Your IQ is at that point where the state could not execute you if you committed a capital offense. Probably 1-2/500 40 year old men can break 60 seconds for 400m.
Far far far less than that.
I'd say 1/500 might be about right for the more fit portions of the US, but there's entire states where a sub-60 would be like a seeing a unicorn even within that 18-40 y/o age bracket.
The obesity rate for 18-year-olds in the USA is roughly 20%–23% based on data for adolescents aged 12–19. For young adults specifically (ages 18–24), studies show a prevalence of roughly 22%–33%, with over 50% considered either overweight or obese. Recent studies suggest young adult (18–39) obesity rates are lower than middle-age but increasing.
Instead you'll find plenty of hobby joggers on here claiming that it's their slow-twitch dominant genes preventing them from putting together a couple 34s splits in a row. How about put in the bare minimum amount of effort into strength training, speed work, etc. and you'll realize why essentially every elite or near-elite distance runner can run 52s or better. Your 5K, 10K, etc. will all certainly improve in the process btw. Godspeed!
I sort of agree with this. I had not run for 6 months when I was about 35. I went to the track hungover and ran 60 point, then rested ten minutes and ran 60 point again. I was sort of impressed with myself but my high school PR's were 48 and 1:52. I was more impressed with my buddy, a tall and big dude and never a competitive runner, who managed a 69. So anyone vaguely athletic should be able to break 70 within this age range.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reminds me of when Kipchoge ran 2:01:39 in Berlin and you had a bunch of youtubers trying the "Kipchoge" challenge. Most of the guys were able to hit 68
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Instead you'll find plenty of hobby joggers on here claiming that it's their slow-twitch dominant genes preventing them from putting together a couple 34s splits in a row. How about put in the bare minimum amount of effort into strength training, speed work, etc. and you'll realize why essentially every elite or near-elite distance runner can run 52s or better. Your 5K, 10K, etc. will all certainly improve in the process btw. Godspeed!
Everyone is different. I ran a 76s split at 41 last August on the final lap and struggled to a 5:59 1600m time trial at age 41.
When I was in HS I was still slow--64s is my lifetime PR for 400m and 5:15 is for 1600m.
I always suspect that there are plenty of adult runners who can run a 5k at 90 seconds per lap, but they can't break 80 in a 400.
They worry about their mileage, but they fail to understand that the limiting factor is their terrible speed. It's something they can easily fix within a few months.
In the late 1980s the President allowed the mile as an alternative to the 600. 85th percentile was significantly slower than 6 minutes, i.e 90 second pace. Certainly 18:45 is harder than that.
That's a cool stat! Reagan was a fitness freak, I remember reading he lifted weights daily. In a book about the Navy SecNav John F. Lehman mentioned that because Reagan had to deal with Hyman G. Rickover (controversial Navy admiral) and Lehman felt Pres. Reagan would be able to handle himself. Pres. Carter was also a decent runner as well.
When I did my first Presidential Fitness challenge in the spring of '95 (5th grade) it was already 1 mile and/or 1600m. I remember I ran a 9:40. 27 laps around our tiny gym at Westwood Elementary (Northeast Ohio).
Instead you'll find plenty of hobby joggers on here claiming that it's their slow-twitch dominant genes preventing them from putting together a couple 34s splits in a row. How about put in the bare minimum amount of effort into strength training, speed work, etc. and you'll realize why essentially every elite or near-elite distance runner can run 52s or better. Your 5K, 10K, etc. will all certainly improve in the process btw. Godspeed!
Everyone is different. I ran a 76s split at 41 last August on the final lap and struggled to a 5:59 1600m time trial at age 41.
When I was in HS I was still slow--64s is my lifetime PR for 400m and 5:15 is for 1600m.
Quality work for 41 man! Splitting 76s at the end of a 1600m is a lot different than as an all-out effort too. Based on the times you listed, I think cracking 70 in a 400m time trial would be well within your ability even in your 40s.
Instead you'll find plenty of hobby joggers on here claiming that it's their slow-twitch dominant genes preventing them from putting together a couple 34s splits in a row. How about put in the bare minimum amount of effort into strength training, speed work, etc. and you'll realize why essentially every elite or near-elite distance runner can run 52s or better. Your 5K, 10K, etc. will all certainly improve in the process btw. Godspeed!
Too many problems with this statement. Top of my head...a gold medalist in Gymnastics...or Figure skating can only run 75 or 80s, thus they are not "athletic"?
In the 1970s and 1980s, Gen X was raised on the President's challenge fitness tests. Every few years in school, everyone was tested in 6 fitness events. If you could score 85% percentile or better on all 6, you got the presidential patch.
One of the events was a 600 yard run. 85th percentile for 18 year olds was 1:35. That's 69 second 400 pace for 548 meters. So something above 15% could surely do 69 for just 400 meters. Not sure if it's 50% though.
Strangely enough, the stats went way down for college age. A lot of people stop with all fitness and get drunk, heavy and weak. Or skinny teens fill out with upper body weight and are no longer so fast. Running isn't everything
I don’t know. I remember in elementary school only a couple of us hit the standard. No where near 15%. More like 1%.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Gen X was raised on the President's challenge fitness tests. Every few years in school, everyone was tested in 6 fitness events. If you could score 85% percentile or better on all 6, you got the presidential patch.
One of the events was a 600 yard run. 85th percentile for 18 year olds was 1:35. That's 69 second 400 pace for 548 meters. So something above 15% could surely do 69 for just 400 meters. Not sure if it's 50% though.
Strangely enough, the stats went way down for college age. A lot of people stop with all fitness and get drunk, heavy and weak. Or skinny teens fill out with upper body weight and are no longer so fast. Running isn't everything
I don’t know. I remember in elementary school only a couple of us hit the standard. No where near 15%. More like 1%.
I agree, I don't recall 135 being 85% or anything but this much I know...no way 15% of untrained HS kids are hitting 135. In fact im going to say 5% could hit that. 400 is one thing, add another 200m and you get people crashing and burning the last 200-300M big time.
Instead you'll find plenty of hobby joggers on here claiming that it's their slow-twitch dominant genes preventing them from putting together a couple 34s splits in a row. How about put in the bare minimum amount of effort into strength training, speed work, etc. and you'll realize why essentially every elite or near-elite distance runner can run 52s or better. Your 5K, 10K, etc. will all certainly improve in the process btw. Godspeed!
Too many problems with this statement. Top of my head...a gold medalist in Gymnastics...or Figure skating can only run 75 or 80s, thus they are not "athletic"?
You don't think a male gold medalist figure skater could run a 70s 400m? Gotta agree to disagree on that one. At least pick a sport with chunkier athletes lol
Too many problems with this statement. Top of my head...a gold medalist in Gymnastics...or Figure skating can only run 75 or 80s, thus they are not "athletic"?
You don't think a male gold medalist figure skater could run a 70s 400m? Gotta agree to disagree on that one. At least pick a sport with chunkier athletes lol
I would say that demo would be more likely but I bet a few of them could not, so to say the general population, has to run that fast seems overly generalized or just a diff take on what "athleticism" means. Now you are saying gen population? Tons of reasonably athletic people playing sports that would be hard pressed to run that fast at 40. You are underestimating how bad some folks are at just plain running fast. Clearly many golfers or even bowlers could not. But then we get into a def of "athletic" which has been done to death.
You don't think a male gold medalist figure skater could run a 70s 400m? Gotta agree to disagree on that one. At least pick a sport with chunkier athletes lol
I would say that demo would be more likely but I bet a few of them could not, so to say the general population, has to run that fast seems overly generalized or just a diff take on what "athleticism" means. Now you are saying gen population? Tons of reasonably athletic people playing sports that would be hard pressed to run that fast at 40. You are underestimating how bad some folks are at just plain running fast. Clearly many golfers or even bowlers could not. But then we get into a def of "athletic" which has been done to death.
Yeah fair points all around. I think "fit" would definitely be a better descriptor for what I mean here and I regretted the title I chose after the fact. A 40 yr old chubby golfer might be athletic, but I wouldn't consider them fit necessarily. I'm sure many couldn't run 95s let alone 70s.
I don’t know. I remember in elementary school only a couple of us hit the standard. No where near 15%. More like 1%.
I agree, I don't recall 135 being 85% or anything but this much I know...no way 15% of untrained HS kids are hitting 135. In fact im going to say 5% could hit that. 400 is one thing, add another 200m and you get people crashing and burning the last 200-300M big time.
1:35 for 17/18 year olds, out of the general population. Which included the ones who did sports, so they aren't all untrained. Also in the 70s and 80s far less students were fat, out of shape, they'd get ostracized for it
the standards changed from year to year, based on past results. Presidential was set at top 15%. Naturally it wasn't possible for many to get the patch, though some of the teachers cheated a bit.
We've had threads like this before. The most convincing posts emphasized versatility as a way to measure athleticism. The Modified PST is the gold standard.
I sort of agree with this. I had not run for 6 months when I was about 35. I went to the track hungover and ran 60 point, then rested ten minutes and ran 60 point again. I was sort of impressed with myself but my high school PR's were 48 and 1:52. I was more impressed with my buddy, a tall and big dude and never a competitive runner, who managed a 69. So anyone vaguely athletic should be able to break 70 within this age range.
Yeah my older brother's 33 y/o and 6'1" 210lbs and I trust him to break 70s with a bit of pacing. He was a decent rower way back in college, but he's got literally zero real running experience. I might invite him to try it next time he's in town. I'd also estimate maybe like a 6:45-7 flat mile for him.
In most cases, even basic strength work, strides, and proper interval sessions make a huge difference over time. At the same time though, not everyone is aiming for elite splits, so goals and effort levels vary a lot. Still, adding structured speed work usually benefits almost every runner regardless of level.