400m Potential

PaullBradyy

Hi new poster here but have been reding this forum for the last couple of weeks
I am asking about 400m distance and how good I could get.
I started to try and get fit siince christmas after not doing any sport for the last 10 years. I used to play soccer and was quite good.
I have been doing things like 8 100m intervals with a 10 minute recovery in average 11 secs and was thinking if I could do these 4 together (when I get fit) I could get close to 44 seconds which would be a very good time. I tried running the full 400m distance but due to lack of fitness I only did 51 seconds
I am also wondering what sort of drinks I should be taking like protein and carbohydrates?

shels4ever

PaullBradyy wrote: »

Hi new poster here but have been reding this forum for the last couple of weeks
I am asking about 400m distance and how good I could get.
I started to try and get fit siince christmas after not doing any sport for the last 10 years. I used to play soccer and was quite good.
I have been doing things like 8 100m intervals with a 10 minute recovery in average 11 secs and was thinking if I could do these 4 together (when I get fit) I could get close to 44 seconds which would be a very good time. I tried running the full 400m distance but due to lack of fitness I only did 51 seconds
I am also wondering what sort of drinks I should be taking like protein and carbohydrates?

Yep the world record isnt bad at all , its a nice target to have when starting training.

PaullBradyy

the world record is 43 seconds but the irish record is 44. You would be surprised how much a second slower looks like in a sprint.

Krusty_Clown

Well, if you're only running a couple of weeks, and you can run 100m in 11 seconds repeatedly in a single session, you should probably stick to the 100m (Irish record is 10.18, near as I can make out). You should get in contact with your local club. They'd love to have you on board.

shels4ever

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Well, if you're only running a couple of weeks, and you can run 100m in 11 seconds repeatedly in a single session, you should probably stick to the 100m (Irish record is 10.18, near as I can make out). You should get in contact with your local club. They'd love to have you on board.

I think he sould go for the 400m, could be an olympic medal in it for him.

RayCun

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Well, if you're only running a couple of weeks, and you can run 100m in 11 seconds repeatedly

No, that was his average. Some were 12, some were 10, you know how it is...

(Making the enormous assumption that this is not a wind-up and the OP is benefiting at least a little from hand-timing)

Find a club in your area that does sprint training, and join up today.

thirtyfoot

If you can go at 100 for 11 seconds and maintain this for 4 100s without any of the fatigue that every other athlete is subject to, then I would suggest see can you push it out to 8 of them. 8 x 100 in 11secs would be 1:28 and that would be very respectable.

Being able to do 4 x 100 in 11 secs (handtime I assume and no confirmation thats its low, mid, high 11 so lets say 11.5), would mean you probably could get down to the 50-52secs range in a 400.

shels4ever

thirtyfoot wrote: »

If you can go at 100 for 11 seconds and maintain this for 4 100s without any of the fatigue that every other athlete is subject to, then I would suggest see can you push it out to 8 of them. 8 x 100 in 11secs would be 1:28 and that would be very respectable.

Being able to do 4 x 100 in 11 secs (handtime I assume and no confirmation thats its low, mid, high 11 so lets say 11.5), would mean you probably could get down to the 50-52secs range in a 400.

He's running 52 seconds already while unfit , could be a bit more in the tank.

TheRoadRunner

thirtyfoot wrote: »

If you can go at 100 for 11 seconds and maintain this for 4 100s without any of the fatigue that every other athlete is subject to, then I would suggest see can you push it out to 8 of them. 8 x 100 in 11secs would be 1:28 and that would be very respectable.

Could even scale up to the marathon, he would be unbeatable.

OP have you tried lifting any weights, I have a car in my garden I need moving maybe you could "fly" over pick it up and crush it into a lovely diamond for me.

lway

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Could even scale up to the marathon, he would be unbeatable.

OP have you tried lifting any weights, I have a car in my garden I need moving maybe you could "fly" over pick it up and crush it into a lovely diamond for me.

Building muscle might be a bad idea, have you tried shaving your legs, wear compression gear and apply Body Glide to all exposed skin. Orthotics might be an idea too, get your gait analysed, high speed camera might be required.

Try an ice bath and apply foam roller liberally to the legs between runs and you can knock a few mins off your 10 min turnaround time.

Have you read Born to Run ?

menoscemo

OP, if you are struggling over the full 400m distance you might want to look at taking energy gels. Maybe work towards taking one at 100m, 200m and 300m though you might get away with just the two.
If you feel your pace is dropping they might just give you the extra boost you need.

TheRoadRunner

menoscemo wrote: »

OP, if you are struggling over the full 400m distance you might want to look at taking energy gels. Maybe work towards taking one at 100m, 200m and 300m though you might get away with just the two.
If you feel your pace is dropping they might just give you the extra boost you need.

I think he is one of the new Cardinals the Pope appointed last week so he is probably observing lent and may have given up high glucose/fructose gels. He may need to find a natural alternative! As long as he avoids the kryptonite he should be grand though.

aburke

PaullBradyy wrote: »

Hi new poster here but have been reding this forum for the last couple of weeks
I am asking about 400m distance and how good I could get.
I started to try and get fit siince christmas after not doing any sport for the last 10 years. I used to play soccer and was quite good.
I have been doing things like 8 100m intervals with a 10 minute recovery in average 11 secs and was thinking if I could do these 4 together (when I get fit) I could get close to 44 seconds which would be a very good time. I tried running the full 400m distance but due to lack of fitness I only did 51 seconds
I am also wondering what sort of drinks I should be taking like protein and carbohydrates?

Ok - unlike the others, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are genuine.
If you really can run 51 seconds for 400m, by training since Christmas only, then you are potentially very fast.
Get down to your local club - they'll help you out.

menoscemo

LexiLou2 wrote: »

If you are struggling over the full 400m distance you might want to look at taking energy gels. Maybe work towards taking one at 100m, 200m and 300m though you might get away with just the two.

:mad: I said that first. Stop stealing my advice.

gerard65

Carbo-loading is the way to go. Pop into your local pizza hut on your way to training, That'll do the trick.
I'm in the OP's position as well. I can run 400m in 60sec so I reckon I'll run a sub 4min mile by the end of summer.

Woddle

gerard65 wrote: »

Carbo-loading is the way to go. Pop into your local pizza hut on your way to training, That'll do the trick.
I'm in the OP's position as well. I can run 400m in 60sec so I reckon I'll run a sub 4min mile by the end of summer.

I personally don't think you have what it takes
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62929490&postcount=13

Pisco Sour

PaullBradyy wrote: »

Hi new poster here but have been reding this forum for the last couple of weeks
I am asking about 400m distance and how good I could get.
I started to try and get fit siince christmas after not doing any sport for the last 10 years. I used to play soccer and was quite good.
I have been doing things like 8 100m intervals with a 10 minute recovery in average 11 secs and was thinking if I could do these 4 together (when I get fit) I could get close to 44 seconds which would be a very good time. I tried running the full 400m distance but due to lack of fitness I only did 51 seconds
I am also wondering what sort of drinks I should be taking like protein and carbohydrates?

44 seconds would be a “very good time”. It would get you onto the podium in London.

If you are running 51 second after doing no sport for 10 years then you are an incredible talent and I would urge you to get straight to a club. However I don’t believe you at all, sorry.

Donelson

Have you checked that what your running is actually one hundred meters, our how did you measure it?

Cartman78

In all fairness, 44 secs for 400m is a ridiculous target for someone with your fitness history.

Why not try for something more realistic like a sub-4 minute mile?*





* Like most former soccer/GAA players who do a few laps of a pitch and suddenly think they can attain Olympic standard in a few months

M cebee

don't believe a word of it

almost 800m world record pace for one lap-after 10yrs out

hardCopy

Defo hit the shakes.

Your training is a little lacking, you could probably add 45mins - 1hr of 5-a-side football each week.

walshb

PaullBradyy wrote: »

Hi new poster here but have been reding this forum for the last couple of weeks
I am asking about 400m distance and how good I could get.
I started to try and get fit siince christmas after not doing any sport for the last 10 years. I used to play soccer and was quite good.
I have been doing things like 8 100m intervals with a 10 minute recovery in average 11 secs and was thinking if I could do these 4 together (when I get fit) I could get close to 44 seconds which would be a very good time. I tried running the full 400m distance but due to lack of fitness I only did 51 seconds
I am also wondering what sort of drinks I should be taking like protein and carbohydrates?

I assume you are in your 20s?

11 seconds for 100 meters when you say you have not done any sport in the last ten years is superb. I think research labs could be interested in you.;)

Pisco Sour

Judging by the OP's username, there is a better chance of him taking home a Grammy Award next year than running 44 seconds for 400m.

Not that there is much chance at that. :P

walshb

OP, any chance at all that the times you are doing are on a motorbike? Just asking, as you didn't mention it was from the act of human running.

Edit: You did mention running, but, was it downhill with + 50 m/s tailwind?

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

OP, any chance at all that the times you are doing are on a motorbike? Just asking, as you didn't mention it was from the act of human running.

Mario Olympics on the Nintendo Wii. 11 seconds is childsplay though. My auld fella ran a 9.17 with Sonic the Hedgehog one St Stephens' Day. Bloody hell can Sonic run!

walshb

I jumped 9.87 metres on the x box kinect. I love the olympics on the x box!

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

I jumped 9.87 metres on the x box kinect. I love the olympics on the x box!

Yeh, the problem is these games are too easy. Within a day of purchasing International Track and Field for the Nintendo 64 I had obliterated Jan Zelezny's javelin WR with a stunning 104.xx metres. I think the jav landed on the track. Thank God there was nobody flying around that bend (the longest track event in that particular game was the 110m Hurdles, so most of the track was left unused).

Krusty_Clown

We're a tough crowd. To the op:
If your original post was genuine, you are either a superb talent (the likes of which has not been seen in Ireland for a long number of years), or your measurement system is skewed. In either case, get yourself off to your nearest club where you talent will be harnessed, or your measurement systems (assumptions) can be validated.

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

We're a tough crowd. To the op:
If your original post was genuine, you are either a superb talent (the likes of which has not been seen in Ireland for a long number of years), or your measurement system is skewed. In either case, get yourself off to your nearest club where you talent will be harnessed, or your measurement systems (assumptions) can be validated.

You think we're tough. I'd love to see what the letsrun faithfull would make of such a thread. In fact I am terribly tempted to post up that opening post onto those forums and see what the reaction would be. I won't though.

PaullBradyy

For what it's worth. I ran the 400 on a track with a friend using a stop/watch.
The 100 metre intervals were all mid-high 11 from a running start.
It seems from the responses here that 44 might me unattainable. I still still think I want to go a lot faster than 51 seconds as I don't see this as being a great time for myself.
I am in my late twenties.

Cartman78

PaullBradyy wrote: »

For what it's worth. I ran the 400 on a track with a friend using a stop/watch.
The 100 metre intervals were all mid-high 11 from a running start.
It seems from the responses here that 44 might me unattainable. I still still think I want to go a lot faster than 51 seconds as I don't see this as being a great time for myself.
I am in my late twenties.

A running start makes a huge difference imho.

Try a standing start and you might have a more credible time to work off.

M cebee

you must have had great talent if you can really come back and do 51sec 400m

NiallG4

PaullBradyy wrote: »

For what it's worth. I ran the 400 on a track with a friend using a stop/watch.
The 100 metre intervals were all mid-high 11 from a running start.
It seems from the responses here that 44 might me unattainable. I still still think I want to go a lot faster than 51 seconds as I don't see this as being a great time for myself.
I am in my late twenties.

I have a footballer friend who always trys to wind me up by saying he is thinking of doing a months training and heading over to the Olympics because it is close to Ireland this year and run the 1500M. Is that you Duff (on a wind up). On the other hand, if you are running 51 secs from no base and this on the back of a couple of 100M runs with a few minutes recovery, you need to get yourself onto a track quick and you will be running high 40's in no time

RayCun

Join a club. Get trained (and timed) properly.

Dan man

Paul why don't you get over to your local club, let them see what you've got, they'll be delighted to have you on board. If you think you can go sub 50 secs you have great talent so don't let the opportunity pass you by.

karkar athlete

You said a friend timed you using a stopwatch :rolleyes:. Is there any chance your friend could have stopped the clock early and giving you false belief???

PaullBradyy

To karkar athlete.
I'm pretty sure he timed it correctly.
The next time I go to the track I will try at least equal that 400 time, although I will more likely be aiming a bit faster.
As I said above, I want to run faster and I felt myself slowing down during the final 100 metres that last time out so fingers crossed.

RandyMann

51 secs is possible and if you are doing that now you will improve with the right coaching and running group.
There are a few giving here giving you the right advice by telling you to join a club. There are a few guys in my club that can do that time and better.
Ignore the others as it is not advice, just BS.
I wish you the best of luck in your training.

SeanKenny

PaullBradyy wrote: »

To karkar athlete.
I'm pretty sure he timed it correctly.
The next time I go to the track I will try at least equal that 400 time, although I will more likely be aiming a bit faster.
As I said above, I want to run faster and I felt myself slowing down during the final 100 metres that last time out so fingers crossed.

Where are you based or what area would you look to join a club in. I am sure that we could reccommend a good club depending on geographic location.

Pisco Sour

RandyMann wrote: »

51 secs is possible and if you are doing that now you will improve with the right coaching and running group.
There are a few giving here giving you the right advice by telling you to join a club. There are a few guys in my club that can do that time and better.
Ignore the others as it is not advice, just BS.
I wish you the best of luck in your training.

I do not believe 51 seconds for 400m, after 10 years of inactivity to be in any way possible, unless this guy has extreme talent, a type that we have not seen in Ireland before, in which case we have lost out on many potential medals at international level over the last 10 years.

thirtyfoot

If you have potential to run 48, then it would be very possible to run 51 fairly easy. Not 6 weeks training but 6 months no doubt. I have seen evidence of it in fact.

RandyMann

04072511 wrote: »

I do not believe 51 seconds for 400m, after 10 years of inactivity to be in any way possible, unless this guy has extreme talent, a type that we have not seen in Ireland before, in which case we have lost out on many potential medals at international level over the last 10 years.

Fair enough, I know you dont believe him, you said that already. I don't like the ridicule though.
I don't know whether he can do that time or not, I would like to believe him. If he can do it, good for him, if he can't well, that does not matter.

walshb

PaullBradyy wrote: »

For what it's worth. I ran the 400 on a track with a friend using a stop/watch.
The 100 metre intervals were all mid-high 11 from a running start.
It seems from the responses here that 44 might me unattainable. I still still think I want to go a lot faster than 51 seconds as I don't see this as being a great time for myself.
I am in my late twenties.

Can I ask what weight, age, and height you are? Also, build?

Edit: late 20s.

Pisco Sour

thirtyfoot wrote: »

If you have potential to run 48, then it would be very possible to run 51 fairly easy. Not 6 weeks training but 6 months no doubt. I have seen evidence of it in fact.

Permission to quote you?

thirtyfoot wrote: »

The key to a good troll, in my opinion, is it may take the victims about 150 posts in the thread before they realise it's a troll. Reading the subject alone sent the troll alarms off on this one. It reminds me of a recreational troll, trying their best but ultimately going nowhere until they join a proper troll club.

Thud

if you can video your next run we'd be interested in seeing it ??

Did you run against your friend or solo?

dna_leri

Running 51.x secs for 400m is good but no big deal and about right for a flying 11.5s 100m. But you won't win any medals with that time - there are plenty of kids doing that all over the country. However if you train hard you can knock off a couple of secs. So join a club and get real advise (aka coaching).

If this is a wind-up its a pretty poor one and you need to up your game a lot. I suggest you come back on Monday and tell us you have just run a 48s 400m then you are a contender and you can be considered alongside the 4 min mile posters.

Gandalph

Unless you are either Michael Johnson's baby or a biologically enhanced super human that the military have been working on I do not believe you are running 51 seconds for 400m with 10 years of no activity.

Join a club, get some training, enter some races & come back with an official time. I have seen this case many times before were people come to you with their olympic standard hand times.

Pisco Sour

dna_leri wrote: »

Running 51.x secs for 400m is good but no big deal and about right for a flying 11.5s 100m.

Ah come on seriously. 51 may be in line with that 100 time for those who are actually training and doing speed endurance, not for somebody who has been inactive for 10 years. There is no way somebody who is 11.5 for 100m can run a 51 for 400m without the speed endurance and strengeth endurance training. 400m requires a lot of endurance and without the training your times will fall off spectacularly after 100m.

If the OP has been inactive for 10 years then there is a 90% chance (figure plucked from the clouds) that he is overweight. There is no way such a person can run a 51, a time which got bronze at the Under 18 (or maybeb it was under 20) Victorian State Champs yesterday, a state with a population bigger than Ireland.

myflipflops

Who care though. 2 scenarios here:

1. He has run 51 after 10 years of inactivity in which case, fair play to the man. He is a great talent and he should join a club. PM 'thirtyfoot' as I believe he coaches some of those crazy people who think races under 800 meters count.

2. He is making it up with the direct intention of trolling in which case he has achieved his goal with a couple of pages of people arguing against him.

dna_leri

04072511 wrote: »

Ah come on seriously. 51 may be in line with that 100 time for those who are actually training and doing speed endurance, not for somebody who has been inactive for 10 years. There is no way somebody who is 11.5 for 100m can run a 51 for 400m without the speed endurance and strengeth endurance training. 400m requires a lot of endurance and without the training your times will fall off spectacularly after 100m.

If the OP has been inactive for 10 years then there is a 90% chance (figure plucked from the clouds) that he is overweight. There is no way such a person can run a 51, a time which got bronze at the Under 18 (or maybeb it was under 20) Victorian State Champs yesterday, a state with a population bigger than Ireland.

I know nothing about the OP or 400m running in Australia, but I still say 51.x is not that impressive. In the schools T&F last year, 5 boys at senior level ran that time and 5 more at intermediate. Most of these have not reached their physical peak yet so I am not surprised that a 20 something year old could run that time. The OP probably did not but that's another argument.

Pisco Sour

dna_leri wrote: »

I know nothing about the OP or 400m running in Australia, but I still say 51.x is not that impressive. In the schools T&F last year, 5 boys at senior level ran that time and 5 more at intermediate. Most of these have not reached their physical peak yet so I am not surprised that a 20 something year old could run that time. The OP probably did not but that's another argument.

51 is not impressive at an elite level no. But 51 for somebody who hasn't done a bit of sport or regular physical activity for a decade is a startling result (although in this case clearly not true) and simply not believable. There can be no denying that. Is it realistic to believe that somebody with no sporting background over the last 10 years can just rock up to a track and run a time almost as fast as Joanne Cuddihy has done in her lifetime? I think not.