What do you think of these 400m standards?

A 1'08"36 400m is equivalent to a 20'00 5000m.

Dumb. 400 is not fitness. I can run 16:00 for 5k at 42 but only about 70 seconds for 400. There are random out of shape 15 year olds at my son's school who can run sub 60.

Just because the aging process affects certain areas of fitness disproportionately does not make them irrelevant to fitness. I can't see how running hard for ~60s is not under the umbrella of fitness. There are 40+ yr olds running sub 50s and I do think they're better in a subset of fitness than someone running 70s. Do you think a 42 yr old running 2 min for 400m is equally fit as you?

Dumb. There are 25 year old marathoners who run 80 MPW who can't break 70 for 400 and there are beer drinking couch potatoes who are 25 who can run 65 seconds.

I remember early on in my senior track season my coach made me run in the 4x4 in a duel meet to develop speed. I ran my leg in 70 seconds. My PR for the 1600 that season was 4:39. Some people are just slow...

I’ll tell you what it means. It means the couch potatoes are in fact faster than 80 mile per week marathoners. It means that the vast majority of marathoners, with the exception of the super elite, are in fact quite slow and are “fit” only in the sense that they can run very slowly for a very, very long time.

I know that no one on this site wants to hear it, but long-distance runners are fit in only one aspect of human performance, and not an incredibly important one. Running slowly for 4 hours straight is a certain kind of fitness, to be sure. But being able to clear a quarter mile in a minute indicates not only a small measure of aerobic fitness, but reactivity, power, acceleration, and lactate buffering. Those things are important too.

***Fully Verified***

The doctor says they are the fittest at low body fat, low blood pressure, low heart rate, high VO2, low cholesterol, etc. Having fast twitch muscles while drinking beet and eating poorly and being overweight, is not being fit.

Most people who can run the 400m in a 1:00 or so has a healthy VO2 max. You don’t need to run 80 m/week for a healthy VO2 max.

Of course drinking beer and eating poorly is unhealthy. But the main point I’m making is that people who run 80 m/week are not necessarily fitter than people who can run 400m fast.

***Fully Verified***

Genetics impact 400 meter speed more than fitness.

Thank you for this! Fairly new to the site and I'm a bit shocked by the amount of pushback I'm getting on this thread. Do folks genuinely believe there are non-fit ppl running 46s in the 400m? Definitely appears to be the case that the distance runner's definition of "fitness" needs a bit of updating.

No it does not. Fiber type matters at the elite end, sure. But your overweight friend from work who can't crack 90s in a 400m is not unable to do that feat because of "fiber type dominance". It's because he also can't run an 8 minute mile or a 16 second 100m. AKA lack of overall fitness.

I'm gonna be entirely honest I think most of the population would struggle to run a 21 second 100, much less string four of them together.

Yeah agreed but I also wouldn't consider most of the population to have "baseline fitness", certainly not in the US.

Slow people exist, but that doesn't mean a 400m isn't any indication of fitness. Just a different type of fitness than the average distance runner can perform well. I also find it hard to believe a sub-5 miler couldn't physically break 70s. If so, they could massively drop that mile time with speed work alone.

400 meter time is primarily related to genetics. A fit person may only be able to run 80 seconds while a gifted unfit person may run sub 60.

So you're basically trying to tell me that a very fit person "may only be able" to run 6 minutes for the mile. There's essentially zero ppl who can run a 6 min mile who can't break 80s in the 400m. Also keep in mind I put the demographics as males 18-40 yrs old. Now do you genuinely believe there are "fit" 25 yr old men who can't run 80s for a single lap?

You must be a high school kid. Most 25 year olds could train forever and not run a 6 minute mile.

You are not following your own logic. Two fit 25 years may run 45 or 75 seconds.

Your standards are quite sensible, it just riles the sloggers to see themselves in the lowest bracket.

The 400 is an awesome test. I convinced two soccer players to try it. They were quite fit, could run a decent 5k, but didn't know about extreme lactate. They both started carrying a piano at 300-320, hilarious.