Average person's sprint speed, if moderately trained

PTF wrote:

only Alan gets it wrote:

I really don't understand how Alan can be the only poster that gets this. Everyone here seems to forget that you guys are gifted runners. The vast majority of people cannot and will never be able to do what you do.

Exactly!

This ^ (sort of)

I get it. Alan gets it. "Only Alan gets it" gets it. PTF gets it.

Lots of folks get it. And lots more folks are morons.

Such is the way of the world. Just as it has always been.

only Alan gets it wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

I always find it interesting.....a population of genetically gifted 1%ers musing about the abilities of the lowly "average person" when a vast majority here have no idea what average is or have ever in their athletic career trained average people.

Average is slower and weaker than you can imagine.

Alan

I really don't understand how Alan can be the only poster that gets this. Everyone here seems to forget that you guys are gifted runners. The vast majority of people cannot and will never be able to do what you do. Most people are and will always be terrible at putting one foot in front of the other.

15-20 years ago I would have thought differently. Youth keeps you in a box.

I'm going to keep using my Army example because it's a good one. You have to have some level of fitness to join the Army and maintain that.

We run, we sprint, we do hills, we lift weights, and so on. It's not specific sprint training but it is some level of generic training and gives you an idea of what an average person would look like.

After 6 years I've run with only 2 other people who could break 12:00 for 2 miles.

Running 400s only twice have I seen someone crack 1:15 and the majority can crank out 1:30-40.

Alan

make this letsprint.com wrote:

Let's say you take a few non-obese, non-disabled males in their 20s.

Everything hinges on this definition, "few" isn't an exact number and self-selection is not explicitly ruled out as these few must be motivated to take part.

Runningart2004 wrote:

14

32

1:10

You underestimate genetics.

Alan

If someone can run 14 for 100m if trained they should be able to at least run under 65.

Shorter the distance the more genetics comes in so 14 us the least likely to be achieved followed by 32 then 1:10

ukathleticcoach wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

14

32

1:10

You underestimate genetics.

Alan

If someone can run 14 for 100m if trained they should be able to at least run under 65.

Shorter the distance the more genetics comes in so 14 us the least likely to be achieved followed by 32 then 1:10

I've seen guys run 14 and 1:40 a lot.

Then the 15-16 100m guys running 1:20 or better.

Typically what I see are ex HS football players who can seriously sprint for 40-50m then hang on for a 14.xx 100m. The wheels come off around 200m.

I think most people here are used to seeing the guys on the track team. Average people don't even join the track team.

Alan

Turbogeezer wrote:

You guys are treating "person" as a male who already turns out for track. Most women have little chance of breaking 28-30 seconds for 200 under any conditions. Most mid-20's women are already overweight heading into obesity.

READING COMPREHENSION

Men 13.5 Women 17.5

make this letsprint.com wrote:

Let's say you take a few non-obese, non-disabled males in their 20s. They train for a year or two, don't take any steroids, and don't devote their lives to it (they don't spend much time in the weight room, don't train twice a day, don't have a coach, etc.). What would be the median sprint times of that group? Assume they have FAT timing, blocks, spikes, and < 2.0 m/s tailwind. I'm guessing:

100: 12.4-12.5

200: 25.0-25.2

400: 55.0-55.5

Does this sound right?

Average and median are not the same. These times are what fast high school girls run the 100 and 200. These girls can beat most guys. Fairly athletic boys can post these times. But these are the bball guard, receivers, and soccer, and short stop types. The average person who isn't obese also isn't athletic. Watch some of the yahoos who run the 40 when the NFL combine comes up. A lot of these guys have trouble breaking 6. To run in the 12.5 fat range one would probably need to run sub 5.3. The average non obese guy isn't touching a sub 5.3 because that requires a lot of fast twitch.

100m 15.0

200m 33.0

400m 72.0

The OPs estimates are too fast. It would be over 13, 27, and 60.

Runningart2004 wrote:

14

32

1:10

You underestimate genetics.

Alan

If OP truly meant average person, I think you're right.

I assume he meant average male, though. In which case his times would be more likely correct. Our average boy coming out for track is in the 13 flat range (we make distance runners and throwers do a time trial too). Later in the year average male is around 12.5

I think his 55 is too fast, though. That is more like 60 for an average.

I think your times are just a tad too fast, but not as slow as some of the other idiot posters in this thread. Really? You think most healthy, young males couldn't break 14 in the 100 going all out, after 2 years of training? I think your 400 times are way off compared to the 100/200 though, just the event actually requires some endurance.

My guesses:

100 - 13-13.5

200: 26.5-27

400: 57-58

Darn imgrants takin our medals wrote:

I think your times are just a tad too fast, but not as slow as some of the other idiot posters in this thread. Really? You think most healthy, young males couldn't break 14 in the 100 going all out, after 2 years of training? I think your 400 times are way off compared to the 100/200 though, just the event actually requires some endurance.

My guesses:

100 - 13-13.5

200: 26.5-27

400: 57-58

Many healthy non obese individuals fall under the category of "zero athletic talent". These people will absolutely kill the average. Many people wouldn't make it through the two years of training because of injuries and a lack of desire. So the final tests subjects would not be "average". They would be above average.

Let's look at this argument through the lens of high school boys track. The average high school track sprinter has spent about two years training. (They aren't training year round but many fast twitch type athletes are in at least another sport in high school.) Another thread addresses what is more difficult, sub 12 or sub 5. The average high school sprinter doesn't break 12.5 and that's a SPRINTER who comes out for track. It's not even including the distance runners or the one who get are sent to the jumps and throws because they lack running ability. Despite some programs having no cuts the track athletes are better than the average kid who isn't coming out. For every talented kid who doesn't come out for track there is a bunch of no talent ones who don't even bother.

I've lived, taught, and coached in SoCal for 20 years and have seen plenty of students come through and also ignore the athletic systems. This experience has provided a solid understanding of the performance spectrum in athletics and academics. The 50th percentile in testing is obscenely easy for a relatively educated person. Any male with a decent amount of fast twitch should break 14 secs in the 100m but you need the fast twitch to do it just like anyone with some brains can score in the 50th percentile without even trying. Most non obese males who train MODERATELY for two years will not break 14 seconds FAT in the 100m.

Darn imgrants takin our medals wrote:

as slow as some of the other idiot posters in this thread. Really? You think most healthy, young males couldn't break 14 in the 100 going all out, after 2 years of training?

Agreed. This experiment has been done before.

100: 11.9

200: low 24s

400: 54

Proof:

I hope you realise the amount of genetic talent it takes to break the times you guys consider slow. Anywhere between 13-18 sec. 15 flat FAT being average. 65-90 sec. 75 being average. And that is for young healthy males. Please get in reality. Most of you are well above the 95th percentile in the athletic talent genetic spectrum and you really need to realise how lucky you are.

If I told you sub 16 guys that of the average person (as previously stated, the average person does not self select for track) took your level of intensity/training that most would find it hard to break 19 you probably wouldn't believe me but that's reality. I have trained with people who have given it all they've got for 3-5 years at 80MPW and some males struggle to break 19 and some females struggled to break 22 and that is just reality. Genetics matter and they matter a damn lot. In my running club there are a LOT of people with painfully average talent but superior work ethic and most of the people here wouldn't last five minutes training in the body of someone with average talent.

relevant info wrote:

Darn imgrants takin our medals wrote:

as slow as some of the other idiot posters in this thread. Really? You think most healthy, young males couldn't break 14 in the 100 going all out, after 2 years of training?

Agreed. This experiment has been done before.

100: 11.9

200: low 24s

400: 54

Proof:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8100711

An experiment of one so it must be true. Moran

relevant info wrote:

Agreed. This experiment has been done before.

100: 11.9

200: low 24s

400: 54

Proof:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8100711

Proof of one wrote:

An experiment of one so it must be true. Moran

Read the thread.

Responses by different people:

"my sprint times were in the ball park of 12.4s for 100m, 25 seconds for 200m, and 59s for 400m. These times almost exactly matched what I could do at 13 or 14 when I gave up. That was off a couple of months of training, and pretty good distance fitness at the start. I'd like to think with another year or two they could all go down by 10% (as I didn't feel quick running those times, and was still improving fast when I stopped)."

"A month of flying 60s, 150m dashes and even 200s and 400 for fun in the afternoons after morning distance training I was able to get down to 13.05.

Every healthy fit man i know could outsprint me though, even the obese footballers. That's your reference to who i am as a sprinter."

"I refuse to do any sort of sprint-specific training. I am in my mid-30s. I am pretty sure I can run around 12-flat/low-12s in the 100 right now."

You're comparing performances that aren't equal.

Yes, it does take lots of talent to run a sub 16. But a sub 16 5K is waaayyyy better than the times being tossed around here (mid 12s for the 100, 55-57 for the 400).

Any chump can break 13.5 for the 100 and 62 for the 400 off of minimal training. Moderate training might get them in the low 12s for the 100 and in the 55s for the 400. I don't think any amount of training would get them to sub 16, as that's a whole different ballpark. You can try doping them, but they'll probably overdose before they even hit 17 minutes.

It's still a self selected sample size. You guys have no idea how unathletic many people are. Fat footballers, if they are decent are way better athletically than the average person.

I am sorry but this is very hard to believe... I have very inconsistent mileage with period breaks and a max of 30 MPW for few months during a 3-4 year time period of training. Well beyond the 20-30 yo range, i am 39 yo and no prior running history (zero HS, zero college, nothing)Just this week ran a 400 in 1:11 in training when pushing a bit more, otherwise 1:15 - 1:20 is the norm and is not running at max effort.I am not anywhere near gifted as other posters (and I do consider myself very slow), so to me running 1:30-40 in a population with some level of fitness (your Army example) seems awful slow... I think a lot more people can run faster and you are discarding a lot of healthy fit people out there.Unless America is really that different from Europe :-)