Running speeds of average people

+1

most guys are fast wrote:

You'd be surprised at how fast most people can sprint. I have an office job and got about a dozen 23-36-year-old coworkers to race a 100m since there was a track within walking distance and they wanted to "get in shape for the new year". Results:

Winner - mid 12s

Median - high 13s

Slowest - 15.1

Those were hand times, and none of them wore spikes. All of the 14.5+ guys were seriously obese. None of them did any sprint training, so why were they fast compared to most distance runners?

1.) They didn't run high mileage, which would have destroyed their speed.

2.) They had more fast twitch muscles than the average distance runner.

3.) You don't need to be aerobically fit in order to sprint for a few seconds.

This was obviously completely made up, but you then attempted some serious rationalizations to explain you made up fairytale.

The average officer worker probably doesn't have 'more fast twitch muscles' than the average distance runner, and even if he did the superior running form of the distance runner would compensate. I can understand why a world heavyweight boxing champion and physical speciman (and likely loaded up with steroids (Audley Harrison)) can beat one of the greatest ever long distance runners over 100m (Mo Farah). I also wouldn't be surprised if the average amateur soccer player and such could beat an average club 5000m runner over 100m. But the average American or British office worker who only runs for the bus occasionally isn't going to beat anybody who runs every day, no matter how much 'fast twitch muscle fiber' they have. If you took that average office worker and got him jogging every day, his 100m time isn't going to regress because he's losing fast twitch muscle fiber, it's going to improve (for a while at least) simply because his body is getting used to the mechanics of running.

And even the 100m is partly aerobic for the untrained guy who off the couch is going to run it no faster than 14 or 15 seconds (despite your made up story) and for the average person 20 seconds or so.

Dun2death wrote:

....

(90th percentiles)

Fitness men:

100M: 17.5 mph

400M: 14 mph

800M: 12 mph

1600M: 10 mph

1-3 miles: 9 mph

4-6 miles: 8 mph

...

Really? 90th percentile 100m is 12.86s, seriously doubt that! I'm not sure whether I've broken 14.5s (seldom run that fast), but can hold 10 mph over 20 miles...

Maybe I'm just slow... wrote:

Dun2death wrote:

....

(90th percentiles)

Fitness men:

100M: 17.5 mph

400M: 14 mph

800M: 12 mph

1600M: 10 mph

1-3 miles: 9 mph

4-6 miles: 8 mph

...

Really? 90th percentile 100m is 12.86s, seriously doubt that! I'm not sure whether I've broken 14.5s (seldom run that fast), but can hold 10 mph over 20 miles...

You and most people here run high mileage and are slow twitch. There are tons of football and basketball players who could run sub 13 for the 100 and would not be able to hold 10 mph for a single mile.

I have never really understood why average men seem to be able sprint so well yet most cannot run for over a minute without sounding asthmatic. In my opinion, training your body to run high speeds for even a few seconds is a lot harder than endurance work, or at least is has been for me. With a lot of training, I managed to get my top end speed from a 8.86 second 60m dash to an 8.32 second 60m dash. Turning my 5k race pace from 9 minute miles to 6 minute miles was a lot easier to achieve than this.

Average random sample size of male US people aged 20-30:

400: 76

mile: 8:00

5k: vast majority not able to do without stopping/walking

Average random sample size of male US people aged 20-30 IF perfectly trained:

400: 56

mile: 4:50

5k: 16:30

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Average random sample size of male US people aged 20-30:

400: 76

mile: 8:00

5k: vast majority not able to do without stopping/walking

Average random sample size of male US people aged 20-30 IF perfectly trained:

400: 56

mile: 4:50

5k: 16:30

Any data on females? Would like to know where I stack up :P

Coevett wrote:

I doubt very much they would be the average times. Maybe with several months training, but if you asked a random young male, even 'non overweight' (which in the USA and UK is about 10% of the population) to run a 400m time trial tomorrow, he would 'sprint' (ie. run as fast as he can), the first 150m as you say, then slow rapidly until he's probably walking before he gets to the finishing line.

An 80 sec 400m is about equivalent to a 20 minute 5K, and you just need to look at local races to see that the average untrained male would be nowhere near capable of that.

Right. A number of faster HS girls run 20:00 in XC. So faster 400m girls run 80 sec? Idiot.

Guess my 56 sec 400pr qualifies me for sub 14 right?!?

You guys all suck.

This thread is completely misconceived. The average person does not run. They drive. They walk to the fridge.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Average random sample size of male US people aged 20-30:

400: 76

mile: 8:00

5k: vast majority not able to do without stopping/walking

Average random sample size of male US people aged 20-30 IF perfectly trained:

400: 56

mile: 4:50

5k: 16:30

Average 'trained perfectly' previous sedentary person 16:30? You are completely wrong.

12 minute run in gym class, senior year HS, me and my dorkwad track friends roll through a 12-flat 3200 because we suck. We lapped everyone a few times, some 4, 5 times. These were KIDS, pre-internet, smart phone, decent games, HFCS, SuperSize portions, blah, blah. KIDS, and they couldn't run 9 minute miles for 1, much less two miles.

They did not sit around ten years, get off the couch, and run a 76.

You're wrong.

for the 400m the average would be 90 sec

for the 5k no way the average male 20-40 years old would even finish it. Same for the mile XD

for the 100m around 16 sec

If trained at least for a full year

100m: 12.5-14.5 sec

400m: 56-67 sec

1600m: 6:00-7:50

5k: 21:30-26:30

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Average random sample size of male US people aged 20-30:

400: 76

mile: 8:00

5k: vast majority not able to do without stopping/walking

Average random sample size of male US people aged 20-30 IF perfectly trained:

400: 56

mile: 4:50

5k: 16:30

Wrong as hell. Sub 60, sub 5 and even sub 18 require above average natural talent. The average male in their 20s probably has a body fat % well over 20 and is probably nearing (or exceeding) 200lbs.

Untrained:

5k: DNF or 35:00+

Mile: 9:00+

400m: 1:30+

With 1 year of training:

5k: 23:00-26:00

Mile: 7:00-7:30

400m: 1:13-1:18

At lifetime potential + optimal BMI with 8+ years of focus on training and diet:

5k 19:30-22:00

Mile: 5:30-6:15

400m: 0:58 for the naturally faster ones, up to 1:10 for the slower ones

From the shadows wrote:

I went to the gym yesterday. Next to me was a 35yo guy. Fit.

He started walking on the treadmill at 0% incline. 15min/mile or so. For 1km.

Then he was good to go. He put the treadmill to 10min/mile. It was a big effort. He maintained it for 6 min.

And stopped. Exhausted.

Welcome to the real world.

This.

I see tons of these threads here on LRC but they make no sense. Just pick like 10 random guys from you office and imagine them running 7:30/mi pace. How many of them could do it for a mile? I bet maybe 1-2 out of 10. For the wast majority 10-11/mi pace would be the ball park.

100mSpecialist wrote:

for the 400m the average would be 90 sec

for the 5k no way the average male 20-40 years old would even finish it. Same for the mile XD

for the 100m around 16 sec

If trained at least for a full year

100m: 12.5-14.5 sec

400m: 56-67 sec

1600m: 6:00-7:50

5k: 21:30-26:30

Those 100m and 400m times are way too fast for so-called average man. Average man would be randomly pulling guys off of bar stools at Applebees or similar restaurants. The best opportunity to get close to those time would be to train 14 or 15 year olds for a year. I would guess even after a year, only half of 14 or 15 year olds would be able to get under 14.75, 100m. Average includes disabled, drug addicts (street or prescribed), and obese. Upper 70s for 400m

way too fast wrote:

100mSpecialist wrote:

for the 400m the average would be 90 sec

for the 5k no way the average male 20-40 years old would even finish it. Same for the mile XD

for the 100m around 16 sec

If trained at least for a full year

100m: 12.5-14.5 sec

400m: 56-67 sec

1600m: 6:00-7:50

5k: 21:30-26:30

Those 100m and 400m times are way too fast for so-called average man. Average man would be randomly pulling guys off of bar stools at Applebees or similar restaurants. The best opportunity to get close to those time would be to train 14 or 15 year olds for a year. I would guess even after a year, only half of 14 or 15 year olds would be able to get under 14.75, 100m. Average includes disabled, drug addicts (street or prescribed), and obese. Upper 70s for 400m

My PRs are just under/around 15.0 and 70.0 respectively for the 100m and 400m after 6 years of running with a considerable amount of HIIT in my programme. However, I am female. I can out-run most men but any man in their teens and 20s who has decent muscle can probably match or beat me in the 100m even if they are completely untrained.

A lot of people just don’t have the muscle development to run fast, we live in a very sedentary society. Any man that spent their developmental years doing something even remotely active tends to be faster, a lot of people make it seriously hard for themselves to get in shape in later life just by being sedentary when the body is shaping itself. I was sedentary as a teenager, I regret that a lot.

Average people do not run faster than a 17.0 100 nor can they run a mile without walking.

This guy is over 40, but probably a pretty average guy with normal BMI.

https://www.facebook.com/60minutes/videos/10152333541354395/