I'm 28 years old, is it possible to reach my lifetime potential in the 400/800m if I started training now?

You would never know what you could've run at 21, but yes I'd say it's possible to get close to it at 31. Especially for the 800.

You're starting at 28, not 78.

I'd say 3 years uninterrupted training is more important than starting at a set age.

The biggest obstacle would be not getting injured.

When you say starting from scratch: do you play any other sports? Go to the gym? Do weights at home? Jog? Do you walk anywhere or go hiking? Or have you sat around in an office job then sat on the sofa at home for 10 years?

Personally I'd start walking for a week then do the couch to 5K. Build a base jogging and walking. Then jogging. Then running. This is for the 800 not the 400. Do circuit training. Do weights. Get an overall fitness base. Build and strengthen your tendons, ligaments, bones, muscles. Then start building mileage, 10mpw, 20mpw, 30mpw. Introduce specific workouts - longer reps, strides. Pyramids. 100 200 300 400 300 200 100. Learn to run the curves. Lean some decent drills. Get a feel for race pace. Time yourself over 800m. Try to beat that every month. Enter races.

Unless you age differently than the vast majority of people, then yeah, you're probably not going to be as fast as you could have been. It's pretty uncommon for 400/800 runners to get faster after age 30.

track chick wrote:

I'd say 3 years uninterrupted training is more important than starting at a set age.

This might be true, but 3 years of uninterrupted training between 19-22 or so would almost certainly be better than 3 years between 28-31. Especially for speed-based events.

Yes it would be better.

However, he doesn't have a time machine.

Right...I just figured I'd answer his actual question.

Assuming you train optimally and don't get injured, by Age 31-32 you could probably get within 1 second of your potential.

You can certainly get close. I started running when very young and kind of stagnated between 16 and 19.

Stopped for several years and then did a brief stint of training at 23 and exceeded my PBs greatly.

Took another two years off and set an indoor 600 and 800m PR after training for ONE WEEK. Seriously.

Stopped until I was 28 and then trained continuously since then. Set my PBs at 33.

Example of 0ne wrote:

You can certainly get close. I started running when very young and kind of stagnated between 16 and 19.

Stopped for several years and then did a brief stint of training at 23 and exceeded my PBs greatly.

Took another two years off and set an indoor 600 and 800m PR after training for ONE WEEK. Seriously.

Stopped until I was 28 and then trained continuously since then. Set my PBs at 33.

I'm very curious about your progression of times and your training.

I am not going to state what you can or cannot achieve with training, but you will not come close to what you would achieved going from couch potato to training now at age 28. Those who were athletes since age five and then train hard from age twelve have set live time personal bests in 400/800 well before age 28. The only way a 28 year old new to running could come close to achieving near lifetime potential in 400/800 would be from a professional futbol, football, hockey or basketball player, maybe from a professional tennis player also who trained at a high level to age 28.

Your chances would have been better had you started earlier, but it's possible you could still run close to your best if you've been reasonably active up to this point. You might as well try it.

the magic rat wrote:

Example of 0ne wrote:

You can certainly get close. I started running when very young and kind of stagnated between 16 and 19.

Stopped for several years and then did a brief stint of training at 23 and exceeded my PBs greatly.

Took another two years off and set an indoor 600 and 800m PR after training for ONE WEEK. Seriously.

Stopped until I was 28 and then trained continuously since then. Set my PBs at 33.

I'm very curious about your progression of times and your training.

Nothing special for sure.

Ran a 5:01 1500 and 2:30 800 as an active 13 year old No "training".

Just broke 5 the next year and did 4:38 the year after that with typical school training. Ended high school with bests of 2:07 and 4:32.

At 23 after a month of crash training I did 2:05 and 4:20.

Two years later I did 1:27 and 2:04 after two weeks of running. 2:04 after one week and 1:27 the next.

After starting again at 28 I had slipped a bit in the first comeback attempts at age 29 (2:08 and 4:26)but then made rapid progress to 2:03 and 4:20.

The next three years I chipped away and ended at 2:01 and 4:17. By this point I was training properly according to what seemed to work best for me. Basically higher miles and very modest amounts of faster running.

Track chick- thanks so much for the thoughtful answer. I've been reasonably active, I skateboarded tons when I was younger to a good level, and admit that last year I did do sprints from time to time for about half a year, boxed and do bodyweight/circuits frequently (twice a week, dips, pushups, pullups, handstand pushups, prisoner squats/light weight squats with emphasis on explosiveness, lunges...etc. I guess I'm naturally toned. I'm 5'10 and 145 pounds but I seem to have/show a good bit of muscle for my height/weight. (I could be delusional here again but it's just what I see lol). I'm thinking of maybe getting a Jack Daniels distance formula book and going from there; I'll definitely be following your advice, sounds no-nonsense and very sensible. Thanks again!

The magic rat- I suspected as much myself, guess it won't hurt to try anyway! I have to confess that a year ago I did toy around with some 50m sprints once every two weeks for 5-6 months and did get down to 12.86 and under 27 but I stopped to finish my education and continue with work(my time management is complete sh!t, working on improving it) So I guess I'm not completely untrained. Thanks for your input!

Mid d- thanks for the reassurance, will look to be as diligent as possible with training :)

Example of one: wow your experience is very impressive, especially after setting pbs after TWO YEARS OFF IN ONE WEEK lol! hope I can come close to matching it, thanks for taking the time!

Not even close to potential: I'm afraid I can't disagree with you, hopefully my basic level of general fitness will be worth something as I start to train. Thank you!

Good luck op- that pretty much captures my situation. Thanks for the support man

Training for me starts today, gonna go log an easy 3 miles and do some strides after! Good luck everybody with your training and everything else, thanks for your helpful answers. I'll update this thread a few times a month just to keep track of what I'm doing and not to waste space on the first page of the forums for more interesting threads haha.

All that physical activity you were doing will make a huge difference. I was not running in those off years but was doing very physical work which allowed me to develop strength that transferred well when I did start to run.

I envy you your lighter weight. I was verging on 170 at 5"11".

Example of one wrote:

You can certainly get close. I started running when very young and kind of stagnated between 16 and 19.

Stopped for several years and then did a brief stint of training at 23 and exceeded my PBs greatly.

Took another two years off and set an indoor 600 and 800m PR after training for ONE WEEK. Seriously.

...

Did 4:38 the year after that with typical school training. Ended high school with bests of 2:07 and 4:32.

At 23 after a month of crash training I did 2:05 and 4:20.

Two years later I did 1:27 and 2:04 after two weeks of running. 2:04 after one week and 1:27 the next.

I'm calling BS on this.

Something's fishy! wrote:

Two years later I did 1:27 and 2:04 after two weeks of running. 2:04 after one week and 1:27 the next.

I'm calling BS on this.[/quote]

That's cool. It seemed implausible to me at the time too. Of course not many people actually decide to jump in a track meet at 25 just to see where they are. Might be more normal than you think in a similar scenario.

Example of one wrote:

Something's fishy! wrote:

Two years later I did 1:27 and 2:04 after two weeks of running. 2:04 after one week and 1:27 the next.

I'm calling BS on this.

That's cool. It seemed implausible to me at the time too. Of course not many people actually decide to jump in a track meet at 25 just to see where they are. Might be more normal than you think in a similar scenario.[/quote]

Either they were on a short track, ignoring that they were playing competitive speed sports leading into it, or something else approximating an attempt to obscure the truth/troll us/make themselves look like they're a 'prodigy'

NopeNeverHappened wrote:

Example of one wrote:

I'm calling BS on this.

That's cool. It seemed implausible to me at the time too. Of course not many people actually decide to jump in a track meet at 25 just to see where they are. Might be more normal than you think in a similar scenario.

Either they were on a short track, ignoring that they were playing competitive speed sports leading into it, or something else approximating an attempt to obscure the truth/troll us/make themselves look like they're a 'prodigy'[/quote]

Nah. Certified indoor 200 m track. Certainly no competitive speed sports were being played. in mid winter. A "'prodigy" would run faster than 2:01 after training. You may have meant " slightly improved mediocrity" through maturity with no specific training.

Example of one wrote:

Nah. Certified indoor 200 m track. Certainly no competitive speed sports were being played. in mid winter. A "'prodigy" would run faster than 2:01 after training. You may have meant " slightly improved mediocrity" through maturity with no specific training.

Well, I think I look at this differently than you. If you stepped on a track at age 25 after one week of training and ran 1:27, and then trained continuously for 5 years between age 28-33 and have only been able to "chip away" at your PRs, I wouldn't consider this to be evidence that someone can reach their potential starting at 28. I think it suggests the opposite.

That said, I'm not knocking you at all, and I hope you run even faster at 34.

the magic rat wrote:

Example of one wrote:

Nah. Certified indoor 200 m track. Certainly no competitive speed sports were being played. in mid winter. A "'prodigy" would run faster than 2:01 after training. You may have meant " slightly improved mediocrity" through maturity with no specific training.

Well, I think I look at this differently than you. If you stepped on a track at age 25 after one week of training and ran 1:27, and then trained continuously for 5 years between age 28-33 and have only been able to "chip away" at your PRs, I wouldn't consider this to be evidence that someone can reach their potential starting at 28. I think it suggests the opposite.

That said, I'm not knocking you at all, and I hope you run even faster at 34.

Maybe but the point is that I didn't really start to train properly until near 30 so the total of years and races didn't add up to much. I ran about 4 1500 races in that time. Not exactly a recipe for race time progress.

The guy only wants to run 1:57. I do feel I was in sub 2 shape but the perfect race never happened as far as time goes.

I am long past 34 now. lol But at near 50 I can likely still manage near 2:10.