I am a 5'5" junior boy with short legs that runs a 51 sec 400 and always hear other runners and coaches saying that "it's crazy that a short kid can run the 4 that fast." My teammates that run the 400 are all around 6'0" along with the other schools runners. Does height and stride length play a major role in running a 400 quickly
Height has nothing to do with success in any event. 51 isn't even fast. People your height have run the last lap of a mile in about 51 seconds.
Hey xj, your comment provided precisely zero input. Nice work.
To the OP, 51 for 400 does show some speed, for sure. Don't worry too much about height. Do you have an 800m PR?
51 aint slow yo wrote:
Hey xj, your comment provided precisely zero input. Nice work.
To the OP, 51 for 400 does show some speed, for sure. Don't worry too much about height. Do you have an 800m PR?
You have terrible reading comprehension. My post provided direct input. I specifically answered his question in my first sentence. Can you not read? Nice work.
If people can finish miles and 5000s at that speed, then it is not that fast. It's not slow, but it is not anything to be surprised about.
You use what you have. If you run 51 for 400, but your 100 is only 11.5, you run the 400. But I wouldn't say that height is no factor. Pavel Maslak is 5'9". Chris Brown is 5'10". So while there are international 400 athletes that are shorter than 6', they're still quite a bit taller than 5'5", and Maslak is quite a ways away from James and Merritt outdoors (being short is an advantage indoors).
There's a video on youtube with Dan Pfaff about speed endurance and race modeling, where Dr. Pfaff mentions that using short, choppy strides to accelerate "too fast" results in high energy use that costs you later in the race. He's talking about 100, but this may imply that shorter strides may compromise performance more in the 400, where energy management is much more important.
Now, there are really two things that control stride length. One is being taller, which you can't control. There other is strength and power, and you can control that to a point. I'd suggest that the OP spend time in the fall sprinting up steep hills, doing heavy squats, box jumps, and maybe short depth jumps (but the latter only if you have not had any injuries for at least 6 months), with the objective of increasing leg strength and stride length, and that may allow you to run 400 more efficiently. This is often a part of 400m offseason training anyway.
xj wrote:
If people can finish miles and 5000s at that speed, then it is not that fast. It's not slow, but it is not anything to be surprised about.
Well, my guess is not too many junior boys are "finishing miles and 5000s at that speed".
Didn't the Brits used to have a 400m guy that was markedly shorter than all the guys he raced? I remember him running against MJ a few times, but forget his name.
wtfunny wrote:
Didn't the Brits used to have a 400m guy that was markedly shorter than all the guys he raced? I remember him running against MJ a few times, but forget his name.
Jamie Baulch 5'9" according to Google
I just recalled the late Todd Bennett, he seemed shorter than Baulch
Leo Manzano 5'5" speaks for itself. Height not an issue. Sure he is a 1500 specialist but regularly out kicks taller opponents. Let's not forget Bershawn Jackson 5'8" 400 hurdler and sprinter.
51 aint slow yo wrote:
Hey xj, your comment provided precisely zero input. Nice work.
To the OP, 51 for 400 does show some speed, for sure. Don't worry too much about height. Do you have an 800m PR?
My PR's are
100M: 11.46
200M: 23.4
400M: 51.00
800M: 1:54
1:54 800 You are a middle distance guy, forget the 400. Manzano ran 1:50 in H.S. and you aren't that far behind. Nice time.....