[quote]simmo wrote:
70 is good if your a 16 year old girl…
But hey, you’re out there and thats all that matters.[/quote]
lol.
[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. 400m time guidelines [Archive] - CrossFit Discussion Board
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]
Most basketball players can, we took a kid off the court his senior year and ended up running 48.3. Though the 400m is 80% natural talent, mainly because genetically each body has a different way of dealing with lactic acid build up at the 250- 300m mark. Distance runners are successful because their bodys build up lactic acid much slower because they can run so far. If you think 48.3 is fast, our main 800m runner put down a 47.6 and then ran 21.4 in the 200m. Its has to do alot genetics but yes it is a test of endurance and strength.
How do I know this? Ive been running for 6 years and still haven’t broken 50 seconds. Cheers.
[quote]Jakk66 wrote:
[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. 400m time guidelines [Archive] - CrossFit Discussion Board
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]
Most basketball players can, we took a kid off the court his senior year and ended up running 48.3. Though the 400m is 80% natural talent, mainly because genetically each body has a different way of dealing with lactic acid build up at the 250- 300m mark. Distance runners are successful because their bodys build up lactic acid much slower because they can run so far. If you think 48.3 is fast, our main 800m runner put down a 47.6 and then ran 21.4 in the 200m. Its has to do alot genetics but yes it is a test of endurance and strength.
How do I know this? Ive been running for 6 years and still haven’t broken 50 seconds. Cheers.
[/quote]
How about you take an entire basketball team, have them run the 400m without training for it (as implied in the initial post) and see what happens? Taking one player and having him train specifically for the 400 means nothing in the context of this discussion.
[quote]@JC_Tree_Trunks wrote:
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
[/quote]
hahaha with you on this one JC. 50 seconds is pretty retarded fast. Also if you are UC track, I definitely saw you compete last year. I’ve got a few connections to the team and hit a lot of the meets.
To the OP, sub 70 is pretty decent for an average dude especially without training. In most cases I would consider a sub 60 to be a must for any good athlete. I could do that in high school (very barely) as a 250 lb thrower/football player, but I’ve been described as a physical specimen 
I have been doing 4 x 400m sprints, 2 times per week now for about 1 month. Started at 1:36, and nothing faster.
I can now complete all 4 sprints in under 1:15. PR being 1:12.
For being 240lbs that is not too bad I say! But, I agree that losing some extra body fat will aid in increasing that time. Which is exactly what I am doing!
[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]
Actually I’m small but was always a stronger build for a distance runner (despite being 127 at my peak race weight), and I was more of a middle distance runner than long distance anyway (800 and 1500m were my better events). Also, with the way the 400 has evolved these days, I’d probably tweak your categories a second or two faster here and there at the high end and 5+ seconds slower at the lower end of the spectrum, as it’s far more common to see several kids go sub-50 at high school AAU meets (Had 3 sub-48 at the meet I worked today actually. My manliness died a little inside watching) than it was even as recently as 5 or so years ago, and it’s also not so uncommon to see fit non-track non-elite athletes finishing the 400m in 70+ seconds.
[quote]@JC_Tree_Trunks wrote:
[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![/quote]
Although I love to dream using different split calculators, that equation is pretty far off. A 50 second 400 is very rarely going to yield you anything close to a 1:53. You may break into the 1:56-57 range if you’re lucky with that footspeed (or lack thereof depending on your standards). I think you are putting runners into very strict and largely unrealistic boxes by your classifications of what milers, 400m runners, 800m runners, etc could and should do. Runners of all distances come with very different talents within the broad scope of running. Most truly elite high school milers have sub-50 foot speed; they wouldn’t be that elite without it. You also don’t see many high school distance runners zoned into one main event either. 4x400/800/1600/x-country, 4x400/1600/3200/x-country, even 4x400/400/800/x-country, etc combos are more of the norm until kids reach college (or the absolute elite of the elites in their high school classes) when they finally specialize down to having one or two “main” events.
I’m a 36 year old male, fairly fit (6-2, 180) though the last organized team I was on was high school cross country 18+ years ago. I was never serious about that or very good at it and all I could manage then was 7 minute miles over a 5k distance. My fitness routine for the last couple decades has basically been jogging a couple miles a few times a week and lifting a couple times.
It occurred to me recently that since I play no competitive sports that I often go a year or longer without running full speed and that just seems wrong to me. I don’t want to enter middle age with all fast-twitch muscle memory complete vanished.
Anyway long story short, like the OP, I recently decided to get down to the local track and see what I’m capable of. My first few times I did 3-4 400m intervals at 75-80 second pace. Then a couple days ago I gave it about 90-95% effort and ran 400m in 1:08. I’d love to be able to crack a minute but that might be ambitious because it would require not just more endurance but actually sprinting faster too. I’m hoping that with a little repetition, my neurological system will get better at firing all my muscles in the proper sequence. I’ve also realized that I’m a serious overstrider so I’m hoping that correcting that will instantly gain me a few seconds.
I’d love to hear what other aging non-athletes like myself can manage and also what the pros think good short and long term goals might be for various distances (100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, mile.) For the mile, I’m pretty close to 6:00 right now and am thinking about a long-term goal of trying to break 5:00.
Use Clyde Hart’s technique of the 4 P(s). Push, Pace, Position, Pray. Push out for the first 50. This is for free since you are using alactic-anaerobic system, so it’s OK to push out hard. Then float (Pace) the next 150. Going into the turn at 200, pick it up (Position). Then Pray the last 100! By 320, there isn’t much you can do anyway…just keep the arm-swing going and stay relaxed. Don’t overstride try to maintain your turnover.
Using the the PPPP strategy should help you.
[quote]bruceprice wrote:
I’m a 36 year old male, fairly fit (6-2, 180) though the last organized team I was on was high school cross country 18+ years ago. I was never serious about that or very good at it and all I could manage then was 7 minute miles over a 5k distance. My fitness routine for the last couple decades has basically been jogging a couple miles a few times a week and lifting a couple times.
It occurred to me recently that since I play no competitive sports that I often go a year or longer without running full speed and that just seems wrong to me. I don’t want to enter middle age with all fast-twitch muscle memory complete vanished.
Anyway long story short, like the OP, I recently decided to get down to the local track and see what I’m capable of. My first few times I did 3-4 400m intervals at 75-80 second pace. Then a couple days ago I gave it about 90-95% effort and ran 400m in 1:08. I’d love to be able to crack a minute but that might be ambitious because it would require not just more endurance but actually sprinting faster too. I’m hoping that with a little repetition, my neurological system will get better at firing all my muscles in the proper sequence. I’ve also realized that I’m a serious overstrider so I’m hoping that correcting that will instantly gain me a few seconds.
I’d love to hear what other aging non-athletes like myself can manage and also what the pros think good short and long term goals might be for various distances (100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, mile.) For the mile, I’m pretty close to 6:00 right now and am thinking about a long-term goal of trying to break 5:00.[/quote]
The first thing you should do, before running 400m (and if time matters), is time your 100m. The reason being when you say you ran 400m at 90-95% what do you mean? 90% of what? The thing is that the slower your 100m time, the even slower your 400m time will be. And the slower your 400m time the less hard you will be working, even if you are running it as hard as you can. The reason being that the human body can only work at close to 100% for a limited amount of time. Elite 400m runners are going under 45 seconds. Jeremy Wariner’s best 400 is 43.45. His best 200 is 20.19. So going by those numbers his 200 split is about 1.5 seconds off his best 200 time. That is running close to full speed. He could not maintain that speed much further than 400m or much longer than around 45 seconds. The point being can you maintain a speed close to max for almost 70 seconds? In other words: if your best 100m is 15 seconds and you added 2 seconds (17 seconds) then multiply by 4 you get 68 seconds. The problem is, if you run that fast (or slow) for 100m can you maintain that pace, or something close to it, for 68 seconds? That would take a very high level of endurance. Another way to look at it is the 800m. The world record holder ran it in around 101 seconds. His best 400m is 45.5. That means is avg 400m split is 50.5 or 5 seconds off his best 400. This means that he can’t maintain his best 400m pace for 800m which gets back to my point that the human body can only run at full speed, or very close to it, for a limited amount of time not distance. So if your best 100m is 15 seconds then you should shoot for trying to maintain a 16-17 100m time for around 45 seconds. The amount of time you run will drop but you will be working harder as the intensity will be higher. If you take that approach your actual 400m should drop quicker than if you focus on running 400m in your workouts. So take your best 100m time and add a second or two and you’ll have your ideal 400m pace. I would say to focus on running 200m using that pace as a guide. Start out with multiple 200s at a pace that is your best 100 plus 5-6 seconds (maybe more) and lower the time every few workouts if you can. What I’m trying to say is that if your 100m time is slow (relatively) your best 400m will be even slower (relatively) because it will mean you will have to run longer and if you have to run longer you can’t work as hard.
An incorrect idea that many have is that middle distance and long distance runners are slow. Yes, relative to Usain Bolt they are slow but they can sprint faster than most people. In other words: an elite miler, for example, can also sprint very fast. They can go well under 50 seconds for a 400m. If you look at the avg 400m split over the mile they are running around 10 seconds slower than their best 400m time so again, the longer the time they run the less hard they can work. Look at your best 400 right now and your best mile: you are running over 22 seconds off your best 400, not 10 seconds. This means you are not running as hard as the best milers but at the same time if your best mile is around 6 minutes you couldn’t as again, the human body cannot maintain that pace for 6 minutes.
My point is that people often ask what they should run 400m in or if their 400m time is good. If you can run 100m in 12 seconds then a 60 second 400m is poor. If you can run 100m in 15 seconds then a 65 second 400m would be phenomenal as you are maintaining a fast pace (relative to yourself) for a long period of time.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]bruceprice wrote:
I’m a 36 year old male, fairly fit (6-2, 180) though the last organized team I was on was high school cross country 18+ years ago. I was never serious about that or very good at it and all I could manage then was 7 minute miles over a 5k distance. My fitness routine for the last couple decades has basically been jogging a couple miles a few times a week and lifting a couple times.
It occurred to me recently that since I play no competitive sports that I often go a year or longer without running full speed and that just seems wrong to me. I don’t want to enter middle age with all fast-twitch muscle memory complete vanished.
Anyway long story short, like the OP, I recently decided to get down to the local track and see what I’m capable of. My first few times I did 3-4 400m intervals at 75-80 second pace. Then a couple days ago I gave it about 90-95% effort and ran 400m in 1:08. I’d love to be able to crack a minute but that might be ambitious because it would require not just more endurance but actually sprinting faster too. I’m hoping that with a little repetition, my neurological system will get better at firing all my muscles in the proper sequence. I’ve also realized that I’m a serious overstrider so I’m hoping that correcting that will instantly gain me a few seconds.
I’d love to hear what other aging non-athletes like myself can manage and also what the pros think good short and long term goals might be for various distances (100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, mile.) For the mile, I’m pretty close to 6:00 right now and am thinking about a long-term goal of trying to break 5:00.[/quote]
The first thing you should do, before running 400m (and if time matters), is time your 100m. The reason being when you say you ran 400m at 90-95% what do you mean? 90% of what? The thing is that the slower your 100m time, the even slower your 400m time will be. And the slower your 400m time the less hard you will be working, even if you are running it as hard as you can. The reason being that the human body can only work at close to 100% for a limited amount of time. Elite 400m runners are going under 45 seconds. Jeremy Wariner’s best 400 is 43.45. His best 200 is 20.19. So going by those numbers his 200 split is about 1.5 seconds off his best 200 time. That is running close to full speed. He could not maintain that speed much further than 400m or much longer than around 45 seconds. The point being can you maintain a speed close to max for almost 70 seconds? In other words: if your best 100m is 15 seconds and you added 2 seconds (17 seconds) then multiply by 4 you get 68 seconds. The problem is, if you run that fast (or slow) for 100m can you maintain that pace, or something close to it, for 68 seconds? That would take a very high level of endurance. Another way to look at it is the 800m. The world record holder ran it in around 101 seconds. His best 400m is 45.5. That means is avg 400m split is 50.5 or 5 seconds off his best 400. This means that he can’t maintain his best 400m pace for 800m which gets back to my point that the human body can only run at full speed, or very close to it, for a limited amount of time not distance. So if your best 100m is 15 seconds then you should shoot for trying to maintain a 16-17 100m time for around 45 seconds. The amount of time you run will drop but you will be working harder as the intensity will be higher. If you take that approach your actual 400m should drop quicker than if you focus on running 400m in your workouts. So take your best 100m time and add a second or two and you’ll have your ideal 400m pace. I would say to focus on running 200m using that pace as a guide. Start out with multiple 200s at a pace that is your best 100 plus 5-6 seconds (maybe more) and lower the time every few workouts if you can. What I’m trying to say is that if your 100m time is slow (relatively) your best 400m will be even slower (relatively) because it will mean you will have to run longer and if you have to run longer you can’t work as hard.
An incorrect idea that many have is that middle distance and long distance runners are slow. Yes, relative to Usain Bolt they are slow but they can sprint faster than most people. In other words: an elite miler, for example, can also sprint very fast. They can go well under 50 seconds for a 400m. If you look at the avg 400m split over the mile they are running around 10 seconds slower than their best 400m time so again, the longer the time they run the less hard they can work. Look at your best 400 right now and your best mile: you are running over 22 seconds off your best 400, not 10 seconds. This means you are not running as hard as the best milers but at the same time if your best mile is around 6 minutes you couldn’t as again, the human body cannot maintain that pace for 6 minutes.
My point is that people often ask what they should run 400m in or if their 400m time is good. If you can run 100m in 12 seconds then a 60 second 400m is poor. If you can run 100m in 15 seconds then a 65 second 400m would be phenomenal as you are maintaining a fast pace (relative to yourself) for a long period of time. [/quote]
Great explanation, zecarlo. This makes a lot of sense.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The first thing you should do, before running 400m (and if time matters), is time your 100m. The reason being when you say you ran 400m at 90-95% what do you mean? 90% of what? The thing is that the slower your 100m time, the even slower your 400m time will be. And the slower your 400m time the less hard you will be working, even if you are running it as hard as you can. The reason being that the human body can only work at close to 100% for a limited amount of time. Elite 400m runners are going under 45 seconds. Jeremy Wariner’s best 400 is 43.45. His best 200 is 20.19. So going by those numbers his 200 split is about 1.5 seconds off his best 200 time. That is running close to full speed. He could not maintain that speed much further than 400m or much longer than around 45 seconds. The point being can you maintain a speed close to max for almost 70 seconds? In other words: if your best 100m is 15 seconds and you added 2 seconds (17 seconds) then multiply by 4 you get 68 seconds. The problem is, if you run that fast (or slow) for 100m can you maintain that pace, or something close to it, for 68 seconds? That would take a very high level of endurance. Another way to look at it is the 800m. The world record holder ran it in around 101 seconds. His best 400m is 45.5. That means is avg 400m split is 50.5 or 5 seconds off his best 400. This means that he can’t maintain his best 400m pace for 800m which gets back to my point that the human body can only run at full speed, or very close to it, for a limited amount of time not distance. So if your best 100m is 15 seconds then you should shoot for trying to maintain a 16-17 100m time for around 45 seconds. The amount of time you run will drop but you will be working harder as the intensity will be higher. If you take that approach your actual 400m should drop quicker than if you focus on running 400m in your workouts. So take your best 100m time and add a second or two and you’ll have your ideal 400m pace. I would say to focus on running 200m using that pace as a guide. Start out with multiple 200s at a pace that is your best 100 plus 5-6 seconds (maybe more) and lower the time every few workouts if you can. What I’m trying to say is that if your 100m time is slow (relatively) your best 400m will be even slower (relatively) because it will mean you will have to run longer and if you have to run longer you can’t work as hard.
An incorrect idea that many have is that middle distance and long distance runners are slow. Yes, relative to Usain Bolt they are slow but they can sprint faster than most people. In other words: an elite miler, for example, can also sprint very fast. They can go well under 50 seconds for a 400m. If you look at the avg 400m split over the mile they are running around 10 seconds slower than their best 400m time so again, the longer the time they run the less hard they can work. Look at your best 400 right now and your best mile: you are running over 22 seconds off your best 400, not 10 seconds. This means you are not running as hard as the best milers but at the same time if your best mile is around 6 minutes you couldn’t as again, the human body cannot maintain that pace for 6 minutes.
My point is that people often ask what they should run 400m in or if their 400m time is good. If you can run 100m in 12 seconds then a 60 second 400m is poor. If you can run 100m in 15 seconds then a 65 second 400m would be phenomenal as you are maintaining a fast pace (relative to yourself) for a long period of time. [/quote]
Thanks Zecarlo! Great post.
I’ve actually been slowly hobbling towards several of your insights.
First off, watching the Olympics- you’re completely right- a 5’-10" 130lb elite 5000m runner may not be as fast as Usain Bolt but he’s almost definitely going to have a sub 12sec 100m time which is probably faster than 99%+ of the population, myself included. And they make a sub-60sec lap look so easy!
Years ago, I timed myself several times at 13sec in the 100m. Like you pointed out, Michael Johnson and Jeremy Wariner, arguable the two best 400m runners ever ran the 100m in ~10.1 and ~10.2 and the 400m in 43.18 and 43.45 so they’re adding about 3sec to their 100m pace. If I’m running a 14-15sec 100m these days then I’m adding 8-12sec to that pace which is pretty sorry speed endurance… and to be honest I can feel it. Before I even start to lose my wind, my legs feel like jelly, I can’t lift my knees high anymore, and my form generally deteriorates.
I actually did a few workouts where I ran a series of 200m at 34 second pace (half my recent best 400m) and while it wasn’t too difficult, I still felt my form falling apart on the home stretch. And when I ran a couple 31 sec 200m’s recently, I really fell apart at the end.
I’ve tried to time myself in the 100m but twice now when I’ve tried to push my effort closer to 100% and go sub-15sec, I’ve pulled my hamstring, the first time badly enough that I was limping for two weeks. I’ve realized that my hamstrings are extremely tight (I can barely touch my toes) so I’ve been working on that.
I think the moral of the story is that I’m old and running a sub 60sec 400m is not going to happen this month and if I push it too quickly, I’m going to end up both injured and discouraged. I’m pretty certain I’m capable but it’s going to require starting slower than I’m capable of and really focusing on my form and then gradually going faster as my muscles learn to fire more quickly and in a coordinated manner. I think my strategy should be to do progressively faster 100s and 200s for speed work and also run longer intervals to make sure my hip flexors and hams/glutes don’t fatigue. I’d like to think running a 13sec 100 and 58sec 400m (13x4 +6) is a very reasonable goal if I take my time and stick with it. If I’m only capable of a 14sec 100m at my advancing age then a 62sec 400m is probably my ceiling. Or maybe somehow, in spite of my age, because I’ve never worked on my speed before and because I’m doing squats and lunges more seriously than ever and introducing myself to new lifts like glute-ham raises, back extensions, hip thrusts, deadlifts, and hip flexor work, maybe I’ll manage a 12sec 100m and a 54sec 400m… but that’s probably a bit optimistic.
You said your best 400m right now is 68 seconds. Your best mile is almost 6 minutes. A 6 minute mile is 90 second per 400 pace. The dropoff is over 20 seconds. The best milers have a dropoff of around 10 seconds. To run a 5 minute mile with best 400 of 68 seconds would mean a dropoff of 7 seconds (75 second quarters). That’s a lower dropoff than the best milers in the world. The best runners have not only good speed but a low dropoff. It’s why when someone said that a high school kid with a 50 second 400 should run 800 in 1:53 they were wrong. A HS kid won’t be strong enough to work that hard for that long. Of course you have exceptions like Jim Ryun but he wasn’t an elite HS runner but a freak of nature.
You aren’t an elite runner. You can’t expect to run your mile splits 10 seconds faster than your best 400. I ran the mile in HS and I had a 15 second difference between my best 400 and my avg 400 split times. And, to make things worse, the slower your 400 the greater the difference will be because the duration will be longer. The record holder in the 800 has an avg 400m split that is only 5 seconds slower than his best 400. He can maintain that pace because he is only running for a minute and 40 seconds. The longer you have to work, the lower the intensity (in this case measured by speed) you can work at.
So in order to run a 5 minute mile you need to avg 75 second 400m splits. If you have a 15 second difference between your best 400 (the best milers have 10) that would mean a 60 second 400. Right now you have around 20 seconds. Of course these “formulas” are not perfect. I’m just trying to give you an idea of what it would take to run a 5 minute mile. I also think people need to understand what exactly they are training when they do sprints. If they are doing 400m runs over 60 seconds they are probably not running hard enough to call it a sprint. The best 400m runners can sprint for 45 seconds or less. If they have to run longer they are going to have to slow down (lower the intensity). There’s a reason why the 800m is considered a middle distance event and not a sprint. Therefore, if you want to include some longer sprints you shouldn’t run for longer than 45 seconds. You’ll be able to run faster (work harder, higher intensity) doing that. If you just want to get into shape then it doesn’t matter if you run “slow” 400m times. The point being there is a difference between sprint training/speed work and running for general conditioning.
I’m not a track coach but I think if you need to lower both your mile and 400m time you should work on one instead of both. When I ran track we did a lot of road work, logging lots of miles per week (for HS kids), before we started doing speed work. I would say you need to be able to run 4-5 miles at around 7 minute pace if you want to break 5 minutes for one mile. Once you can do that then hit the track and do lots of 400m runs. You base how fast you run the 400s on your goal mile time splits. Right now you run a 68 second best and your ideal mile pace is 75 seconds. You probably couldn’t do 10 400s at that pace and make it through, right now, but if you do a couple of months of long runs (45 minutes to an hour) and get down to around 7 minute per mile pace you should find getting your 400m times when doing speed work closer to your goal splits a lot easier and faster. You don’t need to do every run at 7 minute pace. Some days run 5-6 miles (or an hour) at an easy pace. Other days run a little less far (or for less time) at 7 minute pace. When I ran a 4:30 mile I was doing 6 miles at 6 minute pace on harder runs (called tempo runs).
^^^Thanks Zecarlo. That helps me see it more clearly, especially the concept of “the slower you are, the higher your differential” because of the duration being longer.
Considering what you’ve said, I think if right now, I worked up to running 5 miles at 7min pace, I could probably bring my mile down to 5:40 but my lack of speed would limit me from getting any faster than that. (I figure that my better wind through distance training would bring my 400m down to 65sec without any speed work, then add 20sec to that x4 and you get 5:40.)
Doing speed work is a fun change of pace for me and I think I’ll focus on that first before worrying about the mile. (Also I’m lifting now to gain muscle and will try to get cut later which would mesh well with doing speed rather than distance work first.) You seem to be saying that 200m and 300m intervals are the longest I should be doing if I want to improve my speed which makes sense so I’ll work on that (as well as 100s) more than on 400s. If I can get my 100m back down to 13sec than my 400m should automatically be faster without me having focused on it.
And then when I start getting diminishing returns on the speed work, I can shift my attention towards the mile by doing long runs and eventually start shifting my attention to 400m intervals. If my better speed has brought my 400m potential down to just under 60sec then I should have the potential, after my distance work, to maybe break a 5min mile.
Thanks again- as long as I’ve understood you correctly, I think I now have a plan that’s less likely to leave me discouraged. The point of all this, by the way, is to improve my general conditioning and look and feel better. I find that if I give myself a few goals that are fun to go after, I’ll be much more likely to have intense workouts rather than just go through the motions.
Like I said, I’m not a track coach (I had a track coach) so maybe what I’ve said is not 100% accurate but I think the concepts are correct.I just read about people saying they are running sprints for conditioning (doing HIIT vs LSD) then they post 400m times that are well over a minute. If you are working at close to your max then there is no way you could run that long so in reality you aren’t working as intensely as you think. It’s still a good workout but it’s not sprinting but rather, running hard.
I think you can take a cue from elite sprinters: if you look at times from 100-400 they show they actually run a faster speed in the 200 vs the 100. Michael Johnson never broke 10 seconds in the 100 but broke 20 in the 200. In the 400 however, you notice they lose speed. You can’t double their 200 time and get their 400 time. That says to me the human body, a very well trained and genetically freakish human body, can work at max capacity (in sprinting at least) for not much more than 20 seconds. So when I read people saying they sprint for a minute or more I have my doubts.
A good distance for working on 400m times is 200m. Do 10 at a hard pace, it’s not all out. Actual 400 runners will do them at around 30 seconds at first to give you a number to work with. Rest in between will be 2 minutes or more. As you get in better shape you can bring the rest down. This is more for endurance than speed. Speed workouts would be shorter distances, like 100-300m but sometimes they can be 400 or a little more.
These workouts take a while because you need to take a long rest in between (definitely over 5 minutes) because you want each one to be run perfectly and at top speed relative to the distance. You could take one day a week to do a nice 30-45 minute run.
I think at your age you could still bring your 400m time significantly unless you really lack foot speed. They say the formula is to double your 200m time and add 3 or 4 seconds if you want to see a time you should run. That’s for actual competitive runners so I don’t know if it’s applicable to someone who is training for personal reasons.
I actually have a goal of breaking 60 seconds. I haven’t timed myself in a long time so I don’t know what I can run at the moment. What I’m doing is after a 10 minute jog for a warm-up is 4-5 200m runs at a hard pace with a minute to 2 minutes rest in between. I don’t know how fast I’m running them because I don’t want to worry about times yet. I just want to break my body in so to speak. I then do some shorter sprints, 5-10 75m at almost full speed (you have to be careful at first because you don’t want to pull a hamstring) and the rest is the time it takes me to walk back.
This isn’t for speed but more for speed endurance. If I wanted to work on speed I would run harder and rest longer. Sometimes I’ll throw in some very short, 30-40m sprints. The rest is again, the time it takes me to walk back. What I’m doing is preparing myself for more specific and intense training. Once I feel ready then I’ll do things like 10x200 tempo sprints and for speed I’ll do those runs faster and with more rest. I won’t do them on the same days either.
Right now I sort of do a mix in my workouts but it’s only to get my body used to doing these types of workouts again. I do running workouts 3 times a week. I don’t think I need to do more than that because I’m not exactly a novice and I am not starting from a point of being out of shape. Plus, since I lift and do other things (and I’m older) I need the recovery. Also, since speed is something that is very hard to develop through training (sprinters are born) I am probably going to focus a lot on the 10x200 type of workouts.
In other words: you can make dramatic improvements in endurance but not in speed. Adding a half second to my 100m time won’t help me that much. Of course if you are running in the Olympics a half second is significant. What I will be looking at to gauge if I can break 60 seconds is if I can do a 10x200 workout with 200 times of 28 seconds. If I can keep most of them at that time and the rest short I’ll be able to break a minute. If I can’t even do one 200m at 28 seconds then I’m too slow to even have a chance.
I think you can find MJ’s 400m workout online somewhere. I think I saw it before and he did a lot of 200m runs. Jeremy Wariner’s might be available as well. They have the same coach.
Google Clyde Hart.
build your foundation first… ez miles on the grass or trails…then slowly eaze into the longer intervals, then the shoter ones… gotta go slow at first to be faster later… all common sense here…
At the time I was primarily powerlifting (I Olympic lift now), I ran a 300m Law Enforcement PFT after the 1 1/2 mile run at 38 seconds. This was in 40$ Asics shoes and no running (besides 1 1/2 Air Force run).
I ran a 63 on the 400m my senior year of high school for a PE class. Ran track in middle school. I’m around 170lbs as well.