headwind wrote:
Lots of people know that you can run 5Ks, 10Ks, and marathons. Very few people know that you can hop into some college track meets and compete against college athletes.
People don't like finishing last. Doing casual training will get you a 20-21 minute 5k and a 13.5-14.0 100m. The former gets you in the top quarter of most road races. The latter gets you DFL in almost any college meet, even small ones.
The average person won't make it through a year of sprint training.
Half will go down injured, one quarter will lose interest.
The average person is so bad at sprinting that a year of training might only get him to 14 seconds:
Here's a healthy, non-obese, athletic looking guy in his mid 20s running the 100. He can't break 14 even with the questionable timing and slight downhill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dO0k137uL0
More vids of average guys sprinting. It would take them at least 5 years of training under a top sprint coach and Ben Johnson's steroids for them to have a chance at running in the low 12s:
A former ROTC guy was interested in sprinting during our lunch break. He ran 7.9 seconds for 50m and was sore for a week afterwards.
Average Joe is probably at 16.xx untrained and 13.1x after a year of training, and that's if he's not obese.
ukathleticcoach wrote:
What was your time prior to training?
Mid 14's after 2-3 weeks of training. This was self-timed without blocks or spikes.
Sdfsdfsffsdf wrote:
Your description of training on the track was identical to mine! I was also both flattered and embarrassed by all the people who just assume I was an olympian, just because I was an adult doing specific track workouts, when in reality I was worlds away from that level.
The only difference was I was training for decathlete, not just the sprints. Imagine your confusion and feeling out of place at your first meet and imagine how ridiculous and like an imposter that I felt at my first meet doing long jump, or especially discus.
Thanks for sharing! It's nice to know that others had similar experiences.
fisky wrote:
I trained for two years to run the 400m. Here are some things I learned that might help you.
Put your camera on a tripod and video your sled and block starts. The sled should have no more than 30% of your body weight. The sled will help you get into the proper position for the first few strides instead of "popping up" like most novices.
You have to "load" your muscles to get a good block start, in my opinion. Your hands provide resistance to keep you from taking off. In other words, your legs are already tensed and pushing forward. Your hands are holding you back. There's a starting block app to test reaction time. Use it.
Keep playing around with block position. Closer. Farther apart. Different leg ahead. You'll find a sweet spot that feels better. When you find it, write it down so you can recreate the exact position every time.
You are correct that you would most likely get injured with learning proper technique for the lifts. I found a personal trainer to teach me proper form.
In my opinion, once you learn technique for the start and the lifts, the lifts will give a novice the greater improvement in time. Maybe some coaches can chime in on this. I could be wrong. Plus, it's easy to get injured practicing block starts.
Thanks for the advice. On another note, do blocks really help your 400 if you're not that fast? If so, by (approximately) how much? I think that anyone running slower than 52 or so would be better off without them, but I could be wrong.
I tried sprint training for about a year, mixed with middle distance training, and went from having trouble breaking 15 with a rolling start to 13.68 electronic (though I don't know what the tailwind was so it could be invalid). It was fun though, especially when I had consistent access to a track
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.
Sdfsdfsffsdf wrote:
Your description of training on the track was identical to mine! I was also both flattered and embarrassed by all the people who just assume I was an olympian, just because I was an adult doing specific track workouts, when in reality I was worlds away from that level.
The average untrained guy runs a 16-17 100 if they're not morbidly obese. Most people are used to seeing that speed, so an 11-12 100 looks blazing fast. I don't think anyone would assume you're an Olympian if you're an adult doing specific track workouts if your best 100 time is 17.
MurderDubs wrote:
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.
It's OK to gain muscle mass, my friend. Being too skinny is not good for you.
planet of the dogs wrote:
Sdfsdfsffsdf wrote:Your description of training on the track was identical to mine! I was also both flattered and embarrassed by all the people who just assume I was an olympian, just because I was an adult doing specific track workouts, when in reality I was worlds away from that level.
The average untrained guy runs a 16-17 100 if they're not morbidly obese. Most people are used to seeing that speed, so an 11-12 100 looks blazing fast. I don't think anyone would assume you're an Olympian if you're an adult doing specific track workouts if your best 100 time is 17.
This is just depressing to me. 16-17 seconds for an adult male? I'm pretty sure that's a crisp jog down the track. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just mind-boggling to me. Like most here, I'm sure, I ran FAT low 12s and high 11s when I was 13 and 14 years old w/out any muscle development or technique to speak of. I'm confident that in my mid-30s I can more or less approximate that rate of speed.
I know I am faster than most people. But I also know I am not actually fast, unless my only competitors are the obese and infirm.
About the same as when they started training. Speed is innate; you either have it or you don't.
MurderDubs wrote:
Like most here, I'm sure, I ran FAT low 12s and high 11s when I was 13 and 14 years old w/out any muscle development or technique to speak of. I'm confident that in my mid-30s I can more or less approximate that rate of speed.
I know I am faster than most people. But I also know I am not actually fast, unless my only competitors are the obese and infirm.
Not many people here have run the 100m in the low 12s FAT, although most people could if they trained for it. Distance running simply works different muscle fibers than what's required for a decent 100. Farah only got 12.97, and that was with a dip at the finish line. While he might be about half a second faster if he was in peak 5K form, I don't see Farah breaking 12 or even beating the OP's PR unless he were to specifically train for it.
A distance guy running in the low 12s without any sprint training should be running 24 flat or better for the 200 and 51.x for the 400. A sub 4 mile and ~13:30 5K is certainly doable with that speed, and few people here have done that.
The 12.38 time that the OP got is actually pretty good.
The winner of the first Olympics (in 1896) ran a 12.0, which would be a 12.24 FAT or slower. Silver went to a guy who ran 12.2, or 12.44 FAT. So the OP would have gotten a silver and possibly a gold.
The competitors weren't the best in the world even at that time, but they all were in far better shape than the average person today. Their training wasn't that great, but it was probably better than the OP's.
The OP benefitted from blocks, spikes, and a better running surface, but he, like most newbies, wasn't coached to use them properly. He might even have been better off wearing racing flats or light trainers and not using blocks.
Ca$hclay wrote:
About the same as when they started training. Speed is innate; you either have it or you don't.
So Bolt would also have run a sub 10 if he didn't do anything? I don't think so. Maybe low 11s at best.
I think you're right based on my college experience with some 14 flat types and some 4 flat types. Note I'm talking true distance/XC runners, not 800m guys stepping up.
The strength-based 14 flat guys, who could split in the 54 range for 400, would by my guess be lucky to run 12.75 with a flying start. The speedier guys and 4 flat guys could split 51.x or 50.x and I think 11.75 with a flying start is generous for them.
Also remember distance guys have poor acceleration so the blocks vs flying start conversion is worse for them. I don't know anything about sprinting but that loss has to be over a second for distance runners, maybe more.
So to be clear from blocks and FAT, I am predicting close to 14.0 for strength-based 14:00 guys and 12.75-13.0 for strength-based 4:00 milers. But I don't know much about reaction times and standing-start conversions which is why I gave flying start times.