Forums >General Running>Average 400 meter time for adult
He had a timing system called "the beeper" wired in to Baylor University track's loudspeakers. It would sound every few seconds so he would know if he was on his target pace for the session. Before the 1996 Olympics he got a bit ahead of the beeper and ran 21.4, 21.2 and 20.1, with 200m recoveries, in normal running shoes.
He had a timing system called "the beeper" wired in to Baylor University track's loudspeakers.
It would sound every few seconds so he would know if he was on his target pace for the session.
Before the 1996 Olympics he got a bit ahead of the beeper and ran 21.4, 21.2 and 20.1, with 200m recoveries, in normal running shoes.
For track 5,000 races I use my Garmin in a way that does the same thing. If I think I can run 88 sec per 400 I set my watch to 'beep' every 88 seconds. When I'm approaching the 5,000 start line (end of the backstretch) I listen for when the beep occurs - at the line, ahead of it, or behind it. That way I never have to look at my watch to know whether I'm hitting the splits, helps me focus. Not useful for a 400 race though!
It guess it could be useful for reviewing your splits afterwards.
If I wanted to run 67 seconds, for instance, with splits of 16.5, 17, 17 , 15.5 I could set my watch to 16.5 second and work out where I should have been on the track at each point e.g.
Certified Running CoachCrocked since 2013
Hey Ted, this is a calculator I have found to be fairly useful for 400m stuff. It gives some estimates splits to shoot for, and also predicts your 400m time from your 100m time....which might help you know if you are going out way to easy/fast in the 400
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/sprints/pred400.htm
Based off that, if you are running 400m in 88, your 100m sprint speed is probably around 20s. If it's significantly faster, your under-performing in 400.
They say golf is like life, but don't believe them. Golf is more complicated than that. "If I am still standing at the end of the race, hit me with a Board and knock me down, because that means I didn't run hard enough" If a lot of people gripped a knife and fork the way they do a golf club, they'd starve to death. "Don't fear moving slowly forward...fear standing still."
splits of 16.5, 17, 17 , 15.5
If you're trying to pr at 400m like that, it won't happen, no sir, go home, try again, if you're running a whole 1s faster the last 100m than any other "split", you're not running to your 400 potential.
Know thyself.
Thanks. I'll accept your advice.
How about 11.10, 10.12, 10.44, 11.52?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2W_T77vwfQ
It seems that I am averaging around 88 to 90 seconds now. Weather was nice today, and I was able to stretch, prepare myself at least 20 minutes before my sprint. Clocked it at 89 seconds.
You said you are in good shape. You have no fat that you want to get rid of?
Me, when I ran 85s a few weeks ago, I said "crap, this fat has got to go." So I'm just back to my regular dieting and 5k type running. When I lose another 5 pounds I'll go back on the track. Then will have to lose another 5, and so on.
But that's my story, and yours might be different. If you truly are in good shape and don't have extra fat to lose, then what? Would be interesting to know your 100 time. My guess (just a guess) is if you multiply your 100m time x 4, you will arrive at something a lot faster than 88s. If so, what is causing you to slow down? Getting tired, of course. And what causes that? In my case, I hope it is weight more than anything else
Well I am 6'0 ft tall and weigh 177 lbs, maybe I could lose a few more pounds. Maybe it is because I do not have running experience. As I stated before, I never ran track or run in any type of event. I often played sports such as Football and Basketball. That is when I run.
Was only asking as part of a brain teaser for us all to help you figure this out.
I wonder how the experience figures in. You've run in sports, but not track. You don't have extra weight. You haven't said your 100m time, but is probably under 22s.
Experience perhaps translates to confidence, of knowing how hard to you can push yourself down that last 100m of the 400m. But I bet exhaustion is more of a factor. Running a few miles a day, about 4 days a week, regularly, should help your endurance, I would think. Over time, just getting your body more used to running will help.
Not sure if anyone has really questioned your goal of the 400m. I'm not sure if that is the distance you want to run in order to achieve other goals of just being faster in basketball, for example. How far is it down the court? Are you fast running down the court, but then tire as you run back and forth a few times? If you are initially fast, and then tire and slow, then perhaps the 400m is a good choice to work on. That brings us to just plain old conditioning, a coach's justification to make an athlete run laps
Anyone see Anderson Cooper against Shalane Flanagan in the 400m? She ran a 79s, and he looked about 89s. She can do that 100 times in a row, without resting.
Here is the 60 minutes clip on her Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/ShalaneFlanagan?rf=104112676292291
yes, saw that segment. That was good to see. The elites make those fast paces look so easy. It puts it all in perspective when someone else tries to keep up for just a short distance, and can't.
Anyone see Ander Cooper against Shalane Flanagan in the 400m? She ran a 79s, and he looked about 89s. She can do that 100 times in a row, without resting. Here is the 60 minutes clip on her Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/ShalaneFlanagan?rf=104112676292291
Anyone see Ander Cooper against Shalane Flanagan in the 400m? She ran a 79s, and he looked about 89s. She can do that 100 times in a row, without resting.
not bad for mile 25
Anyone see Anderson Cooper against Shalane Flanagan in the 400m? She ran a 79s, and he looked about 89s. She can do that 100 times in a row, without resting. Here is the 60 minutes clip on her Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/ShalaneFlanagan?rf=104112676292291
Yes, it was funny. In fact, Shalane was giggling as she passed him.
Anderson Cooper is clearly a pot-bellied couch potato
I could have easily beaten her by about a second.
Age + sedentary must be an absolutely lethal combination. The slowest guy I've ever met is one of my friends, and even with his horrible, awkward, 130 cadence running form he can run 16 something for 100m, and he is dramatically slower than anyone else I know. I'm sure the average guy in his 20s can run 15.xx 100m
Cooper is 47 or so, so he isn't that old. You don't even usually begin losing speed until 30-35, and the idea of losing 5+ seconds over just a 15 year time frame sounds insane to me. That sitting around must just kill the ability to move fast.
Looking at the WADA age grade calculators 15 seconds for a 25-30 year-old is the equivalent if
15.7 seconds for a 40 year-old
16.8 seconds for a 50 year old
17.9s for a 60 year-old,
For the 400m, 1:11 would be the equivalent of
1:16 seconds for a 40 year-old
1:22 seconds for a 50 year old
1:28 for a 60 year-old,
(My 400m PR (I've only run 2) is a shameful 72s but I will improve by 10 seconds in the next 2.5 years).