How does it compare to the average person and to the average runner? Im gonna try and train to get better but want to know where i stand fitness-wise for now
How does it compare to the average person and to the average runner? Im gonna try and train to get better but want to know where i stand fitness-wise for now
Robbie gibbs wrote:
How does it compare to the average person and to the average runner? Im gonna try and train to get better but want to know where i stand fitness-wise for now
It's really hard to say. As a master's 400m runner? Definitely not. Faster than your neighbor over one lap? Probably. If you could do that 4x you'd get a 4:50 mile and that's pretty darn good for a 42 year old.
At the extreme end, Lagat ran 64 second laps for a 5k (13:06) in the Olympics at age 42, and just this year an near 44 ran 70 second laps for a half marathon.
He's 43?!
FORTY THREE??
F O R T Y T H R E E ?
O
R
T
Y
T
H
R
E
E
It depends on what you call a "runner"
Robbie gibbs wrote:
How does it compare to the average person and to the average runner? Im gonna try and train to get better but want to know where i stand fitness-wise for now
Is that your best single-effort? Either way, it's not fast. With enough training you might be able to dip under 60s though.
Robbie gibbs wrote:
How does it compare to the average person and to the average runner? Im gonna try and train to get better but want to know where i stand fitness-wise for now
For a Master's competitor aiming to go to track meets, no it's not very good at all. Compared to the average 42 year old US male it is extremely good. To the average 42 year old runner, it is probably somewhere between average to good.
No it's terrible. If you're in shape, you shouldn't be that much slower in your prime capability at age 42. Now compared to other hobbyjoggers it's pretty good I suppose.
You clearly did not excel in anything related with math, or at least basic arithmetic. 13:06 is 62.xx per 400. 64 flat is exactly 13:20 on the dot.
400m man wrote:
Robbie gibbs wrote:
How does it compare to the average person and to the average runner? Im gonna try and train to get better but want to know where i stand fitness-wise for now
For a Master's competitor aiming to go to track meets, no it's not very good at all. Compared to the average 42 year old US male it is extremely good. To the average 42 year old runner, it is probably somewhere between average to good.
I'm just an average guy I guess, never competed in track in my life. I play 5 a side football 3 days a week after work.
I also make a point of running 3 miles a couple of times a week (in about 24 minutes usually)
Yeah... if your coming of a major injury or something.... hobby jogger!!
No, that sucks. My 9 year old can do that.
That's all I can do (71/2 on the nose) and I'm back of pack first wave at the local rock n roll races. Faster than most, but not fast. Many 9 year olds will blow this away.
I just turned 45, in HS I never ran but attempted a 400 once and got 65 when I was 16 so I never had any speed
Robbie gibbs wrote:
400m man wrote:
For a Master's competitor aiming to go to track meets, no it's not very good at all. Compared to the average 42 year old US male it is extremely good. To the average 42 year old runner, it is probably somewhere between average to good.
I'm just an average guy I guess, never competed in track in my life. I play 5 a side football 3 days a week after work.
If what you say is true (only playing 5 a side football) then 72 seconds is a good time. If you started focused training for the 400m now then you should quite easily be under 60 seconds in three years time. A 59 second 400m would give you an age grade result of 81% for a 45 year old male, and mean you would be competitive at a regional level as a master.
Coevett wrote:
Robbie gibbs wrote:
I'm just an average guy I guess, never competed in track in my life. I play 5 a side football 3 days a week after work.
If what you say is true (only playing 5 a side football) then 72 seconds is a good time. If you started focused training for the 400m now then you should quite easily be under 60 seconds in three years time. A 59 second 400m would give you an age grade result of 81% for a 45 year old male, and mean you would be competitive at a regional level as a master.
If you started 400m training at 42 the most likely outcome is injury. Try 5ks and burn off the other 42yos at the finish with your deadly kick.
Psychologically, it takes an unique person past age 40 who is willing to take the discomfort to really go for it in 400m. Physiologists prefer to have an athlete (or future athlete) sprint 200m, as they say to test talent level. I say, 200m is a good snapshot. Give us your 200m TT then get back to us.
Robbie gibbs wrote:
How does it compare to the average person and to the average runner? Im gonna try and train to get better but want to know where i stand fitness-wise for now
72 is terrible
Personally I don’t agree with the people saying it’s a terrible time. Considering you don’t train for track events and your only prior training is a few friendly games and a couple of jogs a week I’d say you’re doing okay. You’re definitely in a good place to start some more serious training. By no means am I suggesting your 400m time is blazing but you’re definitely not out of shape by my standards and could probably beat a good 80% of men your age in a foot race and quite a lot of younger men too.
Sort out any muscle imbalances you have befire you start training, spend a few months strengthening any weak areas in the weight room first. After that, once youre ready, run flying 60s-100s to build top end speed. If you can’t run 200m at or very close to your 100m speed, do some 5x150 repeats (with 3-5 minutes rest) at full speed. 10x80m at 400m goal/race pace is also a good workout. For speed endurance I would start off by running 6x300 in 60 seconds.
Your math is off wrote:
You clearly did not excel in anything related with math, or at least basic arithmetic. 13:06 is 62.xx per 400. 64 flat is exactly 13:20 on the dot.
Wow! He/she was so far off! Thanks for correcting him/her because otherwise we wouldn't have easily been able to understand that person's point! A truly indispensable contribution to the thread!
Rez wrote:
Personally I don’t agree with the people saying it’s a terrible time. Considering you don’t train for track events and your only prior training is a few friendly games and a couple of jogs a week I’d say you’re doing okay. You’re definitely in a good place to start some more serious training. By no means am I suggesting your 400m time is blazing but you’re definitely not out of shape by my standards and could probably beat a good 80% of men your age in a foot race and quite a lot of younger men too.
Sort out any muscle imbalances you have befire you start training, spend a few months strengthening any weak areas in the weight room first. After that, once youre ready, run flying 60s-100s to build top end speed. If you can’t run 200m at or very close to your 100m speed, do some 5x150 repeats (with 3-5 minutes rest) at full speed. 10x80m at 400m goal/race pace is also a good workout. For speed endurance I would start off by running 6x300 in 60 seconds.
Thank you for actually giving me advice instead of just suggesting that I suck ? (although I suppose I did ask)
Will be working on this and report back in a few months with results! I’m hoping I can be in the 60-65 range by the end of the year.