You're deluding yourself if you don't think a sub 1m 400m is anything other than super ****ing fast for a weekend warrior.

then i guess i'm super ****ing fast (if TC's 300 to 400 translation is accurate). I will run a 400m once the snow melts.

i did used to be fast. i ran around a 4.7 in HS and I could beat my cousin in a 50m when he was running the 400 at a D3 school

Indicated hiking paces are only there to make fatlards feel good about themselves. If you're light and a bit of a cardiotard, 1 hour per 1000m of elevation is attainable (for a couple hours, on pure and steep ascent)

obv 300m time does not directly translate to 400m time. i mean 42 x 4/3 = 56, yeah sure, but obviously your pace for a 400m race is going to be notably slower than that of a 300m race.

people who high five each other at the gym are 8000% more likely than regular people to occupy a machine/bench but not be using it

Today a douche stood in front of a mirror in the locker room only wearing his pants and used the hair dryer to blow warm air at his (pretty dry looking) chest while he was checking himself out. Gayest thing I've seen in a loooong time.

lol. that's pretty good

At least he had pants on.

I don't think it would be much more; probably not 56, but I'd expect 57 or 58

I was never particularly fast, but I could run 400m in under a min back in HS pretty easy. You can pretty much run 400m at a full sprint if you have decent endurance.

I don't know about that. i could believe 90% of sprint maybe. my cousin claimed a normal athletic person can sprint for about 40s before hitting the wall hard. seems about right to me.

In high school I ran the 400 in under a min and my best mile was 5:17, but I still couldn't sprint the whole way in the 400.

100m runners are slowing down at the end of their race fwiw.

I don't think so Victor, I heard that average speed is higher in the 200m than the 100m

Running has very little with your ability to hike. Would people stop propagating this myth.

I'm interested in this, what factors are important for running and not hiking or vice versa?

And this proves what?

Wrong question. What are the same?

Obviously, since there is no second acceleration phase in the 200m. This will be true for most elite sprinters (and quite a few sub-elite as well). There is still a noticable deceleration in the 100m. Elite runners decelerates after about 80m (and 90m for Usain Bolt).

Running a 400m at a full sprint is pretty lol and basically impossible no matter how good your endurance is. Lactic acid build-up will slow you down significantly after about 43 seconds.

A 42s 300 can probably be anywhere between a 56-61 seconds 400m depending on race distribution and endurance.

My sophomore year of high school I ran around 56 seconds on dirt tracks. It was good enough to win the event about 1/2 the time during challenge meets at the frosh-soph level (14-15 year olds).

However, I have to admit that there were quite a few frosh-soph boys on both my team and the other team that could beat me. However, they either were already running varsity or competed in other events instead. (Although they can run 400 m very fast when motivated to, there is nothing a fast-twitch football player/sprinter hates more than the coach forcing him to run the 400m. This is why Bolt has so far resisted running the 400m, although with his size and stride he could probably take the WR in this event too. He just doesn't want to train that hard.)

FWIW, the last 100m in the 400m are nothing like the first 300. It literally feels like you are trying to run through quicksand, your lungs and arms are on fire, and you are struggling against every muscle in your body from cramping up. That is why the most important thing at the end of the end of a 400m is to keep your body as relaxed as possible so you dont cramp up and lose form. In my experience the only worse feeling than the last 100m in a 400m is the last 100m in the 800m, which really is pure agony.

On a different note, when you are in the gym and see a jacked up adult gym-goer with a severe case of bacne (and chestne), is it fair to assume they are juicing it pretty hard?

probably depends on your definition of fair. i'd guess it's very likely he is juicing, but there's certainly a chance he isn't. lots of people have acne into their adult years.

but i'd guess the chances go up exponentially with the level of jacked-up-ness and the severity of the acne.

Not sure what that has to do with what I said. I just said that if you're into some endurance sport and weigh <170#, you'll go way faster than the prescribed hiking pace.
Of course, running isn't the best way to train for hiking. Running sucks anyway.

You said if you don't weigh much and are a cardiotard. Without actually hiking its doubtful you'll be very good at hiking.

To be clear, I'm talking about real hiking, like with 40lbs on. Not some sort of bastardized, glorified stroll, or some ultralight freak who has gnaw their toenails off, or hope to bum everything off someone they see.

i lugged a 24kg kettlebell in my backpack to work a couple of weeks ago, my total walking distance was probably less than half of a mile(almost a whole km for you eurotards!) and it was a huge pain in the ass, im pretty sure the only way to get good at it is to do it a lot, and maybe some farmers walks. walking around with heavy stuff on and carrying moderately weighted objects is so different from any standard training we do that i imagine the carryover is minimal.

Ky-leb mentioned this the other week about rucking and military stuff. Carrying around weights in a bag is ****ty for the body, but there aren't any real good alternatives other than carrying them around.