How hard is it to go sub 50 in the 400 meters?

Dgghjjjtreddgh wrote:

Majority Decision wrote:

No way it's reasonable. Less than 1% of adult men are capable of sub 50. Keep in mind that the sample size of 75,255 is made up not just of runners, but runners who cared enough to run the 400. And even then barely 2% managed sub 50. Factor in the non sprint runners, field event participants, non athletic types etc and you're well under 1%

No more than 5% can run sub 60

This.

Actually, factoring the non sprint runners, field event participants, non athletic types etc, you would then get a higher percentage of people running under 50, not less. These people should be excluded since they detract from the sampling striation. People are arguing one side that if these people trained, there is no way that they could do it, and then presenting evidence of people who do not train, and saying that this is sound. Incorrect. There is no perfect data available to base claims off of in this instance.

My perspective? more that 1% could do it if they truly stuck their mind to it from age 14-28, I would say somewhere in the range of 3-6% percent of males would be able to do it. The people saying sub 60 is top 5%? Dumb. I would say about 70-80% of all males are capable of it with the complete dedication in that 14-28 age gap.

What do YOU think about this???

I think you are close to right than most here. Sub 50 is not some world beater.

Another high school meet results below show 47 sec results, much much faster than 50

Event 514 Boys 400 Meter Dash 5A

=======================================================================

National: ! 45.19 2012 Aldrich Bailey, Mansfield TImberview

State: + 45.24 1994 Marlon Ramsey, Beaumont West Brook

Conf 5A: * 45.64 1991 Deon Minor, Paris

Name Year School Finals Points

=======================================================================

Finals

1 Age, Eric 12 Lancaster 47.31 10

2 London III, Wilbert 12 Waco 47.47 8

3 Patterson, Isiah CC Moody 48.15 6

4 Gonzalez, Brian 11 El Paso Bel Air 48.88 4

5 Sawyer, Jonathon 12 Manor 48.96 2

6 Nowak, Jake 12 Austin Vandegrift 49.24 1

7 Murphy, Drake 12 Galveston Ball 49.25

8 Marquez, Isaac 12 Fort Worth Boswell 49.39

9 Palmer, Isaiah 10 Frisco Liberty 49.56

===================================================

That wasn't even the fastest high school division. The fastest high school BOYS are running 45s.

Event 614 Boys 400 Meter Dash 6A

=======================================================================

National: ! 45.19 2012 Aldrich Bailey, Mansfield TImberview

State: + 45.24 1994 Marlon Ramsey, Beaumont West Brook

Conf 6A: * 45.24 1994 Marlon Ramsey, Beaumont West Brook

Name Year School Finals Points

=======================================================================

Finals

1 Reed, Keshun 11 Arlington Martin 45.75 10

2 Igbokwe, Obi 12 Conroe-Woodlands 46.34 8

3 Schwartz, Rhayko 12 McKinney Boyd 46.66 6

4 Ogwo, Emmanuel 12 Mesquite Horn 46.68 4

5 Marshall, Myles 12 Humble Kingwood 46.93 2

6 Fields, Howard 10 Manvel 47.34 1

7 Liburd, James 12 San Antonio Madison 47.92

8 Matute, Yariel 12 LJ Juarez-Linco 48.05

9 McStravick, Christian 11 Strake Jesuit 48.23

=============================================================================

lol OP is asking because Galen ran under 50 at that workout before the 10K.

You continue to look at very, very select groups of runners. This says very little about what the general population of males is capable of.

Let’s look at some data. Using the 400m list for seniors from Athletic.net, I get 14780 seniors in the 2015 sample. There’s no need to look all grades. All we need to know is how males (17-18 year olds) perform at that age. I believe we can extrapolate the results from this to male “running talent” in general. Keep in mind that these are males who have the desire to run 400m competitively and actual do race 400m after some training. I don’t think we need to get into this hypothetical about forcing people to train from birth to peak age with the threat of death as motivation. Let’s just look at what actually happens.

The mean time is 56.07 sec for HS male seniors in the US. The standard deviation is 4.69. From this we get a time of 51.38 at 1 standard deviation (SD). So, 51.38 is at the 85th percentile.

At 2 SD, the time is 46.69. 50 seconds is 1.29 SD, which is at the 90th percentile. There are about 4,388,000 male 17 & 18 year olds in the US.

Ten percent of 4,388,000 is 438,800. This suggest that no more 438,800 males at 17-18 yo have the talent to run a 50 sec quarter. This covers all the other athletes who play other sports but don’t run the 400m.

However, I don’t think 10% of males in the general population have the talent to run 50 sec. The sample from Athleltic.net is biased toward males who are suited for running at a high level. It’s a very select group relative to the general population of males. If you were to sample only D1 400m runners you would see that vastly more than 10% can run a 50 sec 400m. It’s an even more select group.

There were 640 HS seniors who ran 50 or faster on the 2015 list. So based on these numbers, between 0.014 (640/4,388,00) and 4.33% (640/14780) of males in the general population have the necessary talent to run 50 sec. I think the actual value is closer to 0.014.

FYI, the mean times for HS seniors from the Athletic.net list for:

100m is 12.1;

800m=2:14.1;

1600m=5:04.4

tricky todd wrote:

How hard would it be? Granted the individual is not overweight, fairly athletic and strong. Is it impossible for most people to go sub 50 in the quarter even if they train years for it?

Anybody can do it with the right training and genetics.

Devastated bones wrote:

tricky todd wrote:

How hard would it be? Granted the individual is not overweight, fairly athletic and strong. Is it impossible for most people to go sub 50 in the quarter even if they train years for it?

Anybody can do it with the right training and genetics.

Exactly right

34yearoldguy wrote:

Devastated bones wrote:

Anybody can do it with the right training and genetics.

Exactly right

Yes, anybody with the "right training and GENETICS" can run 50 sec for 400M.....

But we what know what percentage of males have the right stuff.

What percent of males can sprint sub-11.4? Can just about anyone do this?

Curtis Davis wrote:

34yearoldguy wrote:

Exactly right

Yes, anybody with the "right training and GENETICS" can run 50 sec for 400M.....

But we what know what percentage of males have the right stuff.

What percent of males can sprint sub-11.4? Can just about anyone do this?

I think most people here agree 5 to 10%. You have some statistics junkies claiming 1% or less, but they are out in left field based on my experience in the event.

Ran 49.8 for 440 yards in HS 1971 on a Penn Relays Relay leg. Funny got past by 7 teams on that last lap from Jamaica, they were real fast back then too:) . Ran 50.9 open as my next fastest , ever.

The sampling bias from LetsRun is absurd.

Even if you took all these extreme scenarios of ten years of perfect training, $1mm incentive, etc I'm betting every nickel I have less than 1% of men in the United States are breaking 50.0 FAT.

Yes, lots of us ran in college and knew guys that could run run 47-49 seconds. Yes lots of hopped into 4x400's and split 50/51, Yes even skinny white distance runners like Coe/Cram/Ovett could probably run 46-48 out of blocks.

Despite that, no way in hell 1% of guys could run sub 50 with years of training. Think about the band kids. Think about the kid on the track team that trained and trained and trained but couldn't break 5:00 for the mile. Think about all the benchwarmers, lineman, etc on the football team (btw whoever mentioned TEs possibly breakdng 50 is beyond retarded).

Running sub 50 is much harder than dunking a basketball. Its harder than breaking par on a legitimate golf course. I could go on and on but it would get redundant.

Training trumps genetics. If you can't go sub 50, most of the time it's a matter of not training correctly. Distance running will not help you go sub 50 and may even hurt your top end speed.

34yearoldguy wrote:

Training trumps genetics. If you can't go sub 50, most of the time it's a matter of not training correctly. Distance running will not help you go sub 50 and may even hurt your top end speed.

Hey bro, honestly not trying to be mean, but stating a fact here: you are close to one of the worst debaters I've ever seen post here, and that's saying something. You've presented practically ZERO evidence to support you belief that break 50 should be quite easy for most people if they trained hard for it. Posting some fast HS times is meaningless. And then you throw in the completely unsubstantiated view that "Training trumps genetics". Why can't more women break 50 ? lack of desire? Or does GENETICS have something to do with it.

In summary: stop writing and embarrassing yourself

Genetically, not hard at all.

34yearoldguy wrote:

Training trumps genetics. If you can't go sub 50, most of the time it's a matter of not training correctly. Distance running will not help you go sub 50 and may even hurt your top end speed.

Ok, that's it....you must be a troll?

But I'm aware that some folks genuinely have trouble understanding how certain things in the world works

The athletic ability to run follows a normal distribution (bell curve) like any other human trait that we can measure.

Sub-50 ability is probably as rare as are 6'6" males.

34yearoldguy wrote:

Training trumps genetics. If you can't go sub 50, most of the time it's a matter of not training correctly. Distance running will not help you go sub 50 and may even hurt your top end speed.

We have a bit of a problem here...

Old guy34 wrote:

I don't know guys. If 1500 high schoolers are doing it, what about 22 year old with college coaching and strength training? I know most people don't get that kind of training, but surely a lot (50%?) Could break 50 with those resources.

I just don't see myself as a special runner, but did it as a senior in hs. Yeah it was hard, but our training was a joke compared to college programs

So if you did it off "joke" training, that means your natural talent (genetics) played more of a role than the training.

AND if you had the same training as all the 400m runners on your team, but you, and not most, broke 50, that would mean not many can do it, at least off your HS training plan.

Tiger Woods ran a sub-50 when he was in early 20s. I don't think he did much of specific sprint training. And golfers are not known for their athletic abilities.

Think about sports that require constant running. I bet half of the top 100 players on the ATP Tour can go under 50 with proper training. The majority of players in Premier League, Serie A, any of the top soccer leagues can probably do it, too. They may not have any official time to prove it, but that's because they never tried.

The best athletes are in sports that are popular and profitable. Unless you are Bolt, you cannot make the kind of money top tennis players or soccer players make. People choose track only because they are too clumsy to play ball games.

A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:

Tiger Woods ran a sub-50 when he was in early 20s. I don't think he did much of specific sprint training. And golfers are not known for their athletic abilities.

Think about sports that require constant running. I bet half of the top 100 players on the ATP Tour can go under 50 with proper training. The majority of players in Premier League, Serie A, any of the top soccer leagues can probably do it, too. They may not have any official time to prove it, but that's because they never tried.

The best athletes are in sports that are popular and profitable. Unless you are Bolt, you cannot make the kind of money top tennis players or soccer players make. People choose track only because they are too clumsy to play ball games.

John Daly wasn't quite sub-50, but read once he did 51.3 as a 35 year old, so pretty sure most guys in the PGA tour would be close to 50.

Plus Roger Feder was timed at 4:01 for a mile during the third set of the 2007 Wimbledon final, so he would definitely go sub-50 in a straight 400

These pros from other sports you are mentioning are certainly in the 99th percentile so not sure what point you are making.