What percent of male 20 year olds could be trained to run a lap at WR mile pace?

Like most of you, about the best input I can offer for questions like this is to recall my own personal experiences and try to extrapolate from there. High school is as good a place as any to look for 400m data.....

I went to a high school of a about 1600 students (so about 800 males).

During my 3 years of high school track, I can recall 5 guys on my team who definitely went under 56 seconds in the 400m. And about 3 others who were floating right around that time, but I can't remember for sure if anything of them actually did. Then I'd say there were 2 or 3 other quick 100/200 guys who probably could have gone 55 or better if they focused more on the 400. Let's just say we had 8 guys on my track team who either did, or could have, run the 400m in under 56 seconds. I think the actual potential number is probably greater, but I'll try to err conservatively.

Right now, based on this "data", I could say that 1% of the males at my high school could run 400m at WR mile pace. Any extrapolation beyond that would be pure speculation, but surely the actual percentage would be higher if all 800 males at my high school trained for and competed in the 400m.

When considering the athletes from other sports who were not on the track team, I believe there were a few other guys who could have run 55 or better. Of course, many of the speedy guys from the football, baseball, and basketball teams also ran track. I must also consider that we're talking about 20 year-olds; not high schoolers. Still, all that considered, the percentage probably wouldn't climb much higher than 5%. Granted, my high school may not be the most accurate representation of the general population, but I think 800 is a decent sample size

medic wrote:

It depends on whether they can take the same drugs as the WR holder.

EPO isn't going to help much in a 400. Steroids, on the other hand...

Somewhere between 1% and 10%. No way it is as high as 20%

With the right incentive, I'm sure it would be much higher than people think. Don't know about the rest of the country, but in central Ohio track is such a niche sport. There are so many kids out there that don't even think to try track. Plus most of the schools are "pay to play" now, so that cuts back even more on participation.

The topic said mile WR which is 55.48 pace. Interesting... here is the final we competed in (from this year, not 2008):

3:22 for the win, 3:27 for 8th, last place in the final.

Our relay team back then was about 3:29, maybe 3:28, and we always had a B teams under 3:40, probably 10 55.x total for the year. If there were 4 guys averaging low 52-low is it that hard to believe there were 6 more under 55.5? What about the schools running 3:22 with approximately the same class sizes? My class alone had a 50.1 who was always injured from basketball, 51.x, 53.x who was a first-year senior hurdler, and a 22.7 200 guy who never ran the 400...

HardLoper wrote:

3:27 for 8th, last place in the final.

And faster than the 66 schools that didn't make the final and the unlisted number of schools that either scored no points or didn't qualify anyone for the meet.

The impressive thing about that meet is it wasn't dominated by private schools, which don't get top athletes by accident. But with 74+ schools, of course a few of them will get several fast sprinters, not all of them seniors.

oh please wrote:

With the right incentive, I'm sure it would be much higher than people think. Don't know about the rest of the country, but in central Ohio track is such a niche sport. There are so many kids out there that don't even think to try track. Plus most of the schools are "pay to play" now, so that cuts back even more on participation.

Yes, I do think "the right incentive" would surely increase the percentage. But I think that's true of pretty much any endeavor. You give people the right motivation and they can achieve more than you'd think.

And that's really why it would be incredibly difficult to get an accurate estimate on this. How could you control for "motivation"? And there are other variables that would be hard to control. Let's say you went on a college campus and attempted to gather a random sample of 20 year-old males for this "study". Even if you offered a financial incentive, you are still going to have a disproportionate number of participants who are already somewhat athletic and/or interested in running.

I'm guessing there were some guys at my high school who, although they never played sports, might have actually been good athletes given the right incentive. But we'll never know. Based on the percentage of guys at my high school who actually ran sub-56 (about 1%), I would say the percentage who COULD do it after some training is certainly above 1%, but probably below 20%.

Who said 20%?

more like 2-3

Bad Wigins wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

3:27 for 8th, last place in the final.

And faster than the 66 schools that didn't make the final and the unlisted number of schools that either scored no points or didn't qualify anyone for the meet.

The impressive thing about that meet is it wasn't dominated by private schools, which don't get top athletes by accident. But with 74+ schools, of course a few of them will get several fast sprinters, not all of them seniors.

If one school does it almost any school can. Some teams are perennially at state, and the talent pool isn't much different from school to school. Since we're talking about those with the potential to run 55, that's all that matters.

Subfive wrote:

Tadpole wrote:

If it were life or death with unlimited time to train assuming no injuries, no disabilities, not obese and starting at an age which allows at least two years to get there Id say at least 50%.

I'll bet lots of money against 50% of 20 yos running a 55. Less than 10% could do it.

That's because you're ignoring what I said. If a person was given 2 years to live and had to either break that time or die then the proper motivation would be there to push to the point of staying alive. People will do amazing things to live. It's in our nature to survive. We'll even eat each other or kill people to stay alive among other drastic measures.

And it's not as hard as it seems when you stay healthy and have no disabilities to drag you down.

You're just not thinking correctly. The fact you'ld bet on something that could never be proven proves that fact.

jerkstore wrote:

Closer to 35% if given time to train and sufficient financial motivation.

Garbage don't ever coach

Tadpole wrote:

If a person was given 2 years to live and had to either break that time or die then the proper motivation would be there to push to the point of staying alive. People will do amazing things to live. It's in our nature to survive. We'll even eat each other or kill people to stay alive among other drastic measures.

And it's not as hard as it seems when you stay healthy and have no disabilities to drag you down.

You're just not thinking correctly. The fact you'ld bet on something that could never be proven proves that fact.

So let's suppose you were given the best coaches, 10 years of training, and as much EPO as you could handle. Do you think you could run a sub 14 5K if your life depended on it?

A 14 minute 5K is more impressive than a 55 second 400, but the gap between the average letsrun guy's PR and a 14 minute 5K is probably less than the gap between an average guy's PR and a 55 second 400. I've seen healthy, non-obese folks who train hard and struggle to run a 400 in 65, and I don't see how any amount of additional training or motivation could drop their times by another 10 seconds.

No way at least 50% could run that time. 30%, maybe, but not even close to half.

Well I guess if we're talking "life or death" here, then of course the percentage would be higher. That's kind of a silly layer to add to the discussion, because it has no basis in reality. When is running a sub-56 400 EVER going to be a life and death scenario? (Yeah yeah, if you're being chased by someone/something that intends to kill you, maybe. But that's not the scenario being proposed here.)

In reality, there is no consistent, reliable way to control for motivation when asking the question, "What percentage of 20 year-old males could run 55.xx in the 400m if trained?"

Also, if everyone were motivated by a life or death ultimatum, and injuries never occurred, then the standards for what constitutes a fast 400m time would completely change. It would change the standards for all distances. Would the mile WR still be 3:43 if all young males were motivated by life or death and no one ever got injured? Probably not.

Let's be a little more reasonable here. Take a random sample of 20 year old males from the US (let's say 1000). Give them 2 years to train and a reasonable financial incentive to break 56 seconds. Give them all the same coach; someone who is at least somewhat experienced and basically knows what they're talking about. Yes, he will have his hands full. He doesn't have to see them all in person every day though. Split them into groups of randomly assigned training partners. Assign a doctor and a small team of trainers that can help with rehab if injuries occur. And so on.....

My prediction: somewhere around 10-15% are successful. When it comes to the 400m, raw speed is the main factor. There is some strength and conditioning necessary, as well as coaching on mechanics, strategy, build, etc. But basic speed is the main limiter here. WR mile pace is about 13.9 seconds per 100m. So all participants will need to be capable of running an all out 100 faster than 13.9, as a bare minimum requirement for potential success.

I'd say about 20-25% could be trained to run 55.5 if there was a million dollar prize or some equivalent motivation for doing so. I know if I was able to run slightly faster than that by age 17, then there sure as heck are a lot of guys out there that could.

Without any training and in their current condition, you could probably drop that to 1-2%.