Average wooMAN wrote:
http://livehealthy.chron.com/average-running-speed-teenage-girl-10107.htmlSays here that the average sprint speed for a 15 year old girl is 13.5 seconds.
"Intermediate female sprinters ages 14 and 15 should achieve a time of 11.6 seconds in the 100-meter sprint and 26 seconds in the 200-meter sprint."
LOOOOOL!!!
Who the hell wrote this?!
LM wrote:
Average wooMAN wrote:
http://livehealthy.chron.com/average-running-speed-teenage-girl-10107.htmlSays here that the average sprint speed for a 15 year old girl is 13.5 seconds.
"Intermediate female sprinters ages 14 and 15 should achieve a time of 11.6 seconds in the 100-meter sprint and 26 seconds in the 200-meter sprint."
LOOOOOL!!!
Who the hell wrote this?!
It gets better holy sh1t!
" For the flying 30-meter dash, the average speed for 16- to 19-year-old girls ranges from 4.3 to 4.4 seconds, according to Physical Education and the Study of Sport” by Robert Davis. While an excellent speed drops below 4.5 seconds, a poor speed is 4.6 seconds or higher. Boys in the same age group run about 4 to 5 seconds faster than the girls.
Girls apparently average 4.3-4.4 seconds...yet 4.5 is "excellent". More astonisngly, we can expect boys in the same range group to be 4-5 second faster, so should be solidly sub 1s flying 30m.
Pro AF tbh
LM wrote:
Intermediate female sprinters ages 14 and 15 should achieve a time of 11.6 seconds in the 100-meter sprint and 26 seconds in the 200-meter sprint."
11.6 in the 100 but only 26 in the 200???
roraza wrote:
LM wrote:
"Intermediate female sprinters ages 14 and 15 should achieve a time of 11.6 seconds in the 100-meter sprint and 26 seconds in the 200-meter sprint."
LOOOOOL!!!
Who the hell wrote this?!
It gets better holy sh1t!
" For the flying 30-meter dash, the average speed for 16- to 19-year-old girls ranges from 4.3 to 4.4 seconds, according to Physical Education and the Study of Sport” by Robert Davis. While an excellent speed drops below 4.5 seconds, a poor speed is 4.6 seconds or higher. Boys in the same age group run about 4 to 5 seconds faster than the girls.
Girls apparently average 4.3-4.4 seconds...yet 4.5 is "excellent". More astonisngly, we can expect boys in the same range group to be 4-5 second faster, so should be solidly sub 1s flying 30m.
Pro AF tbh
This study must have taken place on a VERY short track.
LM wrote:
This raises a very interesting question for me.
Elite 400m time in running is 44 second or so, or about 11s per 100m. Maybe from a start that's like 12s. The cycling analog would be the kilo, which usually has riders doing around 11-12 w/kg for a top level performance. I guess to be properly fair you'd need to use 500m pace, which I think is close to 1:00, or 12s/100m, giving 13s for a standing start.
In cycling however, almost every amateur can at least touch 12 w/kg, especially if they aren't fat, and the majority of them can do 12 w/kg for 15s. For a 75kg rider, roughly comparable to average "fit" male, that's about between 800-900w. Get to running however, and few people can do sub 13s, let alone sub 12s 100m from the general population. Compare this to cycling where I'd guess 50-75% of amateur cyclists in their 20s could do 850w for 15s. 90%+ could hit that for 5s.
The question is....why? Seems like it must come down to running mechanics issues, as it seems the majority of people have the natural power in their legs to hold elite 1:00 pace for 12-15s, but when it gets to running that power doesn't translate to speed.
Body weight may have something to do with it. Elite 400 runners run 10.2-10.5 FAT for 100m for 100m. So the comparison isn't accurate. 12 sec runners don't have the power to generate elite speed. The 400 time is based on average speed. Most times the splits would look something like 21 low to 22 mid at the 200m with a plus 2-3 second positive split. So they're running the first 100m in 10.8-11 secs. Elite 400m runners can run the 100 in 10.5 or faster. This just shows how little understanding most Letsrun posters know about running real 400s and leg power.
Numbskull wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:
The 100 is an endurance event for some people if you are testing speed 50 would have been a better distance An untrained person can only sprint all out for about 40 to 60 meters
You've probably never run a marathon then.
I am not sure if I would call it endurance but TrackCoach is pretty much spot on. In most sports that kids play, you spring for 20-40ms and stop. You don't go all out for 15s. To some extent an untrained personal probably can't even sprint. High school is hwne you start hitting people that haven't tried running all out for a couple of years.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
14.8 seems slow to me. People forget you don’t need sprint training to run 15 Secods for a 100. It’s a very short distance...
There was even someone at the World Championships who could not run under 15.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_A4EpOv28cJust Another LRC Idiot wrote:
sbeefyk2 wrote:
14.8 seems slow to me. People forget you don’t need sprint training to run 15 Secods for a 100. It’s a very short distance...
There was even someone at the World Championships who could not run under 15.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_A4EpOv28c
What an earth was that guy doing at the world championships?
Rez wrote:
Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:
There was even someone at the World Championships who could not run under 15.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_A4EpOv28cWhat an earth was that guy doing at the world championships?
Each federation was allowed to send one athlete regardless of the qualifying standards, and they chose this shot putter. But he was not allowed to compete in shot put, so he entered 100m instead.
Runningart2004 wrote:
curve ball wrote:
For no apparent reason, some guys are really terrible at running. I don't know why this guy sucks, for example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/xu93j/hey_fittit_what_is_a_good_100m_time/He's 16 years old, so age isn't an issue.
He's 5'11 and 170 lbs, so he doesn't have any height or weight issues.
He runs daily and considers himself to be in good shape, so fitness shouldn't be an issue.
Despite all that, his sprint (15.64 100) and distance times (7:00 mile) both suck. I've seen and heard of a few cringeworthy performances, but that has to be among the worst by a non-disabled, non-obese teenage male who runs on a regular basis.
Again you overestimate the average man. And again I lean on my Army experience as I’ve taken guys to the track and we’ve run 100m sprints and I’ve run countless APFT 2 miles.
15s 100m and 7:00 mile is going to be about average for a fit 5’9-11”, 170-80lb guy.
100m is a long sprint for the common man. After about 50-60m you will notice a marked slowdown.
Most fit guys who run 3x week in the Army are running 14:00-15:00 for 2mi and I can tell you they aren’t running a much faster pace for a mile.
Alan
I’ve seen VERY fat people run 15 seconds for a 100m. I agree that although slow as hell. you have to have SOME aerobic endurance to run a 7 minute mile but 15 seconds is below average in an 8th grade gym class full of kids that play video games and eat cheetos all day.
letsrun is full of fat losers wrote:
There is always the common question on these message boards about how fast a typical person could run the 100m. To test our timing system out, the head track coach at my school had every student in a PE class warm up 2 laps and run the 100m. Only people who wore athletic clothes and shoes could participate, and it seemed like he ran male and female heats to make the data easier to read. I asked to see the results afterward at practice, and was surprised to find out that the average male time was 14.8 and female time was 18.5. This was from about 7 periods of class and around ~80 participants each period.
The results are interesting. They show how far the average is from serious sprint speed. And training isn't by itself going to create speed that isn't genetic. Some have said the slower times in the groups would have skewed the results, but so would the faster times. That's what an average is. If high schoolers are typically at their physical life-peak for speed because of their activity it suggests how much slower the results will be for sedentary adults.
sit and kick wrote:
on a whim I hand timed myself to a 14.7/standing start in my hokas on a track after an easy workout. I didnt really go all out but I took it pretty hard. About as hard as I thought I could without risking an achilles/hamstring issue. Quite a bit quicker acceleration than a stride and tried to hold it, I'm sure there were a few tenths in it if I was a bit more willing to risk an injury but my achilles is iffy. I doubt I could break 14
45 years old, no fast twitch whatsoever, slow as balls [6:00 mile/20:00 5K current PRs], I'm a little bigger than a normal runner [6'2/190#, about 15% BF]
I distinctly remember back in 7th grade/pre-puberty when the entire class was timed in the 200m. I came in DFL outside the 2 fatties and most of the chicks [>50%]. I had to execute a come-from-behind pass on the faster fatty and just barely got him at the finish.
If that helps to describe what you're working with here. lol.
If not the funniest post I've read on LR, this is up there. Fat shaming and sensitivity be damned. So many of us old folks have been there, just not wanting to get beat by too many skinny moms pushing jogging strollers.
My 800m speed isnt much different from my 100 speed. Ive never had much better than 15s 100 speed, but i can sustain it for a km. Im just pure slow twitch.
I teach at a high school so here are some simple things that come to my mind while reading these post.
1. In an average high school pe class you have all kinds of students. Athletes, non-athletes, lazy kids, and just plain average kids.
2. I can bet that at least 20% of the kids gave a minimal effort.
3. A smaller percentage tried to cheat.
If you asked me I would still say the numbers are pretty close. The girls time maybe off because it seems most of the girls (at least at the school I work at) who are good athletes aren't in pe class.
@I am sam wrote:
I don't think you understand the aging process very well, and what has happened to you during the time you became "unfit". And don't come back telling me I am wrong without posting a video of you running a 15s 100m.
If he's taken at least a few years to become "unfit," I'd also like to see the evidence of that 38:20 10K that he's going to run in his 60s. He may be surprised by how uncooperative his body has become.