How many people out of over 7 billion can run a sub 30 second 200m and a sub 60 second 400m?

Old and slower wrote:

I once ran 50 seconds but now can only hit low 60s despite still running 17 minutes for 5k. Very few men over 25 can do it.

Dafaq? I'm in my early 30s and broke 60 last year off of just base work and less than a month of speed workouts. I'm nowhere near talented and have never broken 5 in the mile, even in my late teens and 20s.

Sub 60 is easy wrote:

Old and slower wrote:

I once ran 50 seconds but now can only hit low 60s despite still running 17 minutes for 5k. Very few men over 25 can do it.

Dafaq? I'm in my early 30s and broke 60 last year off of just base work and less than a month of speed workouts. I'm nowhere near talented and have never broken 5 in the mile, even in my late teens and 20s.

So you might have more potential in sprinting than distances. Am I the only person here who thinks 60 is actually really fast amd definitely not as easy for the average person as this site constantly makes out? I know people with some truly brilliant all-round conditioning including a semi professional boxer who lives on my street who cannot break 60.

I'm going to count people who've already accomplished these marks.

I guess 1-2 billion.

Hummell wrote:

Sub 60 is easy wrote:

Dafaq? I'm in my early 30s and broke 60 last year off of just base work and less than a month of speed workouts. I'm nowhere near talented and have never broken 5 in the mile, even in my late teens and 20s.

So you might have more potential in sprinting than distances. Am I the only person here who thinks 60 is actually really fast amd definitely not as easy for the average person as this site constantly makes out? I know people with some truly brilliant all-round conditioning including a semi professional boxer who lives on my street who cannot break 60.

Semi-professional boxer? Does that mean you know a guy who is paid by the Mafia to take a dive? I trained with elite USMC boxers while they were in USMC and I was in USMC. I could out run them all at various distances.

Skills needed for boxing: 1) Ability to avoid a punch &/or reduce the impact of a punch.

2) Ability to take a punch and not go down.

3) Ability to punch well.

4) Fitness ability to run ten miles under 90 minutes.

5) Anaerobic fitness.

I'd say a boxer's ability to race 400m under 60 seconds would make the top twenty-five, but not top make top five boxing skill.

I am sure there are sprinters chatting now as a type. I am sure there are sprinters right now picking on males who cannot sprint sub-55 400m; sprinters picking on females who cannot sprint sub-65 400m.

How many people have 14-second 100 speed? It's hard to believe that anyone who can run that can't break 30.

You know half marathoners who can't break 60? That's not really relevant.

More generally, if a distance can be divided into several segments of a certain length run in a certain time plus a remainder, you can pace each segment unevenly, running the last portion slower, so that the remainder is quicker than the per-segment pace but doesn't make possible a faster segment. If and only if the remainder is nonzero.

For example, when Kejelcha runs sub 12:30, it could end up being 59, 59, 59, 63, 59, 59, 59, 63, 59, 59, 59, 63, 29.5. Which is sub-4 1600 pace over the 5000m distance, but exactly 4 minute pace over any actual 1600 meter segment, rather than sub 4.

The Few, the Proud, the LRC High Achievers Team wrote:

Almost all of the people that could achieve those two time goals would be male and between the ages of 15-25.

Old and slower wrote:

Very few men over 25 can do it.

Hummell wrote:

Am I the only person here who thinks 60 is actually really fast amd definitely not as easy for the average person as this site constantly makes out? I know people with some truly brilliant all-round conditioning including a semi professional boxer who lives on my street who cannot break 60.

There is nothing hard at all about running sub 60 as a 25+ year old or even as a 30+ year old if you're somewhat athletic. Heck, this guy almost did it at age 32, and his running background was minimal:

"Did the run with no strategy in mind, I wasn't aware that was thing (very foolish of me) and my fiancee clocked 61s at the finish (with 27s on 200 mark). I don't have running background and I didn't run much in my life, only started a month ago with maybe 20k behind me in 4-5 sessions."

Sure, an isolated incident doesn't mean much, but there are plenty of examples out there, including a few that I've witnessed in person.

Any person ultimately capable of sub 60 has an above average genetic predisposition for sprinting. For every male who manages a sub 60 timing whether it be with ease off unstructured soccer training or years of hard work, there is 2 or 3 more who couldn’t do it no matter what training they had. Sprinting is at least 60 to 70% of how the central nervous system functions and adapts to training on a genetic level. Not everybody gets to be that fast even if you consider it “slow”.

Oh and by the way, I am in no way suggesting that 59.9 takes HEAPS of talent but it definitely takes SOME. Yes, for a lot of people is is attainable with training but by no means a large majority. You would be surprised at the amount of young guys in their prime who train a lot at their sports, have good muscle and lower body fat, eat well, are 100% healthy who couldn’t hit said timing.

Old and slower wrote:

I once ran 50 seconds but now can only hit low 60s despite still running 17 minutes for 5k.

I don't know how many people can run a sub 60 400, but I'm pretty sure that it's a lot higher than the number of people who can run a 17 minute 5K.

I've run sub 60 too many times too count, and this includes a few sub 55 relay splits and some sub 60 splits en route to a 500 or 600 in training. But I haven't had any luck breaking 18 for a 5K, and this includes multiple attempts with a pacer in good weather conditions on a Mondo track. The closest I got was 18:34, which barely cracks sub 6 mile pace.

SprintTriathlon wrote:

fisky wrote:

Looking and men and women, here is what I'd guess could break 60 seconds in the 400m.

Age 1-12: 1 in 1,000,000

Age 13-29: 1 in 100

Age 30-50: 1 in 10,000

Age 50-60: 1 in 100,000

Age 60+: 1 in 100,000,000

It works out to around 600,000 so 99.99% could not run under 60 seconds.

Wow, if that is true, maybe I will change my focus, at 58 and untrained for speedevents I sometimes stride 30 seconds 200meters (flying start), just getting the speedendurance and at age 60+ I may be kinda 1 in a 100million.

According to WHO, the 60+ population is about 1 Billion. According to MastersRankings, the number of runners who ran 400m faster than 60 seconds in 2018 was 12 at 60-64, 2 at 65-69, and 1 at 70+. (Of course, not all meets are included, but logically anyone who could run this fast would run in a major meet somewhere in 2018.)

15/1 Billion = 1.5/100 million.

It's not totally pointless....Yes anyone that can go sub-60 will have to be able to go sub-30. However, the inverse is not always true, a sub-30 runner cannot necessarily go sub-60. Sub-60 is much much harder than sub-30. I personally have never gone sub-60 but have run a 61 after having done a 5x800 workout at 5k race pace (5:20). Going sub-60 requires a lot more strength and fitness than going sub-30 obviously, so more people will be likely to go sub-30 than sub-60. That's why it is not redundant.

Hummell wrote:

Any person ultimately capable of sub 60 has an above average genetic predisposition for sprinting. For every male who manages a sub 60 timing whether it be with ease off unstructured soccer training or years of hard work, there is 2 or 3 more who couldn’t do it no matter what training they had. Sprinting is at least 60 to 70% of how the central nervous system functions and adapts to training on a genetic level. Not everybody gets to be that fast even if you consider it “slow”.

Almost every sub 2:10 marathoner can run a sub 60 without any sprint training. Does that mean that marathoners have an above average genetic predisposition for sprinting? If so, why did they decide to become marathoners instead of sticking to the sprints?

doesn't quite make sense wrote:

Hummell wrote:

Any person ultimately capable of sub 60 has an above average genetic predisposition for sprinting. For every male who manages a sub 60 timing whether it be with ease off unstructured soccer training or years of hard work, there is 2 or 3 more who couldn’t do it no matter what training they had. Sprinting is at least 60 to 70% of how the central nervous system functions and adapts to training on a genetic level. Not everybody gets to be that fast even if you consider it “slow”.

Almost every sub 2:10 marathoner can run a sub 60 without any sprint training. Does that mean that marathoners have an above average genetic predisposition for sprinting? If so, why did they decide to become marathoners instead of sticking to the sprints?

Also, marathoners are predominantly slow-twitch, even the sub 2:10 ones. So you're pretty much claiming that slow-twitch guys would have an "above average genetic predisposition for sprinting". This is news to me; maybe I should be looking at skinny slow-twitch guys to recruit for my 4x4 relay team.

In my high school class with 100 boys we had at least 6 who ran a sub 2 800, and close to 10 who ran sub 60 400. We were nothing special (except one ran 4:03 mile), so I thinl some of you are underestimating how many can do this in their prime.

doesn't quite make sense wrote:

Hummell wrote:

Any person ultimately capable of sub 60 has an above average genetic predisposition for sprinting. For every male who manages a sub 60 timing whether it be with ease off unstructured soccer training or years of hard work, there is 2 or 3 more who couldn’t do it no matter what training they had. Sprinting is at least 60 to 70% of how the central nervous system functions and adapts to training on a genetic level. Not everybody gets to be that fast even if you consider it “slow”.

Almost every sub 2:10 marathoner can run a sub 60 without any sprint training. Does that mean that marathoners have an above average genetic predisposition for sprinting? If so, why did they decide to become marathoners instead of sticking to the sprints?

Because although having a (much) better than 1 in 2 talent for sprinting, they have a 1 in a 100,000,000 talent for marathon running?

A 71 year old man has run the 400 in 57 seconds. If a young male trains for years, is given a two second head start, and still can't beat him, there is something seriously wrong with that guy.

Well there must be something seriously wrong with most males then because only 2 guys in my platoon can run sub 60.

My thoughts on the subject are that the OP is a kunt bugger and needs his head ventilating.