You gotta love LRC, cuz this kind of discussion cracks me up. I put a 70 second 400m into one of those questionable finish time calculators (Runner's World tools) and asked for the predicted 10k finish time: 29:09!!
Yup. Your local 10k will have 1000 average 20-30 year old finishers coming in around 29 minutes. 1000 off-the-street fatties with a couple tired Kenyans trying to keep up. I see it all the time.
The thing that's messing with me here is that the 400m is a sprint. Endurance isn't that big of a factor. How slow do you think the 100m (running start) times would be for the average 20-30 year old. I have a hard time thinking it would be anything over 18-20s. 5 minute mile pace isn't exactly very sprinty and I think going all out just about any non-obese guy should be able to hold that pace for 18 seconds.
That in theory should be good for a 400m somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-85s.
To the people suggesting 120s+...wtf? There is no way it is that slow. While the credibility of the source is questionable I've seen articles in things like Men's Health and the like about the average male and the listed one mile run time was 8:34. I think if you can handle 4x128 second quarters you can manage a single 120s one.
Even with all that I'm still not convinced since the 400m is largely a sprinting event, and I really haven't come across too many people that can't do 100m in 5:00 pace.
I don't know what world most of you live in. I was a middle of the pack runner in the 80's (sub master 30-40) (high 36's for 10k) (5:01 mile) Lucky to break 48 minutes in the 10k now! I'm pretty sure most 20 year olds would struggle to break 2 minutes!
I honestly don't think most 20 yr old males would struggle to break 2 minutes in a 400. Sure, there would be a few obese ones seriously slowing down the average, but i truly think that most would be under 90 seconds. I raced one of my out of shape housemates in a 400 while we were both very intoxicated and he still managed 83 to my 67.And he sat around and played video games all day.
Most of them would quit after 100m
akjfgdafa wrote:
I honestly don't think most 20 yr old males would struggle to break 2 minutes in a 400. Sure, there would be a few obese ones seriously slowing down the average,
Um hello, this is America, obese IS average.
Just felt this was worth sharing to add to the argument of the "in-shapeness" of average Americans- Our conference meet for track is run in a facility with a 180m track so rather 4x400, they run the 4x360 for ease. All the individual events are normal, keep that in mind. So my friend, decent sophomore is ill and runs 5:12 for the 1600m. Not exactly world beating or anything but still an OK time (he ran 10:10 recently for the 3200 now though so he's gotten much better!). Then it was time for the female 4x360m, coach throws in some frosh girls that just came out for shizz and giggles to get in shape a little bit and seeds them at a very conservative 4:56 and sends them on their merry little ways. Their final time- 5:15. For 1440 meters. Compared to one boy running 5:12 for 1600m. They ran 5:52 mile pace for goodness sakes! I'd say being conservative and saying 90 seconds for the average American in their 20-30's isn't that far off.
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.
This is obviously *NOT* a random sample of males 20-29. This is a sample of males 20-29 who run at least one 5K. So the real answer is almost certainly going to be *higher* than 1:40-1:50. That means that 70, and even 90, are way too low.
runnerdave wrote:
You gotta love LRC, cuz this kind of discussion cracks me up. I put a 70 second 400m into one of those questionable finish time calculators (Runner's World tools) and asked for the predicted 10k finish time: 29:09!!
Yup. Your local 10k will have 1000 average 20-30 year old finishers coming in around 29 minutes. 1000 off-the-street fatties with a couple tired Kenyans trying to keep up. I see it all the time.
I'll admit I haven't read the previous posts on this thread, but what the hell are you talking about? 70 second pace per 400 DOES give you a 29:10 10,000. The calculator was giving you your projected finish if you kept running 70 second laps, NOT telling you that you can run 29:10 with a 70 second 400m pb.
this thread cracks me up.......some of you are dilusional.
the OP asked about the average 20-30 year old and some of you think the average guy has to walk it in 2-3 minutes.
I thought this board was full of a bunch of people that knew something about running.
The average 6th grader can walk out in gym class can drop a sub 2 minute with most of the boys done in 1:40ish minus the fat kids.
i think you forget that we are runners and are friends with runner and just are basically around runners all the time. you forget how many people skipped gym class in high school because they were to lazy or fat. I think were giving was to much credit to the american people, im feeling like 100 or more
the "average American" cannot run 400m. He/she might be able to walk 400m at an average walking pace of 20min/mile which equates to a 5 min. 400m.
DNF
Many of those that willing to do it would go out way too fast, and when the bear jumped on their back at 40-50 seconds, most would quit.
The average would be infinity seconds. Out of a thousand people, it is very likely that at least one person will DNF (ie have a time of infinity). If one person has a time of infinity, then the average is infinity.
In all of this guessing and speculating I think it's important to make the distinction between the time the average person could POTENTIALLY run at the peak of their current physical potential and the time they WILL RUN.
I'd guess (hope?) the median could be close to 70 seconds, but I'd wager even if this is true many, if not most people would put out an effort closer to or over 2 minutes.
The general population just doesn't really like to suffer, not even for a minute. There is also dread involved and lack of motivation to try 100% so even with a real scientific study we'd never REALLY know.
On the topic of people not willing to suffer- so often when I've read survival stories involving a group, there always seems to be a person(s) who just give up because it's hard. Ex= a boat tips over and people are left to tread water. after a few minutes some people get "tired" and just let go and drown. They aren't used to suffering and don't know what to do when they are in a situation like this even though it means life and death.
With this in mind you think someone would punish themselves to move quickly around a track?
The Poster above me has it about right. To answer the OP's question, I believe that the average American COULD possibly break 2:00 mins for a 400M lap, IF a warm hot Krispy Creme donut was waiting for them at the finish line.
Waistline=Runtime wrote:
In all of this guessing and speculating I think it's important to make the distinction between the time the average person could POTENTIALLY run at the peak of their current physical potential and the time they WILL RUN.
I'd guess (hope?) the median could be close to 70 seconds, but I'd wager even if this is true many, if not most people would put out an effort closer to or over 2 minutes.
The general population just doesn't really like to suffer, not even for a minute. There is also dread involved and lack of motivation to try 100% so even with a real scientific study we'd never REALLY know.
On the topic of people not willing to suffer- so often when I've read survival stories involving a group, there always seems to be a person(s) who just give up because it's hard. Ex= a boat tips over and people are left to tread water. after a few minutes some people get "tired" and just let go and drown. They aren't used to suffering and don't know what to do when they are in a situation like this even though it means life and death.
With this in mind you think someone would punish themselves to move quickly around a track?
den bosch wrote:
akjfgdafa wrote:I honestly don't think most 20 yr old males would struggle to break 2 minutes in a 400. Sure, there would be a few obese ones seriously slowing down the average,
Um hello, this is America, obese IS average.
18.2% of americans 18-29 are obese
infinity wrote:
The average would be infinity seconds. Out of a thousand people, it is very likely that at least one person will DNF (ie have a time of infinity). If one person has a time of infinity, then the average is infinity.
Correct. That's why you don't use the arithmetic mean definition of "average," but instead the median performance.
"Average" could mean the arithmetic mean, if you were calculating the average weight of your HS football team's offensive line.
"Average" could also mean the mode, the most frequent occurrence.
But I'd say that the OP probably was referring to the median, the performance that's right in the middle of the sample. So no, the average (in the sense the OP was using) would not be infinity.
...unless at least 50% of the sample were to DNF. In this case, as others have said, that would be evidence of insufficient motivation.
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.
This is obviously *NOT* a random sample of males 20-29. This is a sample of males 20-29 who run at least one 5K. So the real answer is almost certainly going to be *higher* than 1:40-1:50. That means that 70, and even 90, are way too low.
I don't think these finish time calculators work for something like this. They assume you're in great aerobic shape, and a 400 doesn't require that much aerobic fitness.
Even if you use two events that are very comparable, the calculator says a 28 minute 5k is equivalent to a 58 minute 10k. I doubt there are many people with those two PRs, though. The people who have the aerobic fitness to run a 10k that close to twice their 5k probably run the 5k a lot faster than 28 minutes.
I know for sure that the relative difference between my out of shape and in shape times grows drastically as the distance increases, and I think that's pretty normal.
Just throwing this out there: my 27-year-old girlfriend works a desk job, hates running, and can pretty easily turn out a 2:00 400. Most of the time, she jogs laps at around a 3:00 pace for 25 minutes, so she definitely doesn't do (and hasn't done) any speed endurance training.