Can most people run a sub 60 400?

No way! He is already on drugs, so I think even if he trained lucky to get back to 47/48. CF is not a good indicator for sports ability and barely for athletic ability. I believe he has run in college around 47.

Sad, but true. Doing 60+ MPW won't magically give you 400m and below ability.

Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1 wrote:

Most sprinters: yes

Most CrossFit athletes: yes

Most long distance runners: no

I was a distance guy in high school. I was doing mostly 800s and miles. I did the 2 mile a few times, but it definitely wasn't my race. I was decent locally in HS, but overall very average. I started getting "competitive" at dual meets my spring season sophomore year when I broke 60 in a 4x4 that was thrown together for a meet that we had already won. That season I ran 58-59 after running high 60s the previous year.

By senior year, I was our 5th 800 guy, running 2:04. I could run 57 easily in a relay (we didn't often have to run exceptionally fast to win dual meets), but my 400m PR was 54.3 one of the few times I had competition (again, dual meets, not state / big invitationals). I was a 4:48 mile guy, 18:00 5K in XC. I don't think breaking 60 is as hard as people think.

Also, I am built like a distance runner. 5'10", was 125 lbs through high school, all skin and bones. I never lifted. So it isn't like I am exceptionally tall or trained like a sprinter. Our 4x400m relays were almost always filled and won (dual meets) with distance runners.

Interesting question.. I'd say no, not even close. I'm an okay 45 yr old runner -

1:21 half

17:58 5k

During a recent training break I went down to my local track and ran a solid 66 400m. I might have been able to approach 60 with speed training.

Given that I finish top 5% in most races and I would guess 4% of them could + another 3% of fast people... I'd say around 7% of the population

at an all-comers indoor track meet I was at 3 years ago, 58 of the 71 men and 6 of the 11 women who entered broke 60.

extending this out 96 of 99 broke 30 in the 20015 of 77 broke 90s in the 600 1 of 107 broke 2 mins in the 800 in successive weeks

query wrote:

at an all-comers indoor track meet I was at 3 years ago, 58 of the 71 men and 6 of the 11 women who entered broke 60.

The CDC reports that 32% of young adults are obese and 70% are either obese or overweight. Given a year of training, none of the obese and less than 1% of the overweight could run sub 60.

Of the remaining 30%, given a year of training, maybe 1 in 10 of non West African descent could run sub 60 with perhaps 2-3 times that rate in those of West African descent.

Maybe 5% of the US young adult population could run sub 60 with a year training. Given setbacks for injuries, it would be even less.

It depends entirely on muscle makeup of the individual.

Some guys just won't be able to do it no matter what training they do. Me, for instance, best times of 4:21/1600, 15:21/5k but could never crack 60 in the 400. Just not in the cards. In the old days we would say, I was all slow twitch fibers.

Other guys will be able to do it with little to no training just based on their muscle makeup.

Which muscles do you have?

Never run a 400 in my life (age 42). And I'm overweight. I am intrigued though. Maybe I should "train" to run 400/800 instead of worrying about much longer distances. Be interesting to see if there was "hidden talent" there. I suspect not. I probably couldn't break 75.

I used to be able to do a sub 60, my younger brother did a sub 60 in junior high and he qualified for the city championship and my father who did all comers meets in Europe did a sub 60 in his mid 20's. If somebody is fit and has reasonable foot speed it can be done. I will say this I was always among the top 5 percent or less in speed in gym class and was one of two guys to make my elementary school track team that went against guys up to 2 grades older so I could sprint decent. But when I played football I knew at least 3 or 4 guys that could smoke me in the 100 so I wouldn't say I was greased lightening.

To the guys who say "I was a mediocre runner, and I was able to break 60 after a few months", or something along those lines - that's irrelevant. It's true that a time in the mid or high 50's is nothing to get excited about, but it doesn't mean that any youngish person who puts in the effort is going to break 60.

Just to add to the anecdotes: in my early 20s, I ran a 4:12 1500, a 9:54 2-mile, 15:40s for 5k, and could never break 60, despite wanting to do so and trying on several occasions in all-comer meets. I could run about 62 +/- 1 second. I was also terrible at the 800 relative to my longer times - 2:11 was my PB. I've seen a few other posts of similar runner profiles, so I'd say there is a certain physical type out there that can run a half-decent distance pace without any ability to sprint.

On my high school track team, which was fairly good, but not great, I'd say all the male sprinters could break 60, and about 75% of the distance runners. There were plenty of distance runners who weren't very good (maybe 12:00 for the 2-mile), who could break 60, but on the other hand, there was the occasional. But I would also assume that this group of people self-selected to some degree (most people who go out for track probably have some inkling that they might be a decent runner). So I'd guess that if all healthy young males trained for the 400, somewhere in the 30-70% range could break 60.

Good anecdotal evidence. I'll add mine to the mix.

I'm 31, almost 32, have been running very consistently for 5 years, jogged infrequently for 10 years before that, and ran track in high school for 3 years before that.

My 200m best recently (within the last 5 years) is 35-low, my 400m best is 1:19-mid, but my 800m best is 2:44-flat. Clearly, I'm very slow-twitch.

Rewind to high school, where in my rural area, you didn't have to 'make' the team, you could just join (although track was quite popular). I did 200m-specific training for 2 of those 3 years, and yet my 200m best was 32.x (can't remember the tenths). I'll just stop right there.

I wasn't overweight then, I'm not overweight now.

I had no disabilities then, I have none now.

Yet, in my prime, with 2 years of specific training, I couldn't even run 200m at sub-60 pace.

Some people are born slow. It has nothing to do with training or desire.

this thread cracks me up. most of you have no idea what you are talking about. My guess is that maybe 5% of people could do this. go down to the local walmart and get 100 people to do this. Maybe 5 of them could do it.

I wonder how much of this is determined by how early and how often you played sports organized or otherwise when you are a child. I am not a fast sprinter and am not a good distance runner but I can run close to top speed in 6 second spurts all day. I think as a result of getting in "game" shape often as a child, I can do that now too and can race the 400-1K better comparatively to other events as a result. Of course maybe the converse is true

boots on the ground wrote:

Never run a 400 in my life (age 42). And I'm overweight. I am intrigued though. Maybe I should "train" to run 400/800 instead of worrying about much longer distances. Be interesting to see if there was "hidden talent" there. I suspect not. I probably couldn't break 75.

Ever tried switching the boots with spikes?

Bob Schul Country wrote:

this thread cracks me up. most of you have no idea what you are talking about. My guess is that maybe 5% of people could do this. go down to the local walmart and get 100 people to do this. Maybe 5 of them could do it.

If the local running club happened to be at the WalMart when yo get there, then yes, I think you would be right.

I think a local competitive rec sports league would do better than the running club

I think I am the only person in my running club that could do it but probably 2 people on any soccer team I play could. Or played rather when I was in my 20s. 30s guys get lazy

Lol what?? I can walk a 60 second 400. So pretending that running is hard.

Doc Brown wrote:

I think a local competitive rec sports league would do better than the running club

I think I am the only person in my running club that could do it but probably 2 people on any soccer team I play could. Or played rather when I was in my 20s. 30s guys get lazy

You're right.

Another thing is that most people pace their first 400 terribly. And the pain at the end with tunnel vision and legs that barely move come as a shock. Most noobs can take off several seconds after a few attempts and a little guiding.