Average person’s 400m genetic potential?

Rez wrote:

Able bodied people have the potential to go quite a bit faster than this.

50 for males, 60 for females I’d say would be average if everybody trained like a sprinter for a few years.

You seem to think humanity is divided into 'able-bodied' and 'disabled'. There's also wide spectrum of physical capabilities among the 'able-bodied'.

I notice also that the bufoons who post in these threads claiming that 'anyone can run sub 50 400m, sub 5 minute mile etc', always specify 'in their prime' etc. So it's like in their universe that everybody who isn't legally disabled or over 30 has essentially the same body and capacity for athletic excellence. The fact that you acknowledge, that for example, somebody with a genetic condition that means their muscles waste away, or somebody over 30 whose ability to build or hang on to muscle or whose V02 max is declining because of age, should entail that you recognize that physical capacity varies among humans.

Even the physical decline of aging is just the result of 'healthy longevity' genes not being maintained in the population by natural selection (ie. nature doesn't care that we decline after 25 or 30 because we should have reproduced by then).

Like Really Bro wrote:

Dizzy Dez wrote:

I truly believe that only about 1% of people have the talent to run a very fast 400 (sub 50 for men/sub 55 for women). Maybe about 5% of people can get sub 52/sub 60) but as for everybody else...

I trained for distance exclusively and ran a 50s 400m my senior of HS my second time trying it. I am sure I have some talent, but there is no way for a second I would believe I'm the '1%'. My mom signed me up for XC way back when because I played too many video games, and I was super mediocre till I worked hard, and became okay at best.

No way I was the "1%".

Threads like this are started by humble braggers for the benefit of humble braggers.

"I'm freaking awesome - I ran sub 50 in college, and there's no way I'm freaking awesome."

Postman Pat. Postman Pat. Postman Pat and his black and white cat.

Go and stand in the street. Look at the people who walk past.

These are the healthier ones. The ones that are walking.

The average person would simply get injured. They're fat, little base fitness, no mental strength.

How on earth would you make everyone train like a sprinter? Do you think people would give up their jobs, school, stop smoking, stop drinking, stop eating bad food all day?

If you took an average man and average woman age 20 and gave them 5 years training I think you're unlikely to achieve good times.

You would have a lot of women who would end up walking, at least initially.

When we did the 800m at school on a grass field, people ended up walking. They dreaded it. There were complaints about us having to run the 1500m and how it was inhumane and cruel. I wish I was joking. Some parents tried to get it removed from the PE lessons. They said it was too far. These were school children who had a background in PE. We had lessons two or three times a week back then, and a lot of people did after school clubs or other sporting activities. Yet there were still problems trying to get someone to jog for less than a mile. People would start walking after the first lap in the 800m. These are relatively fit 15-16 year olds.

PS apparently the average person in the USA is 38 years old.

Most people are too unfit and have already damaged their bodies a lot by the time they reach their mid/late 20s because they live of crap food, drink, take recreational drugs and smoke so much as soon as they leave high shool and they do it for years thinking they’ll recover because they’re young... until suddenly... they arent so young anymore. 10 years of partying and living off artificial mac n cheese is enough to permanently damage somebody genetically to the point where they will never be “fast and powerful” again.

The best most people can hope for is 80-90 seconds FULLY fit. The ones who stay fit their whole lives and dont let themselves go too much can expect between 50-75 seconds.

Coevett wrote:

Threads like this are started by humble braggers for the benefit of humble braggers.

"I'm freaking awesome - I ran sub 50 in college, and there's no way I'm freaking awesome."

nah right wrote:

cool story bro

would be a lot cooler if it actually happened as opposed to lying on the internet to impress other losers

Is it so fast that you are actually unable to believe it? I think this is some serious dunning-kruger effect but from the other end of the spectrum. Even if it is unbelievable for you, I still doubt that I was the "1-percenter". That being said I grew up in socal with hundreds of high shools within 45 minutes from my own. The top team in my 6-school league would win the majority of state meets in the country, by a lot. When there are that many fast people everywhere, getting on a track and running 12.7 x 4 at night under the lights really isn't anything special, because there are hundreds of others like you in every direction. I never felt slow, but I definitely didn't feel like I was anything special.

Once again, I find it hilarious that it is so far above your head that you simply cannot believe it. If only 1% can run a 50, that is because they grew up in a culture and environment where they was special. If 50 was the standard, a lot more than 1% would do it.

Rez wrote:

Able bodied people have the potential to go quite a bit faster than this.

50 for males, 60 for females I’d say would be average if everybody trained like a sprinter for a few years.

Bullsh*t 50/60 would be way too fast as an average, you are warped from reality if you forget how fast this is.

Less than 1% have the ability to run sub 50/55

About 99% don't want to hurt bad enough to bother with trying is my guess. And that's just a 400 at any pace.

I highly doubt it would be under 70 seconds. Have you met an average person?

Predictor wrote:

Average males can’t run anywhere near 50 seconds. The star of Vermont had 332 boys run the 400 this year and none broke 50. These guys are in the prime of their life and they are track guys, not the average population. The average 18 year old with training would run 70 seconds.

I know right... what have these posters been exposed to that leads them to believe that 50 is normal? of the small percentage of the population who are good enough at running the 400 to think that specific training is worthwhile, only a micro proportion approach anything near 50. We're talking less than a tenth of 1%, of less than a tenth of 1% of people.

I've just had a look at the strava segment of the 400 at the Track where they host our state's championships. Obviously most people don't where a GPS watch while racing the 400, but still, only 5 times recorded at 50 or lower.

Granting for argument's sake that it's correct that each person has a limit or potential to what they can achieve in the 400m, on what grounds do you suppose it's "genetic?" Which genes are in play? What genotype says you'll never run a sub 55 and so forth?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Granting for argument's sake that it's correct that each person has a limit or potential to what they can achieve in the 400m, on what grounds do you suppose it's "genetic?" Which genes are in play? What genotype says you'll never run a sub 55 and so forth?

Mostly heart and lung size/structure, which is genetic.

Nice try. If you say "genetics," the goalposts are what specific genotypes, and that's where they'll stay. Who's next?

There are so many paths to less than elite times in 400m. There are a select few 1500m & 5000m runners who are able to race sub-48 400m while training as 1500m & 5000m runners. Most sub-48 400m runners are 400m specialists who have devoted themselves to 400m but are barely able to break 48 seconds. I am sure there are 5'6 165lbs. guys racing slightly under 400m, guys with the classic 6'0" 170lbs. build and am sure there are very skinny guys racing 400m in that 47.75 to 47.99 range. I am sure the commonality you will find with 47.75 to 47.99 400m runners is low body fat. Good luck narrowing down other physical traits.

i dont know,but i remember when i was 21,i ran 400 in 64 seconds,100 in 13 flat,and 200 in 26.9 with no training whatsoever,and no sporting background,whatsoever.i also ran 800 in 2.35.i consider those times would be about average,and quite normal for someone with no training.

MArtyrn wrote:

Less than 1% have the ability to run sub 50/55

I think it might be a bit higher than 1% but I'm not sure where it lands. There was a time while coaching high school I had 6 guys on a team of just 12 that were sub 51 and 3 of them went sub 50.

I know I could never have done it with my high percentage of slow twitch muscles.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Nice try. If you say "genetics," the goalposts are what specific genotypes, and that's where they'll stay. Who's next?

Are you under the impression - or more accurately, delusion - that you won that exchange?