Can most people run a sub 60 400?

The conclusion being that not a single 10 year-old in Rockland County, NY can run sub 60.

In college the soccer coach forced a bunch of his slower athletes to go out for track to work on their speed. My coach let them do it hoping to find a diamond in the rough.

Not only did EVERY single one of them break 60, but most got down to 52-53. I think the slowest guy was 56 seconds. This was after 2 seasons -- indoor/outdoor -- and most of them were seriously terrible to start out.

Ho Hum wrote:

In college the soccer coach forced a bunch of his slower athletes to go out for track to work on their speed. My coach let them do it hoping to find a diamond in the rough.

Not only did EVERY single one of them break 60, but most got down to 52-53. I think the slowest guy was 56 seconds. This was after 2 seasons -- indoor/outdoor -- and most of them were seriously terrible to start out.

You do realize that COLLEGE SOCCER PLAYERS are not standard-level athletes, right? I ran college d1 track (my brother played college soccer), and have to admit that while there I totally lost perspective on average ability. It is easy to look at some 3:55 1500 guy as average. In reality, on average, a clump of like 10 High Schools will produce ~1-3 college soccer players. Each individual school has a varsity team composed of some of the best athletes at that school. Many kids only make it to JV. Many don't even try to 'go for it' due to being so far behind athletically.

Average person's ability in 400 if not fat and well trained? Maybe something like 65-70 given excellent training.

Hate to Say it wrote:

Aarong89 wrote:

59.9 for a young male is not fast.

Couple months of focus on pure speed, sprint drills some time in the weight room 50% could do it easily. Others may take longer but imo 99% of healthy men are capable with training...

Thereby establishing that you have zero grip on reality.

So because i can run a 55 it makes me some kind of super athlete? I wouldn't consider myself quick at all. On the contrary I'm completely average. When I went down for my first track session a 12 year old destroyed me by a good 10 meters in a 150m after which, i vomited everywhere.

I fail to see how a solid off season with emphasis on speed, improvements in sprint mechanics (most people cannot even sprint to begin with)/efficiency and being taught how to run a 400 would not yield a sub 60.

A high school track team is not at all a random sampling of running ability. Kids who are faster or more talented runners are more likely to go out for the track team than are slower, less talented kids.

Put it this way: the average high school football player can probably bench press 225 pounds. Do you think most people are capable of this?

actuary 2.12a wrote:

You do realize that COLLEGE SOCCER PLAYERS are not standard-level athletes, right? I ran college d1 track (my brother played college soccer), and have to admit that while there I totally lost perspective on average ability. It is easy to look at some 3:55 1500 guy as average. In reality, on average, a clump of like 10 High Schools will produce ~1-3 college soccer players. Each individual school has a varsity team composed of some of the best athletes at that school. Many kids only make it to JV. Many don't even try to 'go for it' due to being so far behind athletically.

I do realize that. On the other hand, you do realize that these soccer players were selected on the basis of being slow, right? And this was at a D3 level, so they weren't spectacular athletes to begin with. These were guys who were skilled players but too slow, who trained fairly hard for 4 months and all ran times that allegedly put them in the top 0.01% of all human beings (according to this thread). What is the basis for saying that guys couldn't possibly break 60? I equate it to weightlifting, where unathletic schlubs commonly become decent with a couple years of dedication.

You're right. Faster kids are more likely to join a high school track team. However, because my high school team did not require tryouts, there were a number of guys on the team who did it for squirts n' giggles, or simply for a better parking space (at our high school, athletes got to park closer to the school). And of those non-serious team members, most of them were much more likely to participate in the sprints rather than the distance events. Not because they were talented sprinters, but because the sprint events were perceived as being easier. Like I said, our coaches weren't exactly iron-fisted rulers. If someone wanted to run the 100m dash, they were typically allowed to do so. Only the more talented athletes had restrictions placed on which events they were allowed to participate in (for example, I was one of the better runners on my team, so I was not allowed to do the shot put, because the team needed my points in the events I was actually good at).

And these guys didn't really want to do the 400m, because it was painful, but they were occasionally roped into it. Perhaps because our coach wanted to put a "B" squad together in the 4x400 for extra points, for example. And most of these guys were able to eek out a 58-59 if they tried. So, nearly 100% of the guys on our team who attempted the 400 on occasion was able to break 60. I know this does not necessarily indicate that nearly 100% of the average male population could break 60, but I believe my estimate of 50%-60% is probably in the ball park.

How many kids on your HS could do that? I'd bet not many.

Ho Hum wrote:

I do realize that. On the other hand, you do realize that these soccer players were selected on the basis of being slow, right? And this was at a D3 level, so they weren't spectacular athletes to begin with. These were guys who were skilled players but too slow, who trained fairly hard for 4 months and all ran times that allegedly put them in the top 0.01% of all human beings (according to this thread). What is the basis for saying that guys couldn't possibly break 60? I equate it to weightlifting, where unathletic schlubs commonly become decent with a couple years of dedication.

Those soccer players are still much better than average. You said earlier that the slowest one ran 56. Do you really think that nearly all guys are capable of that time?

The bell curve is wide with a long tail. I'm one of those people who think the average optimally trained male would get under 60, but the variation in times will be huge. Out of 100 men, you'll probably get:

1 guy running 50

9 guys running 51-53

20 guys running 54-56

35 guys running 57-59

15 guys running 60-62

10 guys running 63-70

9 guys running 71-80

1 guy running 85

Median time would be 58.

To take obesity out of the picture, let's think about guys being drafted for Vietnam or fighting some other war 40-60 years ago. So the men are young, healthy, and not overweight. If these men trained specifically for the 400 for six months, and that was their job rather than training for a war, I would guess that close to half could break 400m on a 2013 track with 2013 spikes. I think a great point made earlier is that this board is made up of a lot of slow twitch guys, when "average" guys who would suck at distance running just might be better at the 400m than us, with proper training.

I ran 57 seconds in HS, but was a miler / two miler, and never did real speed work. There were plenty of non-XC runners who came out for track that had some more fast twitch and got stuck in the mile relay, and were easily able to go sub 60. So, I think if you take obesity out of the equation, assume people at the right age (17 to 30), give them six months to train specifically for the 400, I think close to half break 60.

No. I' d guess that maybe 25% of the healthy male 21yr old population could run 60 flat with a year of well coached. Body types and lung capacity the limiting factors.

Ho Hum wrote:

In college the soccer coach forced a bunch of his slower athletes to go out for track to work on their speed. My coach let them do it hoping to find a diamond in the rough.

Not only did EVERY single one of them break 60, but most got down to 52-53. I think the slowest guy was 56 seconds. This was after 2 seasons -- indoor/outdoor -- and most of them were seriously terrible to start out.

I usually don't believe stories like these without proof. For example: I've met an unusual amount of individuals that have run around 8:30 for a 2-mile. I even overheard a guy at work say he can still run a 4:00 mile "after all the years." He's 50.

lkjklj wrote:

I usually don't believe stories like these without proof. For example: I've met an unusual amount of individuals that have run around 8:30 for a 2-mile. I even overheard a guy at work say he can still run a 4:00 mile "after all the years." He's 50.

4:00 mile, 8:30 2 mile...60 second quarter? One of these things is not like the others. Maybe I'm too generous, but I'm more inclined to believe stories about running a 56 than about breaking 4.

g' day, mate wrote:

The bell curve is wide with a long tail. I'm one of those people who think the average optimally trained male would get under 60, but the variation in times will be huge. Out of 100 men, you'll probably get:

1 guy running 50

9 guys running 51-53

20 guys running 54-56

35 guys running 57-59

15 guys running 60-62

10 guys running 63-70

9 guys running 71-80

1 guy running 85

Median time would be 58.

No way 30/70 random guys would break 57s. I dont care how optimally trained they were. If you started with 100 "good athletes"? Maybe but I even doubt that.

Speed is relative my man. People who have run 50-55 seconds easily will say that its easy and those who have never run 60 will say no way. Genetics plays a roll in this and you cannot guess who will and who will not run this time based on little to no training. Considering the amount of runners now a days the average 400m splits ive seen are about 70 to 90 seconds for an average runner who trains 40 or more miles a well. People who genetically have more " fast Twitch" muscles can run a tad faster than those who are more talented in Endurance events. In short this question about running 60 cannot be easily answered as it depends on "WHOS" attempting to run.

What in the heck kinda po-dunk track invitational only has 5 high school boys out 127 breaking 1:00? Geez. There has to be some missing information here. Like the track was long or something. Those are not typical results of a high school invitational meet.

I'm gonna say MAYBE 5%, with NO (Obviously) weekend warrior types. I doubt 25% of HS athletes could do, prob more like 10% ... unless track guys trining for 200-400-800 with diminishing #s for distance guys (3200).

We're talking about the ability to do it if they weren't fat and trained specifically for the 400m. Think about how fast you were in sprints compared to other boys when you were doing the 50 yard dash in middle school. I was probably 60th percentile. Plenty of other guys faster than me at that distance, and they were not runners by any means. I ran 57 seconds a couple times in track, but was a 1 mile / 2 mile guy. If I can do that with zero 400m training, what about the 40% of guys that were faster than me at 50 yards? They had more natural speed, and what if they had 400m training? Clearly a lot of these same guys with better speed, and 400m training, could beat my time of 57 seconds (where everything tightened up the last 100).I'm becoming convinced that closer to 50% of guys the right age / weight and with the right training could do it.

no one wrote:

I'm gonna say MAYBE 5%, with NO (Obviously) weekend warrior types. I doubt 25% of HS athletes could do, prob more like 10% ... unless track guys trining for 200-400-800 with diminishing #s for distance guys (3200).

God, all of you idiots are missing the point of the question. The question is whether any person could retroactively train for the 400 and break 60 at some point in their life. Not whether they could do it after some arbitrary amount of training. Not whether they could do it RIGHT this moment. Whether in a parallel universe where they trained for it in high school and college they could manage it. I say yes, 60 seconds is not difficult at all if you've been training for it for a couple years.