How fast could the average American run 400m on the track?

Ha, surprised this thread is still going, but let's keep it alive.

Best of luck with sub 60! Next year make sure to post here if you do. Us middle aged guys and former couch potatoes can still hold our own, with some motivation.

It's both surprising how out of shape a person can get by not trying, as well as surprising how in-shape the same person can get with even a modest level of trying.

Best of luck also with the sub 20 5K. For me the 5K isn't yet on my radar, but it's surprising how working at one distance can help others, like better endurance for shorter races. Eventually, I'll give it a go, having low expectations for good times (since endurance=kryptonite for me).

My flat-course version of the 400m is 63 seconds, but my main workout is going over a elevation-challenging course, where the first 400 m requires two quick vertical changes of about 25-30 feet. After the first hill, running at a sprinting pace, it feels like you weight 500 pounds fighting (fast) against gravity, and after the second hill (top of hill is exactly at the 400m mark) it's very draining on the gas tank.

That 400m hilly version, I'm at 74 seconds now. Last year my best time, even after getting into better shape 4 months from the couch, was 16 seconds slower than it is now. I can't believe this time keeps going down nearly every time I run.

After training this torturous 400m (and 800m, 1mi continuing w/ hills like this), the flat 400m is like a dream tour.

Not fitting any particular stereotype, almost no one would pick me out of a crowd and think I was athletic. I once walked onto the field of the ISU Cyclones practice during their 40yd times (I drove an ISU linebacker to practice), and asked if I could give it a shot, where the players were laughing when they let me run one. Even with a stumble at the start, I topped the fastest time on the team. When I walked back after the run, no one was laughing any more :)

Sub 60 or better 2019!!!

For me, non-ridiculous mile in 2019 also.

Here's to resurrecting our inner athleticism.

As a data scientist I will be tracking this resurrection metric for sure :)

Terrible shape the previous year (2017, probably would have been 90-105 seconds), much better shape now (63 secs now). Last April (2017) the doctor's thought I had issues with heart failure so that was a definite low for me. Not close to average though now, agreed.

Other stats

BMI current = 27.5 (208 wt) but 34 (obese) 1 year ago

400 m times as I went from super unhealthy, overweight, super high blood pressure, technically heart failure (EF health stats at that time

========== ==================

n/a -> Age=45.5, Wt=258, BP=206/155, EF=35%, PUL=110 no attempt at 400m (hospitalization)

90-105 sec -> Age=45.65, Wt=240, BP=135/90, EF=~40%, PUL=70 no timed attempt at 400m, est

75 secs -> Age=45.8, Wt=212, BP=~125/85, EF=55%, PUL=55

Where EF = heart efficiency, PUL = resting pulse

Current:

63 secs -> Age=46.5, Wt=208, BP=~120/80, EF>55%, PUL=50

Projected next year:

55-60 secs -> Age=47.5, Wt=~205, BP=~115/75, EF>55%, PUL=~45

I didn't time myself at any distance over month #1 of getting back into shape since I didn't want to risk an actual heart attack.

I know this is just a versus-self metric but a person can go a long ways in a short period of time, no matter who they are, if they set their mind to it.

The average time an average American could run 400m on the track will be infinity, because they would ALL quit shortly after reaching 300m.

1:20 or men, 2:00 for women. (In their 20s)

Get the population as a whole and it is going to be about 2:30-3:30 min.

Randomnessisgood wrote:

If you picked 1000 random American males between the ages of 20 and 30, off the street, and threw them onto a track, what would the average time be? Around 70 seconds?

Mean = infinite (at least one would be incapable of getting around the track unaided

Median = 2 min, 15.73 seconds precisely

Look at the average American's fat, bulging calves, pot belly, and love handles. I'd be surprised if he could even run 400 meters all the way without stopping. LetsRunners are so disconnected with the real world, which is filled with slobs and land whales.

There are lots of different types of “average 20-30 year old males” out there. Assuming they are at a healthy weight here is my breakdown. Running times based on different personnality traits.

75 sec for males who were good ATHLETES in their youth but quit because they started drinking and got fatter OR quit cardio and started weights. These types are usually risk-taking with cocky attitudes jacked up with testosterone so they probably also smoke now which slow them down. A lot of ex-military guys would fit this description and could probably run close to 60 when younger and active.

85 sec for males who were active during youth, look after themselves, do not drink or smoke but at the same time are too pansy to do any real training. Think the skinny hippie vegan types who live natural and always talk about how effed the earth is.

95 sec for Mr totally cliche average who likely just wants to settle down with a family. This would apply to the kids who ou never paid much attention to in school because they were just literally average at everything. Not weak, not strong. Not smart but not dumb. Could be successful now, could be a loser. Who knows?

105 sec for the guys who are just weak and dorky, bad genes and would probably bench 80lbs and run a slightly sub 90 lap at their genetic potential. Likely plays fortnite and watches anime.

I got bored wrote:

105 sec for the guys who are just weak and dorky, bad genes and would probably bench 80lbs and run a slightly sub 90 lap at their genetic potential.

A lack of upper body strength will not prevent you from running a good 400 unless you're talking about competing at the D1 or professional levels. Almost half of my school's XC team couldn't bench 80 lbs during one of the few weight room sessions we had, and they could all break 80 in a 400.

I got bored wrote:

Likely plays fortnite and watches anime.

I have no idea if they watch anime, but there were quite a few gaming nerds in that group.

Lower Bound wrote:

I looked at the results for a couple of large 5Ks. Here's what I found:

Race for the Cure: DC

Men 20-24. 181 finishers. Median time=29:01

Men 25-29. 339 finishers. Median time=28:53

Dallas YMCA Turkey Trot

Men 20-24. 175 finishers. Median time=29:56

Men 25-29. 201 finishers. Median time=30:55

If we plug these times into the McMillan pace calculator, we get 400m times of 1:40-1:50.

It's far easier to run a fast 400 than a fast 5K. The former can be done off of half-assed training for anything from basketball to soccer to ultimate frisbee. The latter requires years of high mileage and altitude training to reach your potential.

Since there are no large 400m races with thousands of participants, I went to TFRRS and looked at recent race results that allowed the general public to participate and had no entry standards. Only outdoor meets were considered since it would be very unlikely the Average Joe would know or care about indoor meets. Any meet that had more than a tiny fraction of D1 athletes participating was also thrown out since it wouldn't be representative of the general non-obese young population. To get a reasonably large sample size, I only looked at races that had at least 50 finishers, men and women combined.

The results? One meet had 38 male finishers, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them ran a sub 60, including the unattached guys. The slowest was 58.07:

Sure, those numbers are representative of the general athletic male population in their 20s, not the general young male population, which includes a fair number of obese guys. But the same can be said of the 5Ks you listed.

Males in their prime obviously interested in running and sport are nowhere near representative of the population, you are still cherry picking from the top percentile, average people do not choose to enter races of any kind. I don’t understand why this site seems to think sub 60 is the norm, about 2-3 in 100 males pull it off and only 1 in 10,000 females can pull it off.

For the geeks that you all are.. And the intelligence level that you " claim " that you have, you're all pretty dumb.

The 400 goes by bodyweight. Meaning that the only thing that matters is how much you weigh. If you're over 200 then good luck getting below 1:06 .. If you're a twink like EVERY SINGLE professional 400 runner then yeah you will run a good time.

It's pathetic the stupidity level of the majority of you. You talk and it just sounds like garbage coming out of your mouth. You don't even make sense.

The average American doesn't run for anything. They believe in progress. They drive or catch a cab.

matt_london413 wrote:

For the geeks that you all are.. And the intelligence level that you " claim " that you have, you're all pretty dumb.

The 400 goes by bodyweight. Meaning that the only thing that matters is how much you weigh. If you're over 200 then good luck getting below 1:06 .. If you're a twink like EVERY SINGLE professional 400 runner then yeah you will run a good time.

It's pathetic the stupidity level of the majority of you. You talk and it just sounds like garbage coming out of your mouth. You don't even make sense.

And what about all those 120lb skinny distance runners and 25 minute 5k paleo vegan movement hobby joggers who think sub 60 is just a dream? This makes up the majority of runners, lets face it. The more muscle you have, the better 400 you will run. The perfect combo is medium to high muscle + low bpdy fat.

200 lbs at 6% bf and 200 lbs at 30% body fat are two different things. The former will run 60.x and the latter wouldn’t make it round the track at11 minute mile pace without considering calling an ambulance.

Ran 4:18 in hs for the full mile and ran 52 for the 400

8 years off with no physical activity but only gained 5lbs. Ran a 400 and mile time trial when I just started running again.

Ran 6:24 for the full mile and 78 for the 400. My legs felt like they didn't work.

matt_london413 wrote:

If you're over 200 then good luck getting below 1:06

PT hatter wrote:

And what about all those 120lb skinny distance runners and 25 minute 5k paleo vegan movement hobby joggers who think sub 60 is just a dream? This makes up the majority of runners, lets face it.

A 112 lb guy with terrible form ran a 55 despite failing to run a sub 5 mile:

For all the doubters, the video is about halfway down the second page of that thread.

It's not a 400, but here's a group of truly average Americans running a 100:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAXhib4aemM

It's more like 100 yards than 100 meters, though:

https://imgur.com/a/DfNMs

Besides Bolt, the fastest 90m time is around 12 seconds, and the median time is around 14-15 seconds.

I just started running -- on day 5, and my iSmoothRun app gave me a "best 400m time" today (since I broke 400m for the first time), so I figured I'd check out how bad mine was -- and found this thread. Interesting reading!

I'm 51/M, about 280 pounds, and 80 inches - my 400m time was 1:51. I think I fit into the geeky fortnite category above. hah.