And indeed, Letsrun is hosted in the fattest country of all, with the most visitors from the fattest country of all. The average 20 yo American cannot run 15 seconds flat in an open 100, and most will struggle for 20.
And indeed, Letsrun is hosted in the fattest country of all, with the most visitors from the fattest country of all. The average 20 yo American cannot run 15 seconds flat in an open 100, and most will struggle for 20.
I think a fair average 100m split would be 17sec each. 16 seconds without a baton but 17 assuming that people botch handoffs.
So that's 68sec laps for me. Could do about a mile I suppose...
This is Jim Kiler wrote:
This same question comes up all the time.
"Random" guys running 100 meters would go like this. Yes, even those 20 years old.
7 of them would start walking by 70 meters.
Two might run 16-18 seconds.
One might run a high 14.
There is a massive disconnect here with general fitness in the US.
This right here. If we’re talking about the average 20 year old American guy, they are going to be extremely unfit. Half of all Americans at this age are at least overweight (a majority of these are obese too). Not to mention that most of these will also be extremely sedentary, so they will be even slower. Doubt many of these obese guys will be running faster than 20 seconds, so I’d say around 18 to 20 seconds is probably a good estimate for the average 100m time for an American 20 year old. That’s around 5:20 pace, so even an average high school track runner would be able to take on 20.
I would love to see heats where 1,000 'random' 20 year old men race to see what kind of times they would produce.
Even if you think walking down a street, selecting every 10th person would be accurate, I don't think so. These are the people who are out and about, walking down the street, they have time on their feet every day. Plus cities, towns, rural areas vary.
We have 50 states so let's take 20 men from each state. I mean I know this is not representative at all either because of population and other factors but I like the simplicity of it. Nothing is foolproof really, even using the census to pick skews it. OK, so let's say it's like 'The Human Race' (movie) where the people just materialise on the start line. They are 1000 truly random 20 year old men.
I don't know what the average would be but I'm thinking there would be a fair few DNFs.
I have a completely different opinion. I'm in Britain not America, but from my experience the average 20-year-old is VERY unfit. There are many, MANY of them who would struggle to finish 100m (yes, they're that unfit!) many of them are obese or morbidly obese and the ones who aren't very rarely exercise.
Chances are, as long as you can beat 1 or 2 relatively fit guys, you'd end up beating hundreds of them because all it takes is ONE fat guy who takes 30+ seconds to finish his leg and then you're so far ahead you can pretty much just cruise at your 10k or even HM pace and just keep going and going, every time they start to catch up another fat guy will run taking 30+ seconds and they'll fall miles behind again.
field of flowers wrote:
I would love to see heats where 1,000 'random' 20 year old men race to see what kind of times they would produce.
Even if you think walking down a street, selecting every 10th person would be accurate, I don't think so. These are the people who are out and about, walking down the street, they have time on their feet every day. Plus cities, towns, rural areas vary.
We have 50 states so let's take 20 men from each state. I mean I know this is not representative at all either because of population and other factors but I like the simplicity of it. Nothing is foolproof really, even using the census to pick skews it. OK, so let's say it's like 'The Human Race' (movie) where the people just materialise on the start line. They are 1000 truly random 20 year old men.
I don't know what the average would be but I'm thinking there would be a fair few DNFs.
I like to think that in this thought experiment DNF's are not allowed. If your legs collapse beneath you you'll just have to crawl to the line. You'll be there until you finish.
I think a lot of them would be around 15-18 seconds for 100 meters. Only 10% would be faster than that, and 20% would be slower than 18. I think in a 10k, racing 100 guys at random off the street would be pretty close, running mid 28 minutes. I'd be relying on a few fatties running 30 seconds for 100 meters to allow me to close the gap.
gauntlet wrote:
So let's say you have a large number of able-bodied 20 year old men who form a relay and run 100m each. They don't have any training aside from what they're already doing in their lives now.
With that said, how many of them do you think you could take on before the relay team pulls ahead? I think I could handle a 20x100 relay team, but not a 25x100 team.
Hahaha you’d be lucky to beat two or three and could definitely lose to one. You aren’t running over a mile at the someones sprinter speed over 100ms lmao. I swear long distance runners actual think they’re fast. Maybe olympic level guys but you aren’t lol. I could pull 50 kids out of a HS with only 600 kids in it that you wouldn’t beat over the very first 100 lol. Probably more. Distance runners are the most unathletic people to start with. If you were athletic you would of played something else or been a sprinter or jumper. Y’all’s egos are insane lol
How it would happen wrote:
I think a lot of them would be around 15-18 seconds for 100 meters. Only 10% would be faster than that, and 20% would be slower than 18. I think in a 10k, racing 100 guys at random off the street would be pretty close, running mid 28 minutes. I'd be relying on a few fatties running 30 seconds for 100 meters to allow me to close the gap.
If you think only 10% of people can run faster than 15-18 seconds then you are an idiot and once again grossly overestimate yourself and “distance runners” while underestimating the average person. The average person does play sports lol. You are getting smoked. Smoked. Not even close. Now if you get to cherry pick the perfect 20 year olds who have never sprinted a day in there life then ok but don’t say the average person lol. The average person is MUCH more athletic than you. Unless you’re Donavan Brazier gtfo.
VroomVroom wrote:
I could pull 50 kids out of a HS with only 600 kids in it that you wouldn’t beat over the very first 100 lol. Probably more.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Have you ever set foot in a school? Most kids these days are too fat to even finish the distance. You're not allowed to hand-pick the 60 kids. It has to be 60 RANDOM kids. Nobody's saying they could outspring the top 8 runners in the school. They're saying they could outrun a team that consists of a fat kid who's never run in his life. I've personally witnessed two unfit 18-year-olds race each other. They made it about 30 metres and were absolutely gasping for breath like they were dying. Those guys would've seriously struggled to finish 100m.
According to NIH, around 30% of twenty year olds are overweight or obese in the US. 20 is still really young. Not too many dudes are huge at 20, in my experience, which is “slimmer” than average in MN.
I’m gonna go with 17 for the average. Around 4:16 mile pace. I could last for 8-10.
First off, 17s would result in a 4:32, not 4:16.
Second, I really really doubt the average 20 year old could run 17 seconds. I think its over 20 seconds.
Think about your high school graduating class — do you really think most of them could have run under 20 seconds? I doubt many are getting faster after 2-3 years in college or work.
We need a rich person to conduct random sample tests for the distances we’ve discussed on this board to put these arguments to rest once and for all.
Mennonite wrote:
First off, 17s would result in a 4:32, not 4:16.
Second, I really really doubt the average 20 year old could run 17 seconds. I think its over 20 seconds.
Think about your high school graduating class — do you really think most of them could have run under 20 seconds? I doubt many are getting faster after 2-3 years in college or work.
We need a rich person to conduct random sample tests for the distances we’ve discussed on this board to put these arguments to rest once and for all.
Sorry about the math there. In my HS graduating class, yes, I do think that most could have run under 20. Our track team had 100 boys, even the heaviest thrower probably could do sub 20, you gotta assume any soccer, basketball, hockey, wrestling, probably baseball, swimming, participant could. My class had about 325 boys. I'll for sure give it to you though that my high school was not normal..rich suburb, great sports teams, involved parents, all that.
British Guy wrote:
I have a completely different opinion. I'm in Britain not America, but from my experience the average 20-year-old is VERY unfit. There are many, MANY of them who would struggle to finish 100m (yes, they're that unfit!) many of them are obese or morbidly obese and the ones who aren't very rarely exercise.
Chances are, as long as you can beat 1 or 2 relatively fit guys, you'd end up beating hundreds of them because all it takes is ONE fat guy who takes 30+ seconds to finish his leg and then you're so far ahead you can pretty much just cruise at your 10k or even HM pace and just keep going and going, every time they start to catch up another fat guy will run taking 30+ seconds and they'll fall miles behind again.
At 20 even most of the unfit ones have done enough running in the recent past that I think you will struggle to find many that aren't breaking 17. Get up to say 30 years old when most of them haven't sprinted in a game like basketball or soccer in a decade and I expect a pretty rapid drop off.
British Guy wrote:They're saying they could outrun a team that consists of a fat kid who's never run in his life. I've personally witnessed two unfit 18-year-olds race each other. They made it about 30 metres and were absolutely gasping for breath like they were dying. Those guys would've seriously struggled to finish 100m.
No, the question was about “average” people, not the most sedentary fat kid you can think of.
Anyone saying the average for able-bodied twenty year olds is 20”+ (or that hand-offs are so incredibly tricky that they will cost them a second or more) is deluding themselves. We’re not that special!
Mennonite wrote:
Think about your high school graduating class — do you really think most of them could have run under 20 seconds?
Without any doubt.
titsmcgee wrote:
And indeed, Letsrun is hosted in the fattest country of all, with the most visitors from the fattest country of all. The average 20 yo American cannot run 15 seconds flat in an open 100, and most will struggle for 20.
Lucky the OP wasn't asking about Americans then. Just random 20 year olds.
Applied globally that would net on average 1 American, and they can put that one last so the faster ones can beat you with their 13s and 14s
20? No way!
First of all, we need to define the word 'average' given the context.
I don't see anyone beating 20 guys (I am hereby referring to someone who is not an elite runner).
Two or three guys perhaps.
You guys are forgetting that this probably like a 10% chance that you wouldn't beat the first guy!
It's just the luck of the draw. If you assume an average of 16 seconds flat
Probably 10% of guys can run sub 12.5. There are a lot of fast guys out there especially at the age of 20
There's a lot of basketball players football players that can go sub 12.5
I'd say 5% are going sub 12
Anyway it's just the luck of the draw if you got a couple of fast guys early on you be dead at a really low number like one or two or three
If you wanted to boost your ego and have some fun you'd have to say non-athletes. Guys who didn't play sports growing up
Then sure a good runner can beat a ton of them.
But if you're really talking about average and just taking your luck. Assuming you're a low four-minute miler with good distance training
You're probably looking at between 10 to 15 ,
Since most Runners are not anywhere near that, probably around 5
Also the question only makes sense if everyone is equally motivated
In other words you have to assume that they're motivated to try to beat you with some monetary reward or something.
If you're just assuming that it's like a gym class setting and they don't even know they're racing you then yeah that changes things but
It's not really fair if you know you're racing them and they don't know they're racing you, or it's not realistic