Can most people run a sub 60 400?

soho wrote:

In early adulthood, with a BMI under 19, and 2 years of injury-free training, I think the median time is under 60.

BMI under 19? That is getting down into truly skinny territory.

Not sure how much sprint times improve. Can you take a typical person from 15 basic to 13.5 given several years of training, or is that too much of an ask?

PRs:

5k: 19 mid

10k: 42 mid

1/2: 1:35

mar: 3:21

I never ran/raced a mile for time. Once I ran a 400m all out, just out of curiosity. With no interval, hill or other speed work and no sense of proper pacing, I did a 56.2.

My other longer times are fairly middling and in retrospect I wonder if I might have been a decent 400 guy in HS, but we will never know.

Just one real-world data point to consider.

The average well-trained runner should be able to hit their 400 time x 2.2 for 800m, which extrapolates to about 1.62 x 400 pace for 600m. A 60-second 400 runner should be capable of a 97-second 600m, or 97x548/600 = 88 seconds at the slowest over 600 yards, for a conversion factor of 600y = 88/60 = 1.47x400m

600 yards is probably the best-studied distance statistically in America because it was part of the old AAHPER tests that were done for decades, at a time when kids were more into field sports than today. In 1975, the latest percentile results for the best-performing of the three height/weight/age-graded classifications of high school boys were

100th: 83 seconds

95th: 91 seconds

90th: 94

85th: 96

for college-age men,

100th: 72

95th:95

90th: 98

85th: 100

That 100th percentile in college were doubtless the track guys running sub-50. But the curve from 95th down suggests 99th percentile was about 91, which converts to a 61 high 400. 100th for the high-schoolers converts to about a 56 400, and 88 seconds appears to be at around 98th percentile, so at most 2 percent of them could run sub 60.

Know how much fitter people were back then? 50th percentile in high school was 109 seconds, and in college 112. 109/1.47 = a 74-second 400. Put 100 non-overweight kids on a track today and see if half of them run 74 or better.

stand at the door of a random store that gets a good cross section of folks and classify the first hundred that pass you into

it's silly to even ask that one to try and break 20 sec for a hundred that is very roughly trials marathon pace

just might survive the attempt to run sub 20 for a 100

simple yes/no

I doubt you'll have 35 checked as might run 20 or better for a hundred.

as far as running a 400 in sub 60 I doubt 10% of a random street sample could run four city blocks with out stopping at any pace.

Having run for a year, I managed 34/10k, but only 67/400m (although I only tried once in training) with no speed work. I have always been the slowest guy out there and don't think I could break 60.

You responded to me as your tag, so I'm assuming it's directly in relation to my comment. In which case I have to ask if you actually read what I wrote.

For reference:

Now, with that in mind the last time I stood in front of the local supermarket the average crowd was probably 45+, half female, and averaging 30% BF. From this population I would be surprised if the average was even 90s. Maybe 120s. Maybe.

A good set of numbers. Thanks!

What was the situation for running this 600. Was it a one-off sort of thing where they just took you outside and said go run 600? Or did they get some training/multiple attempts

If it's a one-off then that is exactly what I would expect. 1-2% seems very generous for just grabbing at random.

I think if you add the stipulation they have to be motivated, and get at the very least several attempts or at best a couple months of training, the percentage goes up.

It's also worth noting in my opinion that this is 600 yards, which has even more of an aerobic component to it. So the conversion factor for untrained to 400 is probably a little more generous than that standard 2.2, basically the same reason why a 3:00 marathon gets much more respect compared to an 5:15 mile or a 2:20ish 800.

LM wrote:

What was the situation for running this 600. Was it a one-off sort of thing where they just took you outside and said go run 600? Or did they get some training/multiple attempts

Officially there was only supposed to be one attempt, but every school pretty much ignored that and allowed second chances for kids that wanted them.

They were administered by PE classes at every public school in the country, and they prepared the kids in advance.

I think if you add the stipulation they have to be motivated, and get at the very least several attempts or at best a couple months of training, the percentage goes up.

You got the Presidential Patch! Everyone over 40 remembers getting Presidential, Merit or Achievement.

It's also worth noting in my opinion that this is 600 yards, which has even more of an aerobic component to it.

548 meters is close enough to 400 meters that the percentiles should be similar too.

Some grades were allowed to run the mile or 1 1/2 mile instead of 600 yards, and kids were good at it. 85th percentile for 12 year olds was 6:20, and 90th percentile was 5:52. Imagine more than 10% of 12 year olds running sub-6 today.

85th percentile for college age:

pullups: 10

shuttle run (30feet): 9.1

1-minute situps(feet flat, knees 90 or less, elbows to knees):79

standing broad jump: 7'11"

50 yard dash: 6.3

600 yards: 1:40

Yes I think everyone could run sub 60. I run 58 high after a year of training and boy I am really bad at track. If you put your mind to it you can run sub 60, with the right workouts.

Crap runner wrote:

Yes I think everyone could run sub 60. I run 58 high after a year of training and boy I am really bad at track. If you put your mind to it you can run sub 60, with the right workouts.

Of course you don't believe that everyone could run sub 60! Not even 10% of males between 15- 39 could do it.

children, the halt and infirm did not quote you so I think the post is directed at the title question.Can more people run a sub 60 400 It addresses the 'most people' aspect of the question and the posting name points out 'most people' encompasses a very varied population.

Would you extrapolate your stats out to the general population and illuminate the 50th percentile, the median, where 'most'(more than half) starts? Thanks

I wouldn't even begin to have a guess. Now idea how sedentary effects things, nor can I guess how weight impacts a sprint time.

We recently had a 100m at my club of weekend warriers. Most were over 15 seconds - probably would be a lot higher sub 15 if they were all male and under 30. Still sub 60 is a no go for a lot of people people as they don't have the 100m speed. Difficult to put a figure on it but if the young men just lost weight and didn't do extensive training at least 50% would be 60 seconds

Incidentally how much time would you slow by over 100m if you were 3 stone (42lbs) over racing weight. I need an excuse

wineturtle wrote:

Would you extrapolate your stats out to the general population and illuminate the 50th percentile, the median, where 'most'(more than half) starts? Thanks

I can give you an upper bound. AAHPER 600 yard 50th percentile for 17-year-old boys, the best performing group, in 1975, when people were fitter than today, was 1:50. That converts to 75 for 400m.

Meant to put over 60:

Difficult to put a figure on it but if the young men just lost weight and didn't do extensive training at least 50% would be 60 seconds +

I'm 49, not in particularly good shape but I've run a few 5k's. I broke 60 seconds as a 15 yr old but haven't trained in a long time. If I had 6 months to train specifically for 400m at my age now, no way I wouldn't break 60 again. I might die doing it, but I'd do it!

I'm 49, not in particularly good shape but I've run a few 5k's. I broke 60 seconds as a 15 yr old but haven't trained in a long time. If I had 6 months to train specifically for 400m at my age now, no way I wouldn't break 60 again. I might die doing it, but I'd do it!

Xfit_guy_the_real_one_ 1 wrote:

Most sprinters: yes

Most CrossFit athletes: yes

Most long distance runners: no

And I'll add that Rich Froning could probably run sub-45 for 400m if he trained for it. : P

Lol fronting is 50 pounds to heavy to be a runner