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

its a good start is what it is. Here is a fact for you, vo2 max is reached about halfway into a 400. This means it has an aerobic component yes, but you will slow down no matter what. Train hill sprints, do more 100 meter reps on the track at 80-90 percent speed. Particurally for someone in his 40s, 24 minute runs isnt cutting it, its only training for half the battle, you need anaerobic power. Think 8-20 second reps.

Considering you know what times you ran for 400m & 100m when you were in college means you have some experience running around a track, pacing etc. which makes the 72 seconds less impressive. (even if you only ran a couple times in college around a track you have done it and that's 5 seconds right there) I would say of my top 10 friends or so (combo of weekend warriors, office jockeys etc) at least 5 could crack 70 in a 400m. I went to the track the other day with a construction worker friend (mind you he goes to gym pretty often) and he did 3x70s off 2 minutes rest....

Robbie gibbs wrote:

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.

72 for 42 for a 400. If you are totally out of shape that would be good time I suppose. There are some things to consider, weight and age included. I am a masters runner. I run the 800. My track work out yesterday was 400/200 x3 with a two minute rest between 400/200 and a five minute rest between sets. I ran 68/34, 66/32 and 64/32. I am 65 years old!

For goodness sake do any of you ever consider for one minute that talent is a huge factor? This guy might be in great shape and eat right every day but just not have the right talent.

No it’s not a fast time but there are lots of people out there who couldnt run fast times even if appropriately trained.

sorry, he's right wrote:

gosh you are a jerk wrote:

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.

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.

Actually, it is excellent for an untrained 42 year-old. Probably better than literally 99% of age peers in his office tower or neighborhood. Perhaps 99%.

I know what facts are wrote:

sorry, he's right wrote:

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.

Actually, it is excellent for an untrained 42 year-old. Probably better than literally 99% of age peers in his office tower or neighborhood. Perhaps 99%.

He isn’t untrained though. He states he’s at a healthy weight and plays football (which includes sprinting) 3 times a week and has been doing since college. I should imagine most football teams add in some level of sprint conditioning.

+1 on the post that he’s probably somehat trained but just not that talented. The 100m-400m is highly dependant on talent.

It grades-out to 65.06%. This means that your actual time is 65.06% of the open world standard. I would guess that a 70-75% performance would be good enough to place in a local all-comers track meet. 78+% will probably get you in the competitive range for most state-wide masters track meets. 80+% will probably get you in the medals at most statewide masters track meets.

Here is the USATF link on age-grading ...

https://www.usatfmasters.org/fa_agegrading.htm

Here is the age-grade calculator

http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup15.html

The 65.06% is in relation to the world record for that age, not the open standard. The age standard is 46.84 sec. A 72 is only 59.97% of the open standard.

A 58 sec 400 would be 80% of his age standard. That would be the lowest time considered competitive in meets.

with times like that you should provide a name, because it will probably be recongnizable. or at least your best 800 time for this year.

Masters Runner wrote:

72 for 42 for a 400. If you are totally out of shape that would be good time I suppose. There are some things to consider, weight and age included. I am a masters runner. I run the 800. My track work out yesterday was 400/200 x3 with a two minute rest between 400/200 and a five minute rest between sets. I ran 68/34, 66/32 and 64/32. I am 65 years old!

Robbie gibbs wrote:

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.

That only 7 seconds slower for 20+ years so not bad. I have the feeling you haven't kept up with speed training, though.

It’s quite a good time for a non-sprinter but for a sprint-trained person it is quite poor.

Being an avid footballer for 20+ years would probably class you as half-trained (right in the middle of trained and untrained) so I’d class you as already moderately trained for sprints. Considering you’re moderately trained I class it as slap bang on average.

Your time is average.

Seeing as youve spent all your life active in an explosive sport plus at a great body weight and you do have some endurance training already, I’d say you’re closer to your potential than people are suggesting and that you probably wouldn’t get that much faster even with 400m specific training. It’s all about natural talent, some got it and others dont. Actually, most people don’t so dont feel bad.

I think if you trained specifically for the 400 for a few years you could maybe shave anywhere between 5 and 8 seconds off that. LetsRunners are a bit on the delusional side and like to overestimate what average potential is.

No. Not good at all.

i've run 17,35-high,77,2:41

and my fastest lifetime 400 is 75. in spikes.

imhopeless wrote:

i've run 17,35-high,77,2:41

and my fastest lifetime 400 is 75. in spikes.

Do you have good enduramce for a fast mile, 5k, 10k?

Because OP’s 24 minite 5k is probaly just as horrible as the 400.

Okay after doing some thinking I’m going to make this (breaking 60) my primary fitness goal. I was thinking about training for a half marathon but sack that, I’d rather focus on this considering my score was terrible.

Is there any training plans out there that specialise in taking somebody from my sort of shape to dropping 10-15 seconds?

I did some other run tests (time trials) yesterday and today (I maxed myself out, my lungs were birning and it felt evil)

Yesterday i did 800m as fast as possible and got 2:50

Today I tested my 100/200m fitness and got 14.5/32.5

Also, how much would body fat influence my fitness? My BF is at 17% and was wondering how much of a role that plays? my bmi is 21. I’ve done cardio most days of the week my entire life and my diet is balanced and low to average calorie (1900-2100 because I use myfitnesspal to monitor this). I’m thinking that it might be very hard to lose whatever fat I have because metabolic disease runs in my family. not that I’m using that as any sort of excuse - it just is what it is. I am the only one in my family who has not developed heart disease in their 30s or been diagnosed with obesity or a thyroid problem.

If you can run the same time when you're twice your current age, you'll hold the age group world record!

Oh wait, no you won't.

That should tell you all you need to know, there are guys 80+ who have run faster.

In all seriousness, at 42 your age shouldn't be costing more than 3-4 seconds per 400m (based on relative world bests of guys in their 40s against the world record). So that's like some college kid running a 68 and wondering how it is.

Yes.

I'll coach you right now.

Continue your current routine.

Get a calendar and write a plan:

Add sprints. Start with short stuff (40-60m) for the first couple weeks. 3 sessions per week 6-10 reps.

Add weights (squats, deadlift, bench, just basic standards). 2 sessions per week.

After you're used to the sprints, extend the distance gradually. Work up to 150m sprint repeats, drop to 2 sessions per week and add some moderately paced longer repeats for your 3rd weekly session. The moderately paced stuff should range from 200m to 600m repeats. Just make up your own workouts, but keep the total distance run per session at 800 to 1600m total volume and make sure you're following some sort of progression with all the variables (volume, pace, rest).

Make the plan 2 months long, 3 months if you have serious motivation.

That's it.

Done.

You'll run close to your potential. If you want to do this, make your own plan. It'll feel much better when you hit your goal. No need for some pre-packaged magazine crap as this simple plan follows the basic physiological needs and won't be much different anyway. All you need to do is stress your body, rest, and do it again increasing gradually, and work on speed and power while extending the distance. There's much more to it when you really get into it, but I'm suddenly bored of explaining.

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

Its ordinary. Especially for a man. I’m a 40 year old woman who has come back to running after years just keeping generally fit, and I ran a session of 2 x 2 490s with a 3 anda 9 minute break in between in 70-72s recently.

I currently run around 19.50-20.45 for 5k and I’m not even the fastest woman in my mainly masters training group.

I’ve noticed that you get a lot if these new male runners who want a lot of attention online for ordinary times. It’s boring, because the track is full of people faster thanthem because they can commit to the training, rather than spending time thinking about how other people rate them.

You can lookup masters records yourself. Do a race or join in a proper training session to see how fast you are. What’s the purpose of posting it on the internet? Liklihood is you started your stopwatch after you actually started running anyway, and will never develop the discipline line to become even a moderately competitive 5k masters runner.

You’re not a naturally talented sprinter though, if that’s what you’re asking. Local5 and 10ks would be your best goal.