T Nation

400M times?

hey, I’ve just done a 400m run - I haven’t done many 400m runs before.

I don’t run much, just the occasional mile and a sporadic sprint session every now and the.

I just ran 400m in 70 seconds (and it felt evil) is that an ok time for an untrained person?

What time can you run the 400m in?

My PR for 400m is 57 seconds. This felt like a violent death for the last 200m.

Couldn’t hit that right now.

I believe that 60-70 seconds is considered to be a respectable time for non-competitive runners.

[quote]batman730 wrote:
My PR for 400m is 57 seconds. This felt like a violent death for the last 200m.

Couldn’t hit that right now.

I believe that 60-70 seconds is considered to be a respectable time for non-competitive runners.[/quote]

Nice, that is speedy! Tell me about the violent death lol, I was cruising along at a pretty good clip for about 250m then my legs just started moving slower and slower and I could do nothing about it haha.

Years and pounds ago I think I did 1:20, which is 80 seconds. I was likely about 225lbs…so it felt like I was going to die near the end.

I’ve gone 50 flat, but then again I’m a 145 pound distance runner converting to lifting now that my “career” (if you can call it that) is over. 70 Is definitely a solid time for an untrained individual. Getting around 60 seconds is really impressive and shows a good bit of natural speed and strength for someone not necessarily inclined to training for running events.

[quote]MightyMouse13 wrote:
I’ve gone 50 flat, but then again I’m a 145 pound distance runner converting to lifting now that my “career” (if you can call it that) is over. 70 Is definitely a solid time for an untrained individual. Getting around 60 seconds is really impressive and shows a good bit of natural speed and strength for someone not necessarily inclined to training for running events.[/quote]

well I’m ashamed to say I weigh 170 pounds so I’m not very heavy myself, think I need to run more often lol

You must have moved like shit off a shovel to get that time :wink:

as a former miler, my favorite weekly workout was, after a good warmup, consisting of 3 ez miles, and then eight 100 yard strideouts, i would do 3/4 mile on the track in 3:10-3:15. walk a lap for recovery. then do four 440’s in 54 seconds with a very slow lap jog for recovery. finish off with an ez mile jog…

never ran the open 440. just lots of them in training…i imagine lower 50’s… not sure…

56 seconds in high school

Using the pace for the 300m Cooper test from several federal law enforcement PFT, you end up with a range of 54-70 seconds for a 400m sprint. That’s spread over a 10 point scoring range. Since the range is looking at adults who aren’t track specialists, that should serve as a reasonable benchmark.

Orange County, CA recently had their high school track championship. Top 10 Boys Frosh-Soph finishers ran from about 51-53 seconds. Boys Varsity was around 49 to 51 seconds for the Top 10.

my pr is 56 seconds, only ran it competitively a few times in high school as i was a thrower

[quote]MightyMouse13 wrote:
I’ve gone 50 flat, but then again I’m a 145 pound distance runner converting to lifting now that my “career” (if you can call it that) is over. 70 Is definitely a solid time for an untrained individual. Getting around 60 seconds is really impressive and shows a good bit of natural speed and strength for someone not necessarily inclined to training for running events.[/quote]

50.0 and you are a skinny distance runner? I highly doubt that, the 400 is still a sprint, a long sprint, but a sprint nonetheless. If you are seriously a distance runner than runs 50 flat then you are either an amazing distance runner, a distance runner that is training completely wrong, or exaggerating.

As far as 400 times i would say this

45-48 = Elite track times
49-51 = Most likely would make you the fastest at your high school
52-54 = in shape sprinter, perhaps a fast distance runner could run in this range if elite
55-60 = Athlete not in track shape, hs basketball players run around this
61-65 = Good for a non athlete
66-70 = Not really in great shape, nothing terrible, just clearly need more consistent cardio
75+ = Obese

lots of skinny milers run a 50 flat quarter…

[quote]spk wrote:
lots of skinny milers run a 50 flat quarter…[/quote]

He said he was a distance runner, a miler is mid distance. And even then that is not common at all for milers unless they are very very talented. If you are a miler running a 50 sec 400, your 800 should be at 1:53 or faster, and that time is not easy, esp if you are a miler because that would mean your 800 time would get you to state without it being your main event!

^
love hearing a non runner giving info on running…

[quote]@JC_Tree_Trunks wrote:

[quote]MightyMouse13 wrote:
I’ve gone 50 flat, but then again I’m a 145 pound distance runner converting to lifting now that my “career” (if you can call it that) is over. 70 Is definitely a solid time for an untrained individual. Getting around 60 seconds is really impressive and shows a good bit of natural speed and strength for someone not necessarily inclined to training for running events.[/quote]

50.0 and you are a skinny distance runner? I highly doubt that, the 400 is still a sprint, a long sprint, but a sprint nonetheless. If you are seriously a distance runner than runs 50 flat then you are either an amazing distance runner, a distance runner that is training completely wrong, or exaggerating.

As far as 400 times i would say this

45-48 = Elite track times
49-51 = Most likely would make you the fastest at your high school
52-54 = in shape sprinter, perhaps a fast distance runner could run in this range if elite
55-60 = Athlete not in track shape, hs basketball players run around this
61-65 = Good for a non athlete
66-70 = Not really in great shape, nothing terrible, just clearly need more consistent cardio
75+ = Obese[/quote]

I ran track in high school, 49-51 would make you among the fastest in your state, not just your high school. Here’s a link which has a division 1 runner who does 53.5 (although he admits this is bad for division 1). It also has other discussion on what times people think is good. board.crossfit.com/archive/index.php/t-30557.html

I’d also be willing to be that most HS basketball players couldn’t do a 60 second 400m. Here’s a link to UNC’s mile times:


I doubt most of them could do a 60 second 400.

Finally, there are plenty of people who are in decent shape and certainly not obese who can’t do 75 seconds. Your times are all to strict IMO.

70 is good if your a 16 year old girl…

But hey, you’re out there and thats all that matters.

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]@JC_Tree_Trunks wrote:

[quote]MightyMouse13 wrote:
I’ve gone 50 flat, but then again I’m a 145 pound distance runner converting to lifting now that my “career” (if you can call it that) is over. 70 Is definitely a solid time for an untrained individual. Getting around 60 seconds is really impressive and shows a good bit of natural speed and strength for someone not necessarily inclined to training for running events.[/quote]

50.0 and you are a skinny distance runner? I highly doubt that, the 400 is still a sprint, a long sprint, but a sprint nonetheless. If you are seriously a distance runner than runs 50 flat then you are either an amazing distance runner, a distance runner that is training completely wrong, or exaggerating.

As far as 400 times i would say this

45-48 = Elite track times
49-51 = Most likely would make you the fastest at your high school
52-54 = in shape sprinter, perhaps a fast distance runner could run in this range if elite
55-60 = Athlete not in track shape, hs basketball players run around this
61-65 = Good for a non athlete
66-70 = Not really in great shape, nothing terrible, just clearly need more consistent cardio
75+ = Obese[/quote]

I ran track in high school, 49-51 would make you among the fastest in your state, not just your high school. Here’s a link which has a division 1 runner who does 53.5 (although he admits this is bad for division 1). It also has other discussion on what times people think is good. board.crossfit.com/archive/index.php/t-30557.html

I’d also be willing to be that most HS basketball players couldn’t do a 60 second 400m. Here’s a link to UNC’s mile times:


I doubt most of them could do a 60 second 400.

Finally, there are plenty of people who are in decent shape and certainly not obese who can’t do 75 seconds. Your times are all to strict IMO.[/quote]

Being a high school division 1 runner means absolutely nothing, anyone can be a D1 runner in track. Hell anyone can walk on a D1 college and run. What I am saying is based off D2 schools which is what i went to and is a good average for high schools in general. Ohio is a good track state, so maybe that is why, 47 won states.

Our 400 runners both ran 52 low auto, and they didnt get past districts. So they didnt even make regionals let alone states

[quote]spk wrote:
^
love hearing a non runner giving info on running…

[/quote]

So you think I do not run eh? Well I sprinting/jumped in hs, jumped 2 years in college and am now doing the decathlon for the University of Cincy, so I can say I have been around track and you clearly do not understand times. I have worked out with so many different types of runners and know how each race correlates, and to say skinny distance runners can run 50 flat is crazy. We had a guy who ran sub 15 in the 5k, ran a 1:55 800, and he runs 53.5 in the 400

^
he is just a slow quarter miler thats all… i ran against someone similar to the above guy you’re describing a bunch of times… craig virgin…of curse his times in the 5k were much much faster, be he was not the quickest in the quarter.

however, i have run against a ton of 4:10 milers that were sub 50 in the quarter… thats not a fast mile for being so quick in the quarter.
not everyone that runs a certain time in the quarter should be able to do a half in a certain time, or the mile in a certain time. my best mile was 4:03 and best half was 1:51, but i never once ran an open quarter…ran a 51 in the mile relay a few times, but never an open quarter…

a few training partners were 47 in the quarter, but only 1:54 in the half…
virgin was not fast , or quick in the quarter but look what he did in the 2 mile- marathon… plus a few world x-country titles…all in all, most guys i ran with and raced against were sub 50 in the quarter and a bit below 4 or right at 4 in the mile… i was the slow one at 4:03…

[quote]spk wrote:
^
he is just a slow quarter miler thats all… i ran against someone similar to the above guy you’re describing a bunch of times… craig virgin…of curse his times in the 5k were much much faster, be he was not the quickest in the quarter.

however, i have run against a ton of 4:10 milers that were sub 50 in the quarter… thats not a fast mile for being so quick in the quarter.
not everyone that runs a certain time in the quarter should be able to do a half in a certain time, or the mile in a certain time. my best mile was 4:03 and best half was 1:51, but i never once ran an open quarter…ran a 51 in the mile relay a few times, but never an open quarter…

a few training partners were 47 in the quarter, but only 1:54 in the half…
virgin was not fast , or quick in the quarter but look what he did in the 2 mile- marathon… plus a few world x-country titles…all in all, most guys i ran with and raced against were sub 50 in the quarter and a bit below 4 or right at 4 in the mile… i was the slow one at 4:03… [/quote]

Here is my point, I said that he would have to be an ELITE distance runner to be running 50 flat in a 400m. The guys you are discribing, your training partners, are very elite for high school runners, extremely elite if they are running 47 and 1:54. A typical hs 800 runner runs about 2:04 to be “good”. Usually 2:00 is a stand out runner, and 1:54 is state/school record material