2) extra calories burnt would make it harder to gain

Point is, it is absolutely guarenteed that if these 2:5X marathoners (who run mid 70s) did some explosive work they’d probably be able to run a 60-63 second range within six months without even doing any 400m specific track work.