What would the average man's 100m time be after a year of sprint training?

Thanks and can you clarify - are these FAT and what do you mean by reaction time is not included? How did you time it?

14.0 and 29:30 wrote:

Thanks and can you clarify - are these FAT and what do you mean by reaction time is not included? How did you time it?

Those are all FAT times. Reaction time is not included since the clock starts on my first movement (a starting gun was not used).

Most people think they're much faster in the 100 than they really are. Usually not because they're lying (although that does happen), but because most people aren't trained to accurately time a race.

Here's what happened when two of my teammate's friends (let's call them Timer 1 and Timer 2) timed him in the 100:

0.00 sec - Gun goes off

0.20 sec - Athletes start running

0.25 sec - Bang from gun reaches Timer 1

0.50 sec - Timer 2 reacts to sprinters' movement and hits stopwatch

0.55 sec - Timer 1 reacts to bang from gun and hits stopwatch

11.45 sec - Timer 2 sees teammate's foot cross the starting line and hits the stopwatch (Time: 11.45-0.50=10.95")

11.49 sec - Timer 1 anticipates that teammate will cross the line and hits the stopwatch. His torso is still a foot away. (Time: 11.49-0.55=10.94")

11.52 sec - Official time. Teammate's torso crosses the line.

Timer 1: "Look! He got 10 seconds!"

Timer 2: "He got 10 on my watch too! He's going to the Olympics!"

Teammate: "I don't know what you guys are talking about. I'm just one of many guys running mid 11's."

I am a champion wrote:

13-14 sec

That's what I'm going with.

Relevant anecdote!

I was a decent XC guy in high school -- eventually got down to 16-high for 5k and the #2 or 3 spot on the team, but I probably had more pure speed than any other non-sprinter. I had never been timed in the 100, but I sort of guessed I could run 12.5 or so.

Fast forward almost 20 years. I was untrained as a runner, but had been playing a good amount of basketball. I started getting back into running, and one day I went to the track to time myself in the 100 and 200.

I was SHOCKED to see that I could only run 14.1 and 31.x (hand-timed) -- how could I have gotten so slow? Now, I think about those times and am SHOCKED that I could run them basically untrained!

I've been running 30-40 mpw for a couple years now and I'm not even sure I could run a 31.x 200 anymore.

fiber type wrote:

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.

I'm not a distance guy, unless struggling on the high side of 2-flat in the 800 counts. I was under those 200 and 400 times you list, probably (never competed at the distance so I don't know) ended up around 11-11.3 or something like that in the 100, but never anywhere close to that mile time. Maybe if I ran on a 350 meter track or got an exemption to drive a golf cart I could have gone around it four times in under 4 minutes.

We're all built different and people like Mo Farah have bodies so highly specialized to one kind of running that it only makes sense that they'd not be capable in short sprints-- but running in the 12s should be doable for a 20-something dude with an average American build.

He said average guy right? The average man has never done sports, is probably 30-40 lbs overweight and lazy as sin. I doubt he can break 17.

Timing is most definitely the issue. I have also met and trained with distance runners that think they can run under 12.5 or under 12 or something then in speed sessions of 60m or 120m reps I can beat them SO easily. I know I can't break 12.

So many distance runners I know have their 100m or 200m PB as a self timed or coach timed run during training. You can just add 0.5-1.0 seconds to that time at least. So inaccurate.

LOL at anyone who thinks that most people could run a sub 12 off of one year's training. 12 flat is 25.3% slower than Bolt's WR, and even the OP's PR is only 29.2% slower than the WR.

25.3% and 29.2% slower than the mile WR is a 4:39 and 4:48 mile, respectively. How many people do you know have run those times after a year's worth of training? It's probably even harder to run a good 100 than a good mile without a coach since the 100 is so technique dependent.

data point wrote:

Most people think they're much faster in the 100 than they really are. Usually not because they're lying (although that does happen)

One of the (very few) assignments I remember from middle school was having to run from the street light pole outside the playground to another utility pole ~250' away. We had to write down our times to the nearest tenth and turn it in to the teacher.

After recording the times, he gave a typical bell curve and standard deviation lecture. What was more interesting is when he did a bar chart of the least significant digit (tenths of a second). A disproportionate number of times ended in 9 (11.9, 9.9, 12.9, etc.), and 5. The number of times ending in 0 was a bit above what would be expected from a truly random sample (10%), and very few times ended in 2,3,7, and 8. He said that this happens almost every year.

This means that statistically, not many of those times were legit. Either kids rounded down their times to impress their friends, or they skipped the assignment and guessed how fast they could run. Not unlike what's going on when you ask people what their 100 times are.

hobby sprinter wrote:

I don't know whether I'll keep doing this, try other events, or quit, but it's certainly been an interesting experience, and I'll keep everyone posted if I run any notable times.

TL; DR: I'm in my late 20s and consider myself to be an average person. A year's worth of decent, but not optimal, sprint training got me to a 12.38 100 (FAT, wind legal).

In case anyone's following this thread, I practiced my crouch starts and PR'd in the 100 today with a time of 12.26 (FAT, +0.3 m/s wind). I ran a 25.33 200 after that (FAT, 0.1 m/s wind), but I might have broken 25 if I ran it completely fresh.

I also did a solo 400 time trial a few days ago and got a 56.8. I rarely run more than 250m (continuously) during practice, so I was pleasantly surprised by the result.

I think you've done well, and may have more natural talent than you give yourself credit for. Your training was sensible and disciplined, and somehow you managed to avoid getting hurt. Did you drop weight over the course of the year?

I think the average young male who is not overweight would be lucky to break 14 even after a year's training. If he's packing 10 or more extra pounds, breaking 16 would an achievement.

My POV wrote:

I think you've done well, and may have more natural talent than you give yourself credit for. Your training was sensible and disciplined, and somehow you managed to avoid getting hurt. Did you drop weight over the course of the year?

I've actually stayed the same weight (+/- 2 pounds), but I gained more lean muscle mass. I went from being around 20-22% body fat to 12-13% body fat. My abs, quads, and even my biceps are noticeably more defined now.

The only injury I got was a minor hamstring strain last summer. It only took a few days to recover from, and I did glute-ham raises twice a week after that for injury prevention.

Bad logic^

Elite marathoners don't have poor vertical because of marathon training. They have poor vertical because they are genetically unsuited to one-rep tests of explosive power.

That's great you found sprinting and even was able to find open track meets! My two cents into the subject. Last year I experimented with a month of 100m on the road and track, so when I started I ran about 13.85 for 80m, I didn't even know where the 100m start line was XD That's 16.62 if you multiply by 1.2 my 40 was 5.97. I ran that in 20min. 5k shape weighing like 158 at 5'7". 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. No blocks, but self timed in cheap ass "running" sneakers. I think my flying start 40yd was 4.25 at that time, and I got to 25:58 4mile shape.

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'm someone who's worked out since 16yr and came back from obesity twice and has seriously ran distance for two years.

Prs

40yd 5.97 to 4.98

60m fly 6.67

100m 13.05, so roughly 13.3

200m 33.xx at my peak 100m shape, but now 32 relaxed in a workout, so could be faster

400m 67-68 as of last year, I'll check in tomorrow for this time.

Mile 5:19

2mile 11:05

5k 18:21

I've seen some non-obese guys sprint 50-100m to catch a bus. They look completely spent after that whether they make it or not. None of them appear to be faster than 15-16 seconds for the 100.

It may be morbid, but look at people running for their lives. Check out the Sept.11 footage and scenes of people fleeing gunshots, burning buildings, etc. Or you can look at those Black Friday crowds running into the stores. Compare that with this. The action is at the 2:15 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OhNkh10jbY

Lanes 4 and 5 run in the mid 12s. How many people have you seen who have run that fast?

Speculator Sam wrote:

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'm someone who's worked out since 16yr and came back from obesity twice and has seriously ran distance for two years.

Prs

40yd 5.97 to 4.98

60m fly 6.67

100m 13.05, so roughly 13.3

You said that every healthy fit man could outsprint you. Is that now or when you were in sprint PR shape? I don't think too many people could run a sub 5 40 yard or a 6.67 60m fly unless they specifically trained for it or were naturally talented.

Buddy of mine, an ex-army guy, 30 years old that does crossfit now, active in sports all his life and above average definitely in physical ability asked for my help to run sub-12.

He joined me and my training group speed sessions and other specific sprint work for half an year while doing other stuff like weightlifting and such on his own, so semi serious dedication.

You know what time he ended up with? 13.6x. Hand timed. No RT. So closer to 14 FAT.

I'd say the average male perform much worse then him even with an year of dedicated training.

This is one of the greatest things I've read on letsrun in years. Thanks for the read!