Can most people run a sub 60 400?

60s 400m roughly equals a 5:10 mile.

61/419 men aged 25-29 ran sub 5:10 in the 5th Avenue Mile last year.

It's a pretty serious event, especially at that age.

How about another story showing the someone who couldn't break 60? There was a kid on my high school team who was about 5'2", maybe a little shorter. He really liked sports, but was AWFUL at them. When I saw awful, I mean he was so bad that he was only allowed to be the "manager" in Little League. Looking back on it, I think there was something physically wrong with him.

Anyway, he came out for track all 4 years and was real bad. Typically he'd run about 70, 71, but he loved track so he kept doing it. His best ever time in the 400 was 65. I just looked this up to make sure. So a borderline midget who was too fragile to play baseball was able to run 65. Watching him do that makes me incredulous that an average person would be slower.

I would be hesitant to guess what percentage of people could run a sub-60, but my own personal story is that I was an OK track/xc runner, and I couldn't do it, despite a number of reasonably good opportunities.

When I say "OK", I mean that I eventually broke 10 for 2 miles (9:54), ran 4:12 for 1500m, and some comparable times for longer distances. However, I never broke 2:11 for 800m, and I couldn't break 60 despite repeated attempts. Most of these attempts came in the mile relay (my HS coach made basically everybody on the team run the mile relay - we would enter like 3 or 4 teams). I also tried the 400 in a couple of all-comer meets after HS when I was in my best 1500m shape. The best I ever ran was about 60.6 for a relay leg (very unofficial). The fastest "official" time I ran in an open 400 was 61.xx. I dare say that if I had trained exclusively for the 400m, I could have done it, though not by much.

Anyway, the point is, lots of crappy runners with no particular "talent" can break 60 for 400m. And some semi-ok distance runners can't do it. I would imagine that some of the "i ran 55 and I'm a terrible athlete and hardly trained for it" types will just think that I must just have been a big puss. Maybe. But for whatever reason, I couldn't break 60. I really wanted to, but I would always rig up like 150m into it.

"In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children."

In short, hell no. Maybe 90 seconds, if that.

I'd say yes to 60.

Breaking 60sec in the 400 is mostly about fitness. The top speed for it is incredibly low--15s/100m.

Most weekend warriors have beer guts, so even with some athletic talent, tend to suck. Go look at an actual average crossfit workout. I have seen some at my college gym. These are non-fat, trained, try hard types. I got to see them do 200m and 400m sprints at various times. Obviously not wearing spikes, but these guys were getting amped if someone broke 30 by any significant amount. There is no chance more than 1-2 could have broken 60 and these were trained try-hards.

Another buddy that play D1 hockey and was known for being one of the 'best' athletes on the team casually runs in some open/club meets in the summer. He still works out a lot and runs quite a bit and is at a low bf%, 6'2" 180lbs. His 400m PR, after getting coaching and running a few seasons is just under 58, like 57.8 or something HT at some random all-comers meet. This was an 'athletic' trained guy that played a D1 sport not breaking 60 by much.

Most people would get hurt even trying to train. I doubt with 6mos of casual training that most would break 65 if they weren't already training or with a running background. Under 60 is absurd. Maybe 20%, after 6mos of training, could do that if they didn't have a specific background in the activity. Most kids in skill position roles on my HS football team back in the day couldn't break 60

I'm pretty sure that skate training actually makes you slower as a runner, but that's just IMO. I'm going to be honorable and post this under my original name so you can know which of the 7 active posters I am.

This. If you say that you're going to give the average guy a year or more of 400 specific training, they're probably going to get injured.

60 second 400, not too many can do it.

My high school history teacher was a fit guy, and a casual runner. He trained one spring to do a 60 second 440 (it was 1975.)

He was 33 years old. Decent stride. I think he managed about 67-8. He tried several times.

As a 43 year old, I trained to run in a big masters meet. After about 6 months of steady base and then sprint workouts, I was able to run in the high 57's. So, I'd say anyone with a sprinters body should be able to go under 60, especially anyone under age 40.

Of course my best mile was 5:34, and my best 10K was 41:30, so what does that tell you?

This is an interesting question. I suspect the answer is no. That is, among men who are ages 16-26, health, and train hard for several month, the median 400m time in the population will be greater than 60s.

My guess is based on the fact that even some D1 distance runners have trouble breaking 60s.

i kinda like running wrote:

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.

The winning time was 53, so the track might have been a bit long but not by much. But even if 5 seconds were subtracted from everyone's times, only 35 out of 127 would have gotten under 60.

who-cares wrote:

Breaking 60sec in the 400 is mostly about fitness. The top speed for it is incredibly low--15s/100m.

In what universe is 15 seconds per 100 meters incredibly slow? Even for just 100m?

I doubt that most people can even if they're trained. A sub 60 sec 400m is a very tough goal to achieve, it requires being able to keep a relatively fast sprint over a not so short distance plus being able to kick when it really hurts. But I wouldn't count out long distance runners. I'm a distance runner myself and I've easily split a 60 400 in the 800m run and I wasn't even going all out my first lap. I'm also nowhere near as fast as some of the distance runners in my state. If the top sprinters in the nation run 45-46 I'd say the top distance guys could easily hit 55

when I go down to the local track and run a sub-60 400, people gaze upon me like I am a god. That's a pretty good sign that most of them can't do it.

Guys, come on, I haven't raced a 400 since high school, but I used to relay split 51.xx on the 4x4. I'm a slow distance runner, who doesn't even have much talent for that. If someone like me can run 51.xx on a regular basis off mile/two-mile training, I'm sure well over 50% of males between 20-30 could do it off sprint training. Probably even a good percentage of females could.

I used to run in high school. I had a 54 second PR at 400, a 26 second PR at 200, and a 2:07 PR at 800. I achieved these off of 20-25 miles per week with zero base. I haven't ran in about 5 years, weigh about 25 lbs heavier than when I ran (I weigh 170 lbs). I would think it would take me 6 months of training before I could run under 60 seconds again. I am betting that only 25 % of the 18-40 population could run 60 and only 5 % of the 40-50 population.

BrianE wrote:

#YOBRO wrote:

having taken statistics classes i feel comfortable saying that way less than 1% of post collegiate males can run a sub 60.

For reference, the 300 meter run percentiles are on page 5 of this PDF:

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/post/pdf/PT.pdf

1% of 20-29 and 30-39 year old men can run a 42 second 300.

5% of 20-29 and 30-39 year old men can run a 46 second 300.

This confuses the shit out of me. I'll explain:

Let's work with 100m speed as it's a little easier to think about. Considering that generally a 400m run can be run in 4x(100m + 1s)/2x(200m + 2s), it certainly should be reasonably to assume that 300 pace should be 3(100m + 1s).

By this chart the midline is 56s, or 18.66s per 100m, giving rough 100m ability of 17.5s, roughly 4:40 pace.

Top 10% are 48, which is 16s per 100m, giving rough 100m ability of 14.5-15s and that is for the top TEN percent.

I find this questionable because I know if you give me a hand time start I can run 100 in 13.00 on a perfect day. The problem though is that I was never even close to a fast kid, if anything I was slower than most playing sports, probably one of the main reasons I gravitated to golf and not basketball, track, soccer, etc.

That leaves to me only a few possibilites

1)I had a really fvckin fast school by random chanc

2)I got much faster at sprinting just from starting distance running when I hit college

3)Something is happening to these guys between HS age and 25 that is turning them into virtual zombies

4)They can't run the 300 for shit and/or aren't trying

I just find it hard to beleive the average 25yr old has 100m ability of roughly 18.5 seconds. I have never encountered a person in my life (assuming non obesity/disability) who could not get up to 4:40 pace. I'd believe a median 100m value of somewhere between 14.5-15.5 for a typical not-fat 25 yr old male. Any slower is not consistent at all with what I've experienced

In early adulthood, with a BMI under 19, and 2 years of injury-free training, I think the median time is under 60.