If you picked 1000 random American males between the ages of 20 and 30, off the street, and threw them onto a track, what would the average time be? Around 70 seconds?
If you picked 1000 random American males between the ages of 20 and 30, off the street, and threw them onto a track, what would the average time be? Around 70 seconds?
No way, I would say closer to 90-100 seconds. Now if you pick 100 non-fat, non-smoking Americans that workout at least 3 times a week, then maybe we are closer to 70.
The average is well over 2 minutes because you have to include all the 95 year olds that can only walk it in 10 minutes. The median would be closer to 80 though.
first i thought 70 seconds but that is actually quite fast I'd be impressed if they ran around 90 seconds
Not 70. Heck, I might be pretty winded if I went out and ran a 70 in trainers right now. And I was a 4:32 miler and 2 flat 800m man not all that long ago. It probably wouldn't help much if you gave people spikes, because believe it or not it actually takes some practice to run well in them. You would have some really speedy folks, maybe sub 60, but it would easily be made up for the few slower than 2 min folks. I'd say 85-90 seconds.
smitty werbenjagermanjensen wrote:
The average is well over 2 minutes because you have to include all the 95 year olds that can only walk it in 10 minutes. The median would be closer to 80 though.
What part of "American males between the ages of 20 and 30" do you not understand?
The answer to the OP is precisely 91.4 seconds.
There is no way, literally NO WAY the average American could run an entire lap on a 400 meter track without stopping to walk along the way.
If you don't believe me, just ask them. Ask 20 people you know, and half of them will say, "Shoot, I couldn't run halfway to the end of the street if I had to..."
orbitboy wrote:
There is no way, literally NO WAY the average American could run an entire lap on a 400 meter track without stopping to walk along the way.
If you don't believe me, just ask them. Ask 20 people you know, and half of them will say, "Shoot, I couldn't run halfway to the end of the street if I had to..."
This. I'd say the median time for 1000 randomly-selected American males in their 20s would be between two and three minutes--and closer to the latter.
It might be hard for Letsrunners to accept this, but 70 is actually not bad. The average person would be hard pressed to break 100 seconds.
If you picked this group from Philly then the answer is around 52 seconds.
Randomnessisgood wrote:
If you picked 1000 random American males between the ages of 20 and 30, off the street, and threw them onto a track, what would the average time be? ?
In a break with the tradition on these boards, I looked for some actual data and found this:
CliffNotes version:
As of 2002, the average American male in his 20s was about 5ft 9.5in tall, and weighed about 183 pounds. The height probably hasn't changed much in the last decade; but don't you *know* the weight has gone up?
Picture an American guy in his 20s at that height and weight--you know, one of the beefy boys in your frat. (If it helps to picture a six-footer, his proportional weight would be 205.) Picture him trying to run all the way around a 400m track. Not happening.
Way South of 90 seconds.
I know that in Middle School we had to run the 800 (actually 880-- I'm old). 4 or 5 times a year.
I can remember running between 2:30 an 2:40 (Moderate effort for me back then) and being way at the front in a class of 40 or so. I'd think the 'pack' was probably running around 3:20 or thereabouts. Yeah that's an 800 but I don't think they were that much faster over 400.
I didn't get any faster in my 20's at shorter distances and I was in the military and extremely fit as compared to average. Good runners will get faster in their mid-late teens and 20's but that's because they train at it. Average Joes; probably not.
And that was many years ago. There were far less chubby people then.
If you took 100 random 20 somtheings I'd bet you'd get 1 or 2 random fitness nuts or talented sprinters who would crack 60, another 2-3 at under seventy, 10 more at 80-90, 20 around ninety and 30 or 40 around 100. Everybody else would be tailed off, some of them very tailed off. At least some of them would pull an injury trying and probably 4 or 5 would have to walk.
This is letsrun centrism. Most people here ran/run track. Even the slow guys on the team (like I was) are way faster than everybody else.
there is NO WAY the average american could run a 70. I ran an 18:00 5k and I would run 70 for the 4 by 4. By no means am I saying this is good, but being a runner already puts you above average (usually)
What the heck wrote:
smitty werbenjagermanjensen wrote:The average is well over 2 minutes because you have to include all the 95 year olds that can only walk it in 10 minutes. The median would be closer to 80 though.
What part of "American males between the ages of 20 and 30" do you not understand?
The answer to the OP is precisely 91.4 seconds.
you're forgetting about the 95 year olds that are 20-30 years old
lostinthefog wrote:
I can remember running between 2:30 an 2:40 (Moderate effort for me back then) and being way at the front in a class of 40 or so. I'd think the 'pack' was probably running around 3:20 or thereabouts. Yeah that's an 800 but I don't think they were that much faster over 400.
This! The LRC doesn't community doesn't even know how AWFUL the general public is at running. 10th grade, I was reasonably fit guy - basketball/football/soccer - and I didn't even run track. Our gym class had to a 12-minute run on the track. I TROTTED a 8:00 min pace and won the whole damn thing.
I'd say the average american might be able to get around in the track in 1:45. Seriously.
tu45u wrote:
Picture an American guy in his 20s at that height and weight--you know, one of the beefy boys in your frat. (If it helps to picture a six-footer, his proportional weight would be 205.) Picture him trying to run all the way around a 400m track. Not happening.
A heavy guy with strong legs can run a decent 400. I remember our track coach offered the shot putters a free steak dinner if they could break 60 in the quarter. One of the guys who made it was about 6', 240.
I think the average would be in the 90s or 100s though. Most people could go faster than that but most people hate suffering.
lostinthefog wrote:
Way South of 90 seconds.
I know that in Middle School we had to run the 800 (actually 880-- I'm old). 4 or 5 times a year.
I can remember running between 2:30 an 2:40 (Moderate effort for me back then) and being way at the front in a class of 40 or so. I'd think the 'pack' was probably running around 3:20 or thereabouts. Yeah that's an 800 but I don't think they were that much faster over 400.
I didn't get any faster in my 20's at shorter distances and I was in the military and extremely fit as compared to average. Good runners will get faster in their mid-late teens and 20's but that's because they train at it. Average Joes; probably not.
And that was many years ago. There were far less chubby people then.
If you took 100 random 20 somtheings I'd bet you'd get 1 or 2 random fitness nuts or talented sprinters who would crack 60, another 2-3 at under seventy, 10 more at 80-90, 20 around ninety and 30 or 40 around 100. Everybody else would be tailed off, some of them very tailed off. At least some of them would pull an injury trying and probably 4 or 5 would have to walk.
This is letsrun centrism. Most people here ran/run track. Even the slow guys on the team (like I was) are way faster than everybody else.
Totally agree with this. I think the fact that we are talking about 400 and not 200 or less really sets the stage for poor times. 20-30 year olds may still have some natural spring to their legs, but without the fitness to sprint for 400m, they would probably peter out around 200-300m in, leaving a death march for the final straightaway. Add to this the fact that running for probably 98% of people post-college is easy jogging for 2-5 miles and even "fit" guys will have a hard time cracking 60 or perhaps even 70, as even those times require a pretty aggressive stride which most people don't ever bother with when jogging.
Does anyone remember the sub 3 can't touch 70 thread? I run 18:40s and would probably throw up after an attempt at 70s. You are delusional if you think a random sampling of average build 20-30 year old who aren't complete slobs could run faster then 90-100s.
I've watched the gym mile here at school looking for "talent". Most of the kids (14-18) don't make it 200m before walking. By most of the kids, I mean over 50%. Another large group falls off after they see their classmates quit.
I remember when I was a freshman in high school, I went over to the track after school one day and tried to run a lap as fast as I could. I ran 74 seconds. Other than the mile run in PE in middle school each year, I hadn't done any running at all in my life. But I was skinny, and pretty healthy from playing other sports. But I definitely have decent genetics. Nothing amazing, but always won anything in gym class that was running-related. So I would definitely say in high school most would probably run 90+. I'm sure most of the people I know now are in WORSE shape than their younger years, so i'm thinking easily 100+.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Red Bull (who sponsors Mondo) calls Mondo the pole vaulting Usain Bolt. Is that a fair comparison?