Sprinting - 400metres/60 secs
Discussion
What are you running it in now?
60 secs is a good time and faster than what 95% of the population could achieve no matter what their age. I trained very hard to break 60 secs in my early 40s but never quite managed it but I never had any natural sprinting talent whatsoever. I used plyometrics, weights, various drills and lots of fast 100,200,300,400 efforts
Get some proper coaching if you can. Breaking the distance the down into phases and maintaining form throughout those phases will be key I feel.
60 secs is a good time and faster than what 95% of the population could achieve no matter what their age. I trained very hard to break 60 secs in my early 40s but never quite managed it but I never had any natural sprinting talent whatsoever. I used plyometrics, weights, various drills and lots of fast 100,200,300,400 efforts
Get some proper coaching if you can. Breaking the distance the down into phases and maintaining form throughout those phases will be key I feel.
Can you do 100 in 15, 200 in 30, 300 in 45?
That might tell you if you are generally too slow, or fading
There are many distance.specific traing plans, this is one of the first on google, but they will all be broadly the same
https://www.momentumsports.co.uk/Tt400sSpeed.asp
That might tell you if you are generally too slow, or fading
There are many distance.specific traing plans, this is one of the first on google, but they will all be broadly the same
https://www.momentumsports.co.uk/Tt400sSpeed.asp
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/speedendurance.com/...
At my running club, an ex track runner can run his age over 400m
Doable in 50s!
At my running club, an ex track runner can run his age over 400m
Doable in 50s!
If you're running 68, you won't run 60 off distance running training, unless you're young and undertrained and have a lot of untapped potential. Ie if you're running an 18 min 5k and you can get down to 15 mins, you might then break 60. But I trained with lots of 15 min 5k runners that couldn't break 60.
If that's not you, you'll not get from 68 to 60 unless you train with a sprint squad for a few years and work on your base speed. You need to be running stuff like 10x 100m off 5 minutes in 15s at a minimum, then scaling that up to 200, then 300, then 400. Fundamentally your 400 time comes from your basic speed much more than endurance.
Some people just don't have the fast twitch muscles to get there though. If you don't have the natural ability, it's a lot to overcome through training. If you race and tend to lose sprint finishes, I'd not expect to be able to make that jump, certainly not if you're maintaining normal distance training rather than training only for 400.
I trained for longer distance stuff, but could always knock out a 58 at the end of a 20 x 400 session my best was around 52. Most of the people running similar times for the first 19 x 400 would be 5 to 10s slower on the last rep and wouldn't get under 60 in a one-off race, it's one of those things you can either do or you can't. But 60 isn't so fast that you couldn't get there if you train only for that and train properly.
If that's not you, you'll not get from 68 to 60 unless you train with a sprint squad for a few years and work on your base speed. You need to be running stuff like 10x 100m off 5 minutes in 15s at a minimum, then scaling that up to 200, then 300, then 400. Fundamentally your 400 time comes from your basic speed much more than endurance.
Some people just don't have the fast twitch muscles to get there though. If you don't have the natural ability, it's a lot to overcome through training. If you race and tend to lose sprint finishes, I'd not expect to be able to make that jump, certainly not if you're maintaining normal distance training rather than training only for 400.
I trained for longer distance stuff, but could always knock out a 58 at the end of a 20 x 400 session my best was around 52. Most of the people running similar times for the first 19 x 400 would be 5 to 10s slower on the last rep and wouldn't get under 60 in a one-off race, it's one of those things you can either do or you can't. But 60 isn't so fast that you couldn't get there if you train only for that and train properly.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Work harder you big baby, that’s a start 
I’m at the opposite end of the spectrum, training for 100 milers/300 mile multi-dayers, and I’ve had a lot of immediate progress from working with a trainer specifically for it. I’d suggest you need to spend a few quid and get some specific training, with someone who knows what they’re doing.
If you're doing 68, then 400 isnt going to be a sprint, very few (read no one) can sprint 400m.
It has to be paced to save enough energy for the end of the race, the first 100 should be focussed on a good start, snd settling into a good pace, the second hundred should be a good steady stride at 80%, third 100 focussed on holding that 80% and the final hundred is let it all hang out, and give it everything.
If you do it the other way round youre going to die in the final straight, and bring up your guts!
All the above though, does require a good sprint and solid basic speed, unless you can do a fast 100m you're never going to do it, and similarly if you're fastest 200 is 30 seconds you're still doomed.
Why does it matter to you?
It has to be paced to save enough energy for the end of the race, the first 100 should be focussed on a good start, snd settling into a good pace, the second hundred should be a good steady stride at 80%, third 100 focussed on holding that 80% and the final hundred is let it all hang out, and give it everything.
If you do it the other way round youre going to die in the final straight, and bring up your guts!
All the above though, does require a good sprint and solid basic speed, unless you can do a fast 100m you're never going to do it, and similarly if you're fastest 200 is 30 seconds you're still doomed.
Why does it matter to you?
paulrockliffe said:
If you're running 68, you won't run 60 off distance running training, unless you're young and undertrained and have a lot of untapped potential. Ie if you're running an 18 min 5k and you can get down to 15 mins, you might then break 60. But I trained with lots of 15 min 5k runners that couldn't break 60.
If that's not you, you'll not get from 68 to 60 unless you train with a sprint squad for a few years and work on your base speed. You need to be running stuff like 10x 100m off 5 minutes in 15s at a minimum, then scaling that up to 200, then 300, then 400. Fundamentally your 400 time comes from your basic speed much more than endurance.
Some people just don't have the fast twitch muscles to get there though. If you don't have the natural ability, it's a lot to overcome through training. If you race and tend to lose sprint finishes, I'd not expect to be able to make that jump, certainly not if you're maintaining normal distance training rather than training only for 400.
I trained for longer distance stuff, but could always knock out a 58 at the end of a 20 x 400 session my best was around 52. Most of the people running similar times for the first 19 x 400 would be 5 to 10s slower on the last rep and wouldn't get under 60 in a one-off race, it's one of those things you can either do or you can't. But 60 isn't so fast that you couldn't get there if you train only for that and train properly.
A great post... thanks. A great topic too.If that's not you, you'll not get from 68 to 60 unless you train with a sprint squad for a few years and work on your base speed. You need to be running stuff like 10x 100m off 5 minutes in 15s at a minimum, then scaling that up to 200, then 300, then 400. Fundamentally your 400 time comes from your basic speed much more than endurance.
Some people just don't have the fast twitch muscles to get there though. If you don't have the natural ability, it's a lot to overcome through training. If you race and tend to lose sprint finishes, I'd not expect to be able to make that jump, certainly not if you're maintaining normal distance training rather than training only for 400.
I trained for longer distance stuff, but could always knock out a 58 at the end of a 20 x 400 session my best was around 52. Most of the people running similar times for the first 19 x 400 would be 5 to 10s slower on the last rep and wouldn't get under 60 in a one-off race, it's one of those things you can either do or you can't. But 60 isn't so fast that you couldn't get there if you train only for that and train properly.
At 46 years old, I’m dreaming/planning to start 100/200/400/800m training and competition at the end of next summer. Why? Because the endurance stuff I’ve been doing for the past 6 years is starting to get on my nerves... I do ok in competition, I have won my age class in local road races a few times, but the racing is an extremely unpleasant combination of boredom and pain. The only bit I enjoy is the last 250m, where I am quite a lot faster than those around me.
I’m a bit nervous that my old body won’t be able to put up with the snappy high forces required though... aging is crap.
Kawasicki said:
A great post... thanks. A great topic too.
At 46 years old, I’m dreaming/planning to start 100/200/400/800m training and competition at the end of next summer. Why? Because the endurance stuff I’ve been doing for the past 6 years is starting to get on my nerves... I do ok in competition, I have won my age class in local road races a few times, but the racing is an extremely unpleasant combination of boredom and pain. The only bit I enjoy is the last 250m, where I am quite a lot faster than those around me.
I’m a bit nervous that my old body won’t be able to put up with the snappy high forces required though... aging is crap.
Sounds like you know what you're doing, I was going to say you're mad moving to sprinting at your age as it's a recipe for injuries, but it sounds like you know that already. Sprinters have a reputation for standing around doing nothing, spending far too much time getting massages and in the gym, but success is much more dependent on not getting injured, so that's why really. Just join a proper sprint group with a proper coach as you'll really benefit from their experience. I could tell you roughly what to do to get fast, but I couldn't tell you how to avoid injuries, that's where a really good coach will keep you straight.At 46 years old, I’m dreaming/planning to start 100/200/400/800m training and competition at the end of next summer. Why? Because the endurance stuff I’ve been doing for the past 6 years is starting to get on my nerves... I do ok in competition, I have won my age class in local road races a few times, but the racing is an extremely unpleasant combination of boredom and pain. The only bit I enjoy is the last 250m, where I am quite a lot faster than those around me.
I’m a bit nervous that my old body won’t be able to put up with the snappy high forces required though... aging is crap.
400 is the hardest event I reckon, if you do it properly at least, other events are either pure sprint, or endurance with a how fast can you go bit at the end. If you are in good shape and quick, there's no easy bit at the start, the distance is beyond what you can sprint, but you have to go anaerobic off the line and endure, which is hell. 52 seconds is 13 seconds per 100m, that's a slow 400 time, but 13s is anaerobic for anyone. A good club runner would be in the 46-48s range, so under 12s per 100m, properly anaerobic.
I was never that good at 400 and never trained for it, but I trained at the same track as one of the best 400 squads in the country a decade or so ago, what they did on the track was much tougher than the shorter stuff and the longer stuff, though obviously all events require tough training to be good at them in different ways.
I disagree without you on the longer races though, although you can't beat an awesome finish, an awesome finish off a tough pace is another level. Especially if you build to a full sprint over a quick last mile. It's like the feeling you have over a minute, but dragged out over 5.
When I used to run 400m the key for me was to build speed or at least increase effort. You cannot go flat out for 400m so I would start gently probably artificially slow then steadily increase effort until I was flat out over the last 50m. This always gave me my best results with best around 55secs
You can experiment with where, when and by how much you increase effort.
A good friend of mine who was always much quicker than me anyway (I blame genetics) would do the opposite and go off really quickly then he would be gassed out and slowing massively as he approached the finish. I would be gaining rapidly but didn’t usually catch him.
For training I found general fitness and loads of short sprints helped me. I was awful over long distance so always avoided it.
At 54 I can still sprint now just not very quickly!
You can experiment with where, when and by how much you increase effort.
A good friend of mine who was always much quicker than me anyway (I blame genetics) would do the opposite and go off really quickly then he would be gassed out and slowing massively as he approached the finish. I would be gaining rapidly but didn’t usually catch him.
For training I found general fitness and loads of short sprints helped me. I was awful over long distance so always avoided it.
At 54 I can still sprint now just not very quickly!
Was able to break 60” by a margin (but definitely not gifted)...when much younger and life revolved around all different types of other physical activity, so maintained natural a high level of fitness without trying too much. A sub 60” 400 was a given; how fast I could go and who I could beat were the challenges.
I could never do it now I feel, even with some focussed training, as that training alone wouldn’t be enough in what is now a fairly sedentary and busy lifestyle doing other things.
Good on you for trying though; you’ll reap health and well being rewards regardless of your speed (assuming you don’t overdo it and pick up any injuries).
I could never do it now I feel, even with some focussed training, as that training alone wouldn’t be enough in what is now a fairly sedentary and busy lifestyle doing other things.
Good on you for trying though; you’ll reap health and well being rewards regardless of your speed (assuming you don’t overdo it and pick up any injuries).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That wasnt meant to be a dig, so sorry if it came off that way. I actually meant was that the goal or a stepping stone to something else. My sisters were successful athletes in the 80s/90s, so spent huge amounts of time in my teens and early 20s with them training, so have seen the effort required to get anywhere near decent.
8 seconds is a huge improvement on a 400, and as you're not a spring chicken (neither am I) youre going to find it close to impossible to improve by that amount, and every year it's going to get harder.
Good luck though and its always good to have a target, but maybe set a closer one?
It's been a long time since I ran on the track but 400/800 was my area. Relays are fun, I tended to run better as part of team over that distance and managed my only 49. something time in one. Couldn't get under 50 otherwise. Mostly 800m runners ran to 1500 and the 200m ones tried not to have do 400m. They didn't like it!
400 is not a sprint, don't try. Speed endurance at best/worst. Bluntly I recall trying to get out fast but not sprinting per se, stand up, relax and maintain cadence and stride length to 200m, starting to pick up the pace to 300m and then trying your absolute damnedest not to lose your stride and cadence in the last 100. It was not about trying to sprint harder in the last 100, if you can do that you haven't tried hard enough in the first 300, but trying not to go slower.
If you watch the pros race those who seem to come through on a charge off the last bend aren't going faster, its the others not being able to maintain pace and going slower.
You need the leg speed to be able to do it well but it isn't sprinting.
400 is not a sprint, don't try. Speed endurance at best/worst. Bluntly I recall trying to get out fast but not sprinting per se, stand up, relax and maintain cadence and stride length to 200m, starting to pick up the pace to 300m and then trying your absolute damnedest not to lose your stride and cadence in the last 100. It was not about trying to sprint harder in the last 100, if you can do that you haven't tried hard enough in the first 300, but trying not to go slower.
If you watch the pros race those who seem to come through on a charge off the last bend aren't going faster, its the others not being able to maintain pace and going slower.
You need the leg speed to be able to do it well but it isn't sprinting.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff