how fast in the quarter for "average" guy?

[user4]

...If a 54ish runner can do that to some women who are faster than 99% of the general population (male or female),...

My experience suggests that this statement is categorically false. Triply so for males. In fact I would guess that about 1/2 of the male population (maybe more) could train to be a 54 sec quarter miler... while still dieting on burgers fries and shakes.

[jazzcyclist]

My experience suggests that this statement is categorically false. Triply so for males. In fact I would guess that about 1/2 of the male population (maybe more) could train to be a 54 sec quarter miler... while still dieting on burgers fries and shakes.

18.99 is correct if he's saying that 99% of the male population couldn't run 54 in the 400 today. I also think you overstated your case when you said that 50% could do it without dieting. My guess is that only a small percentage of males under the age of 15 and over the age of 40 could do it even if they were at their optimal weight and trained for months, and large percentage of the males between 15 and 40 would have to lose weight and train properly to run 54.

[gm]

No way anywhere near 1/2 could run a 54. Maybe .5%, if that.

[Atticus]

No way anywhere near 1/2 could run a 54. Maybe .5%, if that.

Totally agree. This year on the team we have 6 physically fit (and they look like athletes) boys, ages 15-17, who train very well and the fastest is at 55.

[booond]

So your fastest quartermiler runs 55?

EDIT: Looking at the results of last year's USATF Masters Championships, only 20 of the 75 men who finished the 400 ran sub-55, and I presume that all of them are serious about their training.

Yes, the under 15 and over 40 number at 99% is more likely 99.9%.

Look at any state's high school track meets and you'll see that most kids who run the 400 struggle to break 54.

Hyperbole is fun until someone grabs the microscope.

[18.99s]

My experience suggests that this statement is categorically false. Triply so for males. In fact I would guess that about 1/2 of the male population (maybe more) could train to be a 54 sec quarter miler... while still dieting on burgers fries and shakes.

I was referring to what people already can do right now, not what they can eventually be trained to do. Most of the women in that relay ran under 63, but 99% of the age 15-40 male population could not do that if they were put in a race tomorrow.

[lonewolf]

I read most of this thread before I saw the video and still, without any time reference, got a thrill watching Ms Healy come from out of the picture to win this relay. Her stretch effort was "endearing".

To many of us here who have an athletic background, 54 seconds for the quarter mile seems quite pedestrian and would have been in our prime...but..
I don't know what the percentages are but I believe there are very, very few otherwise healthy teens and twenties who could break 60 seconds for a quarter mile without some training and few of those who could run 54, even after training.
Just my observed opinion.

[_Jay]

I was referring to what people already can do right now, not what they can eventually be trained to do. Most of the women in that relay ran under 63, but 99% of the age 15-40 male population could not do that if they were put in a race tomorrow.

I could run 50 point in HS. I'm 34 now, the only cardio I do on a regular basis now Is playing hoops at 24hr fitness and bike riding. Went for a 1-lap run last week on the track and struggled to get to 66, lol. So as much as it pains me to say.....you may be right about that 99% theory. Tough to just walk on the track and do that without training, even for former athletes.

[user4]

how fast in the quarter for "average" guy?

I was referring to what people already can do right now, not what they can eventually be trained to do. Most of the women in that relay ran under 63, but 99% of the age 15-40 male population could not do that if they were put in a race tomorrow.

Ok, ill agree with that. If you dont train for the 400 you are pretty much useless after 200m and you are going to walk in. But I stand by my claim that about 1/2 of men (age 18-30) could be trained to run 54.

[gm]

Pass me some of what you're smoking

[jazzcyclist]

Ok, ill agree with that. If you dont train for the 400 you are pretty much useless after 200m and you are going to walk in. But I stand by my claim that about 1/2 of men (age 18-30) could be trained to run 54.

1/2 of the male population =/= 1/2 of men (age 18-30)

At least I'll give you credit for acknowledging the hyperbole in your original statement.

[booond]

1/2 of the male population =/= 1/2 of men (age 18-30)

At least I'll give you credit for acknowledging the hyperbole in your original statement.

I'm assuming he was never on a track team. But it's good to see that he's walked back most of the ridiculous statement.

[NotDutra5]

All I know is much less that 1/2 of our totally male track team could run 54 secs or really even come close.

[26mi235]

When I was in grad school I started running seriously with the Pomona College team (DIII now). one of the best pure distance runners (2:2x marathon, 25:xx five mile XC) felt he was not very fast and so at the end of the workout (10 miles at standard 6:30 a pace we had an all-out 440. I was not remotely in his league but faster than 99.9% of serious distance runners (i.e., marathon) and ran a 57-flat while he never caught me but ran a 58.x PR. How, he is not remotely close to sub-55 but to think that most of the males could beat him at 400m is way beyond laughable. Few American males ever run below 60 seconds, much less half of them running sub-55. Possibly the biggest error of any such performance claim I have seen on these boards. I doubt that 50% of males (age 15-25) could run a 400 at the pace of top marathon runners.

[lonewolf]

My quick mental math calculates that 2:05 marathon is about 69 seconds/440 yards.. which seems impossible when you think of it that way...