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

My guess is 2-3 minutes.

maxa wrote:

I did a 400m in about 77s

I'm late 20s 5'9, 180

I am a 4:05 marathoner, but my spint speed is garbage.

I ran a very hilly dirt road marathon in 3:05 and I think if I tried to run sub 70 I'd pass out.

100+ easy.

Out of a completely random sample?

Most: DNF or at least finishing but walking

Definitely some: DNS

5% might crack 80"

DNF

The average American barely runs at all. The runnig usually stops after high school. And may pick up again at the occasional pickup football game at thanksgiving or something like that.

A leg muscles have atrophied and they literally don't know HOW to run properly much less run 400m.

8 mph on the treadmill is practically a sprint for many people I see at the gym.

By average do you mean "Mean Average", "Median Average", or "Mode Average"?

If you have the following coins:

1 pennies

4 nickels

1 dime

5 quarters

The Mean Average (add up the values of each coin and divide by how many coins there are) 14.18. (note that there is not a single coin worth 14.18)

The Median average (the point where there are the same number of coins that are higher as there are coins lower) is 10 (the dime, there are 5 coins of lesser value and 5 coins of higher value)

The Mode Average (the number that appears the most times in the list) is 25 (there are 5 quarters, more than any other coin).

----------------------

There are 5 guys sitting in a bar. They all have net worths of $150,000. Their mean net worth is $150,000. Their median bet worth is $150,000. Their mode net worth is $150,000.

Bill Gates walks in, and he has a net worth of $50 billion. The median and mode averages stay at $150,000. But the mean net worth is now $8.33 billion.

If one of your 1000 sample runners dies from a heart attack during the run, your mean average will be infinity.

To take into account such fence post errors, sometimes the top and bottom numbers are not counted. Like ignoring the 5% fastest and the 5% slowest, and just averaging the middle 90%.

----------------------------------

I am a 50 year old 6' 4" 230 lb guy who is coming off of a foot injury. With no training I am probably above average for your 1000 person sample.

A couple of years ago with a base of 120 miles per month for over a year I might have been able to go under 80 for the 400 (granted I was training for 10ks to marathon, not sprinting).

I started up about 6 weeks ago after an injury and right now I struggle to break 1:50.

The mean average 400 meter time of 1000 random American is:

No freaking way it is under 80.

No freaking way it is under 90.

No freaking way it is under 2 minutes.

1/5 will be walking after less than 100 meters.

Another 1/5 will start walking between 100 and 200 meters.

Another 1/5 will start walking between 200 and 300 meters.

Another 1/5 will start walking between 300 and 400 meters.

And 1/5 will run the whole way.

So, adding up 20% of 6 minutes, 5 minutes, 4 minutes, 3 minutes, and 2 minutes, I get ..........

4 minutes.

In the grand scheme of things a 2 minute 400 is pretty fast.

My brother is 27 years old, has never been a runner (played soccer and golf in college), and has run 5 miles in a row once in his life. He managed to gut out a 5:25 mile at 185 pounds by himself. I'm sure most guys his age could manage ONE lap at that pace.

I'm a sophomore in high school and I am currently on the track team . My best time that I have ever ran in the 400m dash is a 1.02 = 62 sec my slowest is a 1.04 = 64 sec

asdfasdf wrote:

tu45u wrote:

Picture an American guy in his 20s at that height and weight--you know, one of the beefy boys in your frat. (If it helps to picture a six-footer, his proportional weight would be 205.) Picture him trying to run all the way around a 400m track. Not happening.

A heavy guy with strong legs can run a decent 400. I remember our track coach offered the shot putters a free steak dinner if they could break 60 in the quarter. One of the guys who made it was about 6', 240.

I think the average would be in the 90s or 100s though. Most people could go faster than that but most people hate suffering.

This guy has got it right. Today at athletics practice we have all the unsporty people dropped on us as well. The complaints and heavy breathing after just 200m of running was astounding.

I don't think all people should be running long distances seriously (like 50 miles a week or more), just as I don't think everyone should be bench pressing hundreds of pounds. But I do think that the level of basic proficiency in physical activity has dropped massively in the last 20-30 years.

The average guy, mid 20s is overweight.

randomcoach wrote:

I think the average guy mid-20s NOT overweight could muster about 80sec. I teach PE.

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?

It would be slower than 70. Maybe 78 + or - 3?

The OP said between 20 & 30 yo. And we should estimate the median rather than the mean. My estimate, now is ... 85

Well, i don't work out and i'm not the skinniest. I did it in 80 seconds. So, there!

Every Wednesday I'm in charge of pt for my platoon and I have them do 8x400m on the road. 15-20 guys after we dispose of the walkers and profiles. Majority will run 1:30-40. So for a single 400m...maybe 1:20-30

Alan

I'm 31 and run about 61.5 vs. 60.0 in HS. I have no doubt that I'm above average.

I agree with estimating the median.

The median American male in his 20s (OP's stipulation) cannot run 400m in a row, but *can* run some of it.

With an optimum strategy for traveling 400m on foot, I could see Mr. Median's covering the distance in less than three minutes.

An earlier post said that if Mr. Median was 6ft tall, he'd weigh 205+. And that's a fat, not muscular, 205.

So--again, with an optimum strategy (brief runs alternated with brisk walking)--I could see Mr. M finishing right around 2:30. Sub-2:00? No way.

The correct answer to the OP's question is closer to 100 seconds than to 70. Most of the people letsrun hangs out (nonrunners, but active and not heavy) with might do 70 but that still requires fitness (which is not the same as training). My actual guess would be about 95 seconds.

Hmm Comments wrote:

The correct answer to the OP's question is closer to 100 seconds than to 70. Most of the people letsrun hangs out (nonrunners, but active and not heavy) with might do 70 but that still requires fitness (which is not the same as training). My actual guess would be about 95 seconds.

The correct answer is infinity. Within a sample of 1000 randomly selected 20-30 somethings, it is almost guaranteed that at least one subject will be physically unable to run 400m, thus registering a time of infinity. A single infinity value within the data set means that the average is necessarily infinity.

This is why it makes more sense to look at the median. Outliers do not impact the median in the same way that they impact the average.