Is a 72 second 400m a good time for a 42 year old man?

72 is not fast. Looking for praise on an anonymous running site is sad. After a few negative comments, you go even further by telling everyone that you don’t train? Train and then come back but don’t try to have people assume that you would be faster. Sub 60 is good for masters, 65 is pretty good, 70 is ok, over 70 is not worthy of mentioning.

Good time given your situation. Keep at it and good luck.

I am turning 42 in September and without training, I have gone 56s in the 400 and 23s in the 200. I didn't find out I had sprinter abilities till this past year and wasted many years trying to run the Thon. About the mindset to push that hard is 100% true, I have to be really feeling it that day and basically be pushed by some young kid to actually throw down those numbers.

If you can hold it for 12.5 laps straight

ironside wrote:

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.

This.

I wouldn't write off a non-runner's speed based on a 400 time. Most people, presented by a full lap for their first time, simply don't run it even close to their max. They don't think they can, and if they don't have that mental block on them, they are still limited by the very specific speed endurance / lactate tolerance required. 400m running is much less natural than short sprinting, and nobody is close to their best on a first attempt.

I am coaching a friend who runs 7-minute miles for the 5k, aka 1:45 400 pace.. Took him to the track and had him do a 400. 1:40 and he said it was flat out. Had him do a 200 maybe 10 minutes later: 43. Not "fast" but a heck of a lot faster than his 400 would have indicated.

You are slow wrote:

72 is not fast. Looking for praise on an anonymous running site is sad. After a few negative comments, you go even further by telling everyone that you don’t train? Train and then come back but don’t try to have people assume that you would be faster. Sub 60 is good for masters, 65 is pretty good, 70 is ok, over 70 is not worthy of mentioning.

You sound like a moron.

Masters running sub-60 are not generally doing it off of the couch and playing beer league football. They train for and know how to race it. They do it in race circumstances, probably in spikes. This guy just ran one out of curiosity, probably in heavy trainers at that.

If you round up all of the 42 year-olds in your neighborhood, take them to the track and run a 400 TT, I promise you a 72 could win it 99% of the time.

Maybe you can play the piano. I could run way faster than you at 42, but I couldn't play a musical instrument. As an aside, running 50 has little real value. I'd still rather play an instrument.,

its not bad.many to most average 42 year old non runners couldnt do it.with training,and competition youll improve a lot.

How about checking the world masters rankings website? Will tell you all you need to know.

I'd say a 72sec 400m untrained shows pretty good basic fitness for a 42 yr-old man but before you go and train for it, may I ask why you've settled on the 400m? To determine whether your talents lean towards the sprints or the longer distances, I'd say you should time yourself at 200m or even 100m with a flying start and also run a local 5k and report back.

42 isn't that old. Small injuries creep up and stick around for longer, and warming up and doing proper stretching and drills is VERY important, but I think a person (if in decent shape) can still run fast through their 40s. A lot of people lose interest or enthusiasm when training gets more difficult and personal bests seem out of reach, but I think most people could still come within an arm's reach of their best times if they focused on working hard rather than thinking about what they can't do or what they wish they could still do. It just takes a good attitude. And maybe some extra work in the weight room.

I spent several years during my mid 30s being all depressed about my loss of identity as a fast runner. It was pathetic though. I was too concerned about others' expectations, and living up to a past version of myself. If I would've had a healthier attitude, like being more concerned about doing the best I could at that moment, I wouldn't have wasted some of the fast years of my life. I was still running personal bests in the 800 at 32-34 years old, but as soon as it got a little more difficult and required some changes to my training I kind of gave up on myself. Looking back now, it was a big mistake in attitude, and I wish I could've seen things more clearly.

Now that I've gotten over my self pity or loss of identity or reluctance to adapt or whatever the hell it was, I'm running fairly well again. And I'm actually enjoying it. It's been years since I actually looked forward to working my ass off on the track and in the gym. I'm 40 now and plan on breaking 50 seconds in the 400 and 2 minutes in the 800. Not fast in the real running world, and not close to what I ran when I was younger, but who cares? They're just my personal goals. If you want to break 70 seconds, then go do it. Don't worry about what people on here think is fast. If it's fast for you personally and you can work to achieve it, then you've done more than most people. Of the people I know in their 40s, most of them have absolutely no goals of their own. They watch other people achieve goals on television - people they don't even know - and they live vicariously through them. And they feel proud as if they actually share in the accomplishment! It's such a pathetic version of sports participation it kinda makes me mad when I really think about it.

Anyway, this went way too deep, but congrats on actually playing soccer rather than just watching, and I hope you work at getting faster. That's the best thing about this sport. The chasing of personal potential.

It is a decent time, but by no means fast.

I am a 49 years old (used to run track in college) and I can still run 57-58 in decent condition and I consider myself an OK runner. But, I am sure I could beat 90% guys in my age bracket.

With specific practice, you should at least get to sub 65.

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.

My response was going to be that if you are a guy who focuses on lifts or other sports as well then yeah, it's great. A masters runner can outdo that for sure but thats cause running is their focus. I play rec league soccer, touch football, and ultimate frisbee. Some older guys have decent speed for 40 yards or so but i don't think many can crack 72 over 400. Usually they are either endurance guys with no speed or strength guys with no endurance.

If it ain't under 50 it ain't sh*t my man.

TrackFan19 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

72 is terrible

Consider that the average 42 year old person probably couldn't crack 120. 72 is not terrible. It's probably top 10% of all humans.

Now, if 72 was the best you could do after training specifically for the 400... it's not great. But for an untrained 42 year old, it's damn good.

Sorry, results are results, you don't get 10 seconds subtracted from your time because you're lazy. The fact is 72 is not a good 400 time, and it's his own fault if he hasn't been training.

Yes this is silly that a guy is looking for praise. 72 is OK but certainly not good. We don't give runners handicaps because they aren't training as hard as other runners.

Depends. What were you running for 400 when you were 21?

Les wrote:

Depends. What were you running for 400 when you were 21?

My best on the running track in college at 18 years old was 65 seconds. My best 100m about 13.

I have stayed the same weight and activity level ever since that age. 5’9 and 64kg.