Can I get anywhere near my potential in the 400m if I start training at 31 years of age?

Real talk: pretty far off. Most 400 runners are running their fastest times around 22 years old, and I would guess most have been running since fairly young. Honestly 27 is pretty quick for not really any specific training at 31 years old. If you truly dedicated your whole mind body and spirit to this endeavor you could probably get within a few seconds of your lifetime potential. But the odds of being able to commit fully are extremely low and almost definitely not worth it.

I think with some fairly serious training and a little luck you could run low 50s in a couple years. But who knows man maybe you're a freak outlier. Probably not though.

Whatever you get to will be about 5 seconds from what you could have done. So if you hit 55, you coukd have run 50 at 22.

Another poster said five seconds. Unless you were a N.F.L. receiver, running back, defensive back, unless you were a professional hockey player, unless you were a professional soccer player, at age 31 you have no opportunity to get within 7 1/2 seconds of your previous 400m potential.

If you ran 27 flat 200 off of minimal training, I think there are good odds you can break 55 with 6 months or a year of dedicated training.

You probably won't hit the same times you'd hit if you were training hard from ages 15 to 23, but who cares? It sounds like you have some speed, and you might enjoy seeing how much you can make of it.

go for it wrote:

If you ran 27 flat 200 off of minimal training, I think there are good odds you can break 55 with 6 months or a year of dedicated training.

You probably won't hit the same times you'd hit if you were training hard from ages 15 to 23, but who cares? It sounds like you have some speed, and you might enjoy seeing how much you can make of it.

i like this post.

not even close wrote:

Another poster said five seconds. Unless you were a N.F.L. receiver, running back, defensive back, unless you were a professional hockey player, unless you were a professional soccer player, at age 31 you have no opportunity to get within 7 1/2 seconds of your previous 400m potential.

Absolutely ridiculous. People can start late in life (31 is not even that late) and come very close to their ultimate potential in sprints as well as distance events. Look at elite athletes - they improved massively in their first 2-3 years, often in HS. Then spend a decade shaving off that last 1-2s off their 400m.

It gets exponentially harder the closer you are to your limit. But getting within 95% of it, is not that hard no matter if you start at 15, 20 or 30 (assuming you have no family, no 40+ hour job, etc). But genetically it's possible.

Steve Way started at 33 and made it to the Olympic marathon, similar to Jack Forster and Priscilla Welch. And they weren't any "professional hockey, NFL etc players", just average, overweight chain smokers.

I'd say you can get within 1-2s of your ultimate 400m potential. There are many of us who start in the 30s and run good times, so saying a late bloomer who runs 51s 400m could have run 44s had he started at 15 is absolutely ridiculous.

You did not like the tone of my post but all you have to differ is Marathon performances. You know nothing. Tell us how well you sprint 400m past age 31.

not even close wrote:

You did not like the tone of my post but all you have to differ is Marathon performances. You know nothing. Tell us how well you sprint 400m past age 31.

That's because people who start running after 30 don't select themselves into sprinters, even if they are fast-twitch. People are often unfit and overweight and use distance running to get fitter, no matter where their talent lies. Also distance running is more of a group activity, there are very few - if any - master's groups for sprints. There are probably a good number of ~22s 200m potential 30+ year old who will never run the time because they never did sports in their lives or focused on their career and/or family.

One example: Dr. Delano Meriwether. Sedentary until 27, after one year of training won the USATF 100 yard dash in 9 flat (2nd 9 flat time ever), in a hospital shirt in swimming trunks. Later set 20.8 as age group record for 35-39 years.

So if Bolt was sedentary until 27, and started sprinting afterwards, he would have still at least become an Olympic medalist. That's how much talent matters.

Hahahahaha.

No.

You got access to HGH?

Football players use it and some sprinters use it?

true true- thanks for your input man, I don't expect to run like the crazy college kids splitting well under 50, or even many distance people here who seem to be able to run low 50's, but would love to end up with a pretty respectable time with reasonable training. Your post still gives me some hope for that

go for it- appreciate the encouragement and input dude, I definitely have taken a liking to running so I don't see myself having problems committing to it down the line. Would be absolutely pumped to make that much of a leap in 6 months!

Laterunnerphil- thanks for taking the time to provide a thoughtful interesting answer. Definitely gives some hope to me, although with a 27s 200m, the talent side doesn't look to promising for me lol!

Everyone else who chimed in, many thanks for answering. I'll bookmark this to check back on as a reference. Any other replies welcome too!

PS

I'm using my friend's 200/400 training plan he got from trackstar usa. Any thoughts on this program?

Yes you can do it. Some people don't lose speed in their 30s and you are probably one of them. And many runners improve endurance after 30. Put the two together, don't train too hard and you will do it.

ancient wrote:

Assuming I have some basic fitness from a jog here and there and ok'ish starting speed from a session of "strides" and speed drills every now and then for soccer (time trialed a 27.02 200m a few days ago), how close could I get to my lifetime potential in the 400m if I trained properly, diligently and consistently starting now for the next 5-6 years?

For example, assuming a 55 second lifetime ceiling that I could hit if I started at 14 and trained well and consistently, what are the chances I could hit that 55 second 400m starting at the age of 31? I definitely expect the odds to be unfavorable, but is there a decent chance I'd be at least reasonably close?

Would really appreciate any help or insight offered with those with experience

Thirty one isn't old so you should be fine.

What's the program ?

You should a 4 by 200 workout 96 hours before your race. Rest times 2:30, 5:00, 2:30.

All out. Add up your times in the 4 by 200 workout and compare to your next 4 by 200. Overall goal should be to lower that total time in the 4 by 200.

So if you ran 1:59 in the first one, try for 1:58 in the next one.

There's also a 4 by 100 workout you could do in addition and some 40 yard dash workouts as well. But try that 4 by 200.

It has to be exactly 96 hours before your race or it won't work to it's max capacity. If you do it 2 days before your 400 race, then you won't see the same results as if you did it exactly 4 days before.

Right around 96 hours is the exact time frame it takes for the natural human body to peak in strength after a tough workout.

Wait a day longer and you could run slower. Run a day earlier than 96 hours and you could run slower. You do nothing between the 4 by 200 and race but relax and stretch out a bit. Hold each stretch only 3 seconds or less.

Closer than a lot of these posts make out.

Plus, what if you'd trained hard at age 18 and tore a hamstring? For all you know, you could be faster at 34.

Also want to say: injury prevention is key. Recovery is really important. Putting together a string of consistent training sessions is way more important than an amazing one off session. If you feel twinges, back off. Look at footwear, it's important. Look at your basic conditioning. Sprinting is tough on the body, you don't just want to throw yourself into it with no background. The 27 off no training is good I think. Jogging, general conditioning and relaxed strides might be a good way to get into it. I really like the Clyde Hart 400m programmes.

Google Clyde Hart 400m training for ideas.

The question us not if he can run faster than he did. The question is how close to his all tine max potential he can get. I still say 5 seconds. It will take 2 years to get there. 54 now says 49 at 22.

My own experience, in slightly similar circumstances. I mucked around with some long jump (and the associated sprint training) when at University, but didn't run a 400m that I remember (perhaps a relay leg).

Then did nothing and started training for the 800m when I was 28. As part of that process I ran a 49.7 400m,, but didn't lift or do any hills at all. Then had some issues and ended up training for a marathon and then stopped running altogether.

Took up 800m training again when I was 36 and 37. An hour after running an 800m PB I ran a 50.93 400m. My 800m training was focused primarily on endurance and I did no weight training. I think running a sub 50 would have been likely on a 400m schedule.

Given this was possible at 37, I imagine that I was still only within a few seconds of my ultimate potential, despite spending more years in a pub or playing tennis than running.

I am starting again for the 800m now at 47 years of age. I'll do weights this time!

Good luck! Keep us posted.

Only one way to find out!

If you’ve never done it before, who knows what you might accomplish? It certainly sounds likes worthy goal, and it could be fun to see.

All the speculation in the world can’t say for certain what your potential really was or still is.