How hard is it to go sub 50 in the 400 meters?

Ok, could more or less if the population run a sub 50 400m or 16:00 5k with proper training? Because for me, the 5k time is more unattainable.

sub 3:20 pace

Probably closer to 98% as 50% of men in this country couldn't even run 400 meters, obesity reigns in this country.

Old guy34 wrote:

The OP did not say average. He said athletic and strong. I think with hard training, an athletic, strong man in his prime could do what high school boys do. Another poster in hs even said it's fairly common.

This would have to be a pro athlete in football, baseball, basketball or even rarer in hockey like a person like Bobby Hull who was a very good high school sprinter. I can't see anybody else doing this.

Everyone's got it right: There just aren't too many people who can go sub-50 in the 4. I went to a high school in Southern California w/ 7000 students and about 15% African-American (yes, that matters, as the numbers for blacks able to do this are likely higher than the overall norm). I ran 51-52 and got switched to the 800 because I was too slow to even be on the relay. By college, 48-49, but the actual 400 guys all ran D1 (unlike me). Probably our top hurdler and top 100-200 guy could've gone sub-50. I was faster in terms of sprint speed than our fastest 800 guy so I know he couldn't go under 50. I raced some of our basketball players; they were not too swift. I imagine some of our WRs and DBs and RBs could've gone under 50; our football team was top 10 in CA. Still, I doubt there were 20 people at our school of 7k students who could run under 50 in the 400 and we were one of top football-track schools in a state of 40 million people.

So if I were to add on to what I think were the 20 or so sprinters, hurdlers and field event guys and football players at my school that could actually run 50-sub in H.S., people like myself that matured enough physically after H.S. to edge over that barrier, and the physically gifted folks from other sports (soccer, basketball, baseball, etc.) that would be able to do it with some time spent running in circles, and the non-athlete outliers who would somehow be able to accomplish it by their, say, late 20s-- given all that, I still doubt you'd end up at more than 1% of those 7000 people.

Now we're all in our mid-30s so I doubt any one from my graduating class can crack 55, including those who played in the NFL and MLS. As someone else said, it's not like you get anything for running a 49.9 at 23 years old, so what's the point? Run a few laps, lift a few weights and concentrate on things that will net greater and more lasting rewards.

A well thought out arguement. Sub 50 requires more speed than some will ever have.

sub 50 requires 100m ability of around 11.0-11.2

If you're not able to do that: forget it

here a nice overview of the PBs a "half decent" athlete who's still pacing Diamon League 800's. Do the math yourself

100 m 10,97

200 m 21,56

400 m 46,55

800 m 1.43,45

1000 m 2.17,01

1500 m 3.42,75

And another overview from a 2t Olympic 800 runner

200 m 21,48 s

300 m 34,05 s

400 m 46,52 s

600 m 1.15,90

800 m 1.44,61

Here's a question for people who have done sprint training: how much does it help?

Serious question. For a distance running, I know how much I would expect people to improve. But for sprint training, I just have no idea.

I will speak from my experience.

I was a 400m runner in high school.

I won my district 400 and made it to states.

My best time was 50.2

I went on to college, trained with the sprinters my first year and still didn't break 50 in the two races I ran. But I should have broken 50 that year, just didn't race well.

I then moved up to the 800.

I did run one 400m race my senior year of college and ran 49.5.

I also ran 48.8 in practice with a running start.

Now, could most males do that with years of training?

I don't know. At the time, I thought I had little talent and did that through hard work.

Looking back, I think I may have had more talent than most and just applied myself in an area where I had some talent and desire.

I really don't think most guys can break 50, when you look at the entire sample of people.

The 800 and 1500 were my best events.

55 flat / 14 flat wrote:

Here's a question for people who have done sprint training: how much does it help?

Serious question. For a distance running, I know how much I would expect people to improve. But for sprint training, I just have no idea.

It helps a lot. You can definitely improve top speed a lot with training.

Just like distance though, the amount of improvement mentioned depends on how close you are to your ceiling.

Anyone who thinks this is possible for even a decent percentage of men is absolutely ridiculous.

I never really understand the motivation behind some of these kinds of threads.

Do you know how many 400 HS guys there are who started out at 61 seconds in 8th grade, considered themselves 400 guys and trained and raced and progressed for 4 years in high school only to run 53? TONS of them like that.

Do you realize that Galen Rupp just broke 50 seconds for the first time ever recently?

We already have a weeding out process -- those who go out for track in HS. There are a few others who play soccer who could perhaps attempt, but pretty much no one else in a high school (the football players typically run track, and an athlete from any other sport who could come close is a one off).

Middle school and HS kids go out for track because somewhere along the line they have discovered that they were faster than most. That shows some talent. The others have no talent and have no shot ever of even approaching 50 seconds for 400 meters.

Simply put:

You need a decent amount of athletic ability ánd have to be willing to put in a lot of hours of horrible 400m training.

So:

weights,

sprints,

intervals,

etc.

Think of days with:

8x300 in 37-38 with around 4min rest (pre-season)

6x150 in 17-18 with 'jog back' /''walk back" (pre-season)

500-450-2x350-4x250 (winter basics)

Plyometrics (hurdles, speedladder, etc)

Block training

offroad runs like: 10x1 min all out with 1 min rest, 6x2 mins with 1 min rest.

Deadlifts,

Snatch and clean,

bench press,

squats,

box jumps,

upper body strenght,

etc etc

sub 50 is serious running. It's not elite, but even the guys who actually have some talent will find 400 training the most intense. Makes sense: it's the most difficult distance in track.

Kabayo wrote:

sub 50 requires 100m ability of around 11.0-11.2

If you're not able to do that: forget it

here a nice overview of the PBs a "half decent" athlete who's still pacing Diamon League 800's. Do the math yourself

100 m 10,97

200 m 21,56

400 m 46,55

800 m 1.43,45

1000 m 2.17,01

1500 m 3.42,75

Okay, here's the math for the 800m guy. 49.99/46.55 = 1.074. 10.97 x 1.074 = 11.78.

A 100m specialist probably needs 11.0 speed to do it, maybe even 10.9. A 200m runner around 11.1-11.2. A true 400m runner, more like 11.4-11.5.

Well put. Even van niekerk isn't stepping onto the track and going sub 50 with no training at all.

Dont bother Smooth, he's retarded and delusional.

Well..just because it's difficult for 99% of the population doesn't mean no one can run sub-50 without training. That kid from Dorsey (in Los Angeles) ran like 46.xx out of the blue in...maybe 2002/3. He had a huge head. And didn't improve with training.

55 would be more manageable with training for a lot of guys. 49.9 cuts out most guys training for 400m already. Give them another 4 years and more would make it but not that many.