Can most people run a sub 60 400?

no. probably not even 70 seconds.

60 seconds is pretty fast. i couldn't do that after running a year of ~40 mpw and i have average speed for sprints

400 is just too long. maybe 30 seconds for a 200m, but i'd doubt that too.

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 freakin' way.

I went from running 76 second 400s to a 55.xx with 3 months of coaching. So i would say sub 60 is doable for any non-obese 18-29 year old easily

f*ck no are you serious

No. If I got every guy from my work (about 100) and had them train for the next month, then had them go out and run a 400 all-out, I would bet my next pay check that not one of them would run under 63.

No, absolutely not. 60 seconds is out of reach for most people.

60? No way.

70? Maybe.

I have no idea but I'm willing to be the guinea pig. I'm a mid 40's guy who has gravitated away from distance running toward more of the dreaded crossfit style training (never been to a cf gym). I do flat or hill sprints occasionally, some shuttle runs occasionally. 6' tall, 210 lbs. no idea bodyfat but 34" waist pants. After reading a mile training thread here i tried the 10x400 with 1 minute rest. Got thru 7 reps at about 88 and died. Have never tested myself in a 400 because I know how painful it will be. Would love to be able to say I could do sub 60 so think I'll give it a shot.

Guessing that some 200m repeats at 30 with long rests would be a good idea to get a feel for that speed and determine whether I have any shot in h*ll?

Blahhhhh wrote:

No. If I got every guy from my work (about 100) and had them train for the next month, then had them go out and run a 400 all-out, I would bet my next pay check that not one of them would run under 63.

You're gonna lose big. Don't make this guy's mistake:

I'd say 50% of men could. This question isn't talking about your fat coworkers after a month of jogging, but:

Men, in their best possible personal fitness, in their early twenties.

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.

(1) No chance. Probably 50% could run 75 seconds or better if trained for it.

(2) Talent plays a factor at EVERY point. It takes a certain level of talent to be capable of 44 seconds. It takes less talent, but talent nonetheless, to be capable of 64 seconds. It takes still less talent (but still talent) to be capable of 84 seconds.

Please consider dropping this ridiculous notion that talent means "above average talent" or "outstanding talent". It does not mean these things.

slowbro wrote:

You're gonna lose big. Don't make this guy's mistake:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5122581

That story doesn't seem very likely. Even back in high school, athletic tall dudes never ran any faster than 65 seconds in PE class.

Get that guy to train.

Most sprinters: yes

Most CrossFit athletes: yes

Most long distance runners: no

Fixed:

Some sprinters: yes

Some CrossFit athletes: yes

Some long distance runners: no

Willing to find out wrote:

I have no idea but I'm willing to be the guinea pig. I'm a mid 40's guy who has gravitated away from distance running toward more of the dreaded crossfit style training (never been to a cf gym). I do flat or hill sprints occasionally, some shuttle runs occasionally. 6' tall, 210 lbs. no idea bodyfat but 34" waist pants. After reading a mile training thread here i tried the 10x400 with 1 minute rest. Got thru 7 reps at about 88 and died. Have never tested myself in a 400 because I know how painful it will be. Would love to be able to say I could do sub 60 so think I'll give it a shot.

Guessing that some 200m repeats at 30 with long rests would be a good idea to get a feel for that speed and determine whether I have any shot in h*ll?

6'0 and 210? Never raced a 400 because it would be painful? Just do one 200 and report back. Good luck!

rofl

HELL NO!

Most people couldn't FINISH one lap of sprinting around the track without stopping for a breather

60 seconds? no friggin way

Aarong89 wrote:

I went from running 76 second 400s to a 55.xx with 3 months of coaching. So i would say sub 60 is doable for any non-obese 18-29 year old easily

Sub 60 is doable for any non-obese 18-29 year old? Easily? No way. Most young males may be able to do it, but there are lots of god-awfully slow guys out there that can't.

See the video below for an example. 8 healthy, non-obese people (6 guys, 2 girls) show up at a preseason all-comers meet. The winner barely gets a sub 60, and it looks like he's friggin Obea Moore by the time he passes the 250 meter mark. Two runners drop out after 300 meters and don't even finish. And yes, it's not an important race, but the people who ran it trained and cared enough about track to show up.

(note to whoever uploaded it: terrible title for a video. At least his other ones were better.)

Willing to find out wrote:

After reading a mile training thread here i tried the 10x400 with 1 minute rest. Got thru 7 reps at about 88 and died. Have never tested myself in a 400 because I know how painful it will be.

Personally, I'd rather run one all-out 400 than do 7-10x400 with 1 minute rest at close to mile pace.

But if you don't want to do a 400, just run a 300 and multiply that time by 1.4. That'll give you a decent approximation of your 400 time.

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people who are capable of running a 5:00 mile or faster can't break 60.