How hard is it to go sub 50 in the 400 meters?

Your post ought to clear up most of these misguided notions about 400M performances. Some of the the posters are "humble bragging" (Old guy34...?) or just plain ignorant about running ability!

Of course a 50 sec 400m performance is beyond all but "some" of those in the top 1% of male athletes. Just go to some HS track meets.

But you did say something that ought to be clarified:

"There are only 2 orders of magnitude between the top 1% of talent and the slowest guy in the world, but there are 7 orders of magnitude between the top 1% of talent and the Olympic medalists."

What counts as an order of magnitude? "You say 2 orders between the top 1% and the slowest guy in the world"??? What does this mean?

Do you mean 7 between the slowest and the Olympic medalist...and 2 between the top 1% and the Olympic medalist?

Statistically, I think the Olympic medalist are about maybe about 6 or 7 standard deviations beyond the mean (average runner). And a 50 sec guy might be 2 or 3 std dev below the Olympic runner (or the world best).

Yeah...except the problem is that sub-50 has been shown to be within the top 4% of 1% with very generous concessions. Do you really think that the number of people who have that raw ability but don't try is 25x or more greater than those who do try?

Even if you do think that there are 25x more guys who could go sub-50 than go out for the 400m in track and actually achieve it, YOU'RE STILL ONLY TALKING ABOUT 1% OF GUYS.

Face it, sub-50 is a better-than-top-1% ability.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Smooth Daddy wrote:

I put the average male around 13.0 for 100m with little room for improvement.

No way, not even close to that fast. Not even flying. And blocks, that's 11.75 flying, light years further away.

+1, Bad Wigins .. not even close to 13 for the age male.

I'll say of the general population, more men wouldn't break SIXTY than would.

Thanks for reading my post.

When I said "orders of magnitude," I meant it the same way it's meant in science: 10x.

So, for example, 30,000 people is an order of magnitude smaller than 300,000 people. If you study the world long enough, you realize that no matter what the discipline, an order of magnitude of difference is qualitatively different every time.

3,000,000,000+ guys in the world, but only 3 make it onto the Olympic podium. That's 9 orders of magnitude of population difference between the set that includes everybody, and the set that includes just the medallists. Or, as I said in my post, 2 orders of magnitude between the slowest guy and the 1%, and 7 orders between the 1% and the medallists. Just like in scientific notation, the exponents add, which is how I get to 9.

The set that includes everybody is the same set that includes the slowest guy in the world. By definition, 1% is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the whole (100%). Since 100% of people includes the slowest guy in the world by 400m talent, then "top 1% of talent" is 2 orders of magnitude different.

But keep in mind that 1% of everybody is still 30 million guys worldwide. This is the most important takeaway. Most people don't actually appreciate how LARGE 1% of the population truly is.

Keep in mind, as well, that at no time I am assuming that barely-sub-50 is barely top 1% of talent. Rather, I'm saying that 1% of people is so large that, based on the number of sub-50 guys actually recorded, sub-50 has to be MORE RARE than the top 1% of talent.

It's true that an order of magnitude of population difference may not correspond perfectly to a standard deviation of talent. However, most people on this thread were trying to figure out what percentage of people could do it. I submit that sub-50 is significantly better than just barely top 1% of the total population's talent, even if you could magically wave a wand and make everyone fit & in their prime.

laughing wrote:

Yeah...except the problem is that sub-50 has been shown to be within the top 4% of 1% with very generous concessions.

It hasn't been shown. Or maybe I'm unaware about a study where 1000 random male infants were raised by a middle-distance coach and it was found that less that 10 of them could ever run sub-50 after training for it their whole life.

We can only speculate, and I speculate that there are a lot of tall, skinny-legged, sedentary males whose physiology is capable of the feat.

laughing wrote:

Do you really think that the number of people who have that raw ability but don't try is 25x or more greater than those who do try?

No, that's what I said. Where'd you get that number?

Most males, including me, do not have a skeletal-muscular structure that allows for sub-50.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think in that reference system when comparing things. And I should have looked up; "order of magnitude". I get it now.

I normally, think in percentile ranks...and normal distribution when thinking about these problems. I can convert to "order of magnitude" with some effort. It's like hearing temperature in celsius and converting to fahrenheit.

So if you're at 85 percentile or 1 standard deviation above the mean in some measure....like running the 400m ...i know that's kinda good.. but not great. If you're at 97.7 (say 98 about 2 std dev) percentile...then you stand out. You're not elite..but pretty good.

At 3 std dev (99.9%) you're quite impressive. A sub-50 400m is near that I think.

And running ability like any other human trait falls along a normal distribution curve.

jamin wrote:

laughing wrote:

Yeah...except the problem is that sub-50 has been shown to be within the top 4% of 1% with very generous concessions.

It hasn't been shown. Or maybe I'm unaware about a study where 1000 random male infants were raised by a middle-distance coach and it was found that less that 10 of them could ever run sub-50 after training for it their whole life.

We can only speculate, and I speculate that there are a lot of tall, skinny-legged, sedentary males whose physiology is capable of the feat.

I agree with Jamin. You think if someone was told, you have until age 30 to go sub 50 or you die, only 1% of men could do it? I think you'd see more than you think. Like I said, I was 17 when I did and didn't even win more than stupid dual meets.

Old guy34 wrote:

laughing wrote:

You need to start quantifying. What is "a good number" ??? 5,000 guys? 75,000 guys? 250,000 guys?

I don't know about absolute numbers, but after considering all the facts listed here, at least 10% of guys aged 18-29. So still not your average guy, but still a lot.

Could 10% of guys aged 18-29 run 14:30? That percentage should be able to, according to you. Could you run 14:30? You're certainly a top 10% runner, I would think. Or is the iaaf wrong? If that's so, why are you right and they wrong? Or are you humblebragging? Or trolling? Methinks the latter; you're all but single-handedly keeping this thread going. .

zephito wrote:

Old guy34 wrote:

I don't know about absolute numbers, but after considering all the facts listed here, at least 10% of guys aged 18-29. So still not your average guy, but still a lot.

Could 10% of guys aged 18-29 run 14:30? That percentage should be able to, according to you. Could you run 14:30? You're certainly a top 10% runner, I would think. Or is the iaaf wrong? If that's so, why are you right and they wrong? Or are you humblebragging? Or trolling? Methinks the latter; you're all but single-handedly keeping this thread going. .

I really think 14:30 is not the same as sub 50. There were lots of guys in my state that could go sub 50 (maybe 60). And there were none, NONE, that even broke 15:00 in the XC season. So yes, at least for high school, this iaaf table is garbage.

Why do you guys want to believe sub 50 is so hard? I suppose it does puff me up a bit to think I did it. But I just don't believe it is top 1 or .1% or whatever.

Old guy34 wrote:

I really think 14:30 is not the same as sub 50. There were lots of guys in my state that could go sub 50 (maybe 60). And there were none, NONE, that even broke 15:00 in the XC season. So yes, at least for high school, this iaaf table is garbage.

Why do you guys want to believe sub 50 is so hard? I suppose it does puff me up a bit to think I did it. But I just don't believe it is top 1 or .1% or whatever.

Agreed that IAAF scoring tables don't translate well in the distance events for high schoolers. Distance peak years are mid to late twenties, and building a strong aerobic base takes years of high mileage work that the vast majority of kids simply won't have the chance to fully develop over 4 years of high school running.

That being said, the Mercier junior scoring tables are pretty damn good, and they list a 49.9 400m performance as equivalent to the following:

1:56.37 800m

3:58.58 1500m (worth 4:16.12 1600m)

8:29.16 3k

14:40.91 5k (track--could be worth anywhere from low 15s to low 16s XC depending on the course).

Although hell if I can comment on it--I doubt I could have ever hit any of those times from the 1500 up, and a sub 50 quarter was a hell of a lot easier for me than a sub 18 5k.

Different people, different body structures, different talents. I'm sure you'd agree the the number of guys who could train to run a sub 16 5k is higher than the number of guys who could train to run a sub 50 quarter--that doesn't change the fact that there are some number of guys like you and me would find the former near unattainable and the latter very realistic.

This thread shows just how out of touch most runners are with the fitness of the gen pop. Take a average, say, 1000 person HS and there might be half a dozen sub 50. Assume 20 others that could do it if they were trained right. That's 25 out of 1000 ie 4% of hischoolers. That's probably the greatest proportion you,re going to get. So, for over 96% , sub 50 is impossible.

Hardknocklife wrote:

This thread shows just how out of touch most runners are with the fitness of the gen pop. Take a average, say, 1000 person HS and there might be half a dozen sub 50. Assume 20 others that could do it if they were trained right. That's 25 out of 1000 ie 4% of hischoolers. That's probably the greatest proportion you,re going to get. So, for over 96% , sub 50 is impossible.

The state of California has the best track weather, highest population, and a very competitive environment. According to census numbers there're 33 million people here. 1.25 million boys between the ages of 15-19 which is basically covers four years of high school age males. 305 high school males broke ran 50.99 or better. Only 129 were able to run 49.99 or better. 305/1.25 million is 0.000244. It comes out to .024 percent That's about 25 kids out of 100,000. The majority of those kids are juniors and seniors so you have to divide the above number by 2. But Let's say you DOUBLED those track teams to get the slackers and other single sport athletes athletes out there so you can keep the 25 out of 100,000. Only by multiplying 25 FORTY TIMES to account for subpar coaching, facilities, parenting, admin,

mental toughness, ambition would we get 1,000 out of 100,000 and attain 1 percent.

It just goes to show how hard it really is to run under 51 seconds. 99 out of 100 men couldn't even touch 50 seconds with all the help in the world. Very few people understand the numbers game and the importance of genetics when it comes to including ALL PEOPLE IN A DEMOGRAPHIC, not just the people we are familiar with.

Genetic capacity is what holds people's performances back in most cases - not the exposure to fascist Jamin experiments. And that's a hard truth to accept for most people.

The state of California has the best track weather, highest population, and a very competitive environment. According to census numbers 33 million people live here. There are 1.25 million boys between the ages of 15-19 which basically covers the four years for high school aged males. Athletics.net lists 305 high school males who ran 50.99 or better. Only 129 were able to run 49.99 or better. 305/1.25 million is 0.000244. It comes out to .024 percent. That's about 25 kids out of 100,000. The majority of those kids are juniors and seniors so you have to divide the above number by two. But let's say you DOUBLED those track teams to get the slackers and other single sport athletes athletes out there. Now you can keep the 25 out of 100,000. Only by multiplying 25 by FORTY TIMES to account for subpar coaching, facilities, parenting, admin,

mental toughness, ambition would we get 1,000 out of 100,000 and attain 1 percent.

It just goes to show how hard it really is to run under 51 seconds. 99 out of 100 men couldn't even touch 50 seconds with all the help in the world. Very few people understand the numbers game and the importance of genetics when it comes to including ALL PEOPLE IN A DEMOGRAPHIC, not just the people we are familiar with.

Genetic capacity is what holds people's performances back in most cases - not the exposure to fascist Jamin experiments. And that's a hard truth to accept for most people.

Old guy34 wrote:

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Utterly impossible for the average man to come even close.

Are you guys being serious? I really can't tell.

I did it in high school and I'm far from elite. Never even ran in college. I was one of the fastest on my high school team though.

I guess if you have the fast twitch fibers of a mud turtle it might be impossible.

If only your intelligence had caught up with you legs

Majority Decision wrote:

Dummy Devronica wrote:

I think that's reasonable. In addition, places that don't get on athletic.net are LESS LIKELY to have a large number of sub 50 runners.

No way it's reasonable. Less than 1% of adult men are capable of sub 50. Keep in mind that the sample size of 75,255 is made up not just of runners, but runners who cared enough to run the 400. And even then barely 2% managed sub 50. Factor in the non sprint runners, field event participants, non athletic types etc and you're well under 1%

No more than 5% can run sub 60

This.

Dgghjjjtreddgh wrote:

Majority Decision wrote:

No way it's reasonable. Less than 1% of adult men are capable of sub 50. Keep in mind that the sample size of 75,255 is made up not just of runners, but runners who cared enough to run the 400. And even then barely 2% managed sub 50. Factor in the non sprint runners, field event participants, non athletic types etc and you're well under 1%

No more than 5% can run sub 60

This.

But at the other end you get joggers going 3:30 to 4:30 in the marathon saying that they are top 10 percenters and that those who BQ are elite.

"I'd assume close to 95% of adult men are incapable of training to run sub 50"

I think this sums it up more accurately. There are probably a bunch of guys who have the natural "talent" but could never actually do the required training. Either they lack the mental capacity, discipline, or durability. Running a sub 50 is an end result of the training. I see many truly talented runners fail because they can't do the training that will show that talent. Injury is often the limiter.