I know that I have the potential to get to 12.2. I used to run at 13.xx but I haven;t run for two years and I've gotten slower. I don't have time to get a coach and I would prefer to coach myself. How can I get down to 12.2? And can I get recruited by Stanford without a coach and squad because I'm in AUS and we don't have varsity.
And I heard that 12.2 is good because it shows raw talent and the potential to be coached better.
12.2 Will not get you to stanford.
14.38 - 12.2 is a huge jump.
You might get back to low 13s, maybe even break 13.
etrhyreth wrote:
12.2 Will not get you to stanford.
14.38 - 12.2 is a huge jump.
You might get back to low 13s, maybe even break 13.
It is a huge jump and I personally think you'd need a good coach and have a ton of natural talent to get to Stanford levels.
Anyhow, a quick story ... Once had a girl who wanted to run the 100 (actually, in middle school, almost all want to). She was in high-14's and little indication to suggest she had inherent talent.
Anyhow, someone told her Mom that 12 seconds was doable and that spikes and blocks would pretty much get her there, with good coaching. Sigh!
I hate to break this to you, but...
Great sprinters are born, not built.
If you are fully mature, healthy, and of the proper body composition, and are not running within 95% of your potential yet, you won't get there.
Speed is mostly god-given (genetic). The higher the distance, the better probability that you can bring your aerobic capacity up to make up for lack of leg speed.
Great sprinters are naturally blisteringly fast... a coach just irons out mechanics, the start, technique, etc. to get that last few percent of improvement.
Coach Foo wrote:
I hate to break this to you, but...
Great sprinters are born, not built.
If you are fully mature, healthy, and of the proper body composition, and are not running within 95% of your potential yet, you won't get there.
Speed is mostly god-given (genetic). The higher the distance, the better probability that you can bring your aerobic capacity up to make up for lack of leg speed.
Great sprinters are naturally blisteringly fast... a coach just irons out mechanics, the start, technique, etc. to get that last few percent of improvement.
This is wrong and makes no sense. Genes are not god given. They are predictable, modifiable, and come from your parents. Sprinting is a muscular exercise just like distance running is. It is just as trainable. If you haven't been able to improve more than 5% then something is wrong with your training not God.
Your 95% idea is easily shown to be wrong. That means that nobody has ever improved their 100m time by more than .5 seconds.
Not quite man wrote:
This is wrong and makes no sense. Genes are not god given. They are predictable, modifiable, and come from your parents. Sprinting is a muscular exercise just like distance running is. It is just as trainable. If you haven't been able to improve more than 5% then something is wrong with your training not God.
Your 95% idea is easily shown to be wrong. That means that nobody has ever improved their 100m time by more than .5 seconds.
Genes are not modifiable (except with random mutation or insertion of viral genetic material, which isn't what you're talking about).
Not quite man wrote:
Coach Foo wrote:I hate to break this to you, but...
Great sprinters are born, not built.
If you are fully mature, healthy, and of the proper body composition, and are not running within 95% of your potential yet, you won't get there.
Speed is mostly god-given (genetic). The higher the distance, the better probability that you can bring your aerobic capacity up to make up for lack of leg speed.
Great sprinters are naturally blisteringly fast... a coach just irons out mechanics, the start, technique, etc. to get that last few percent of improvement.
Sprinting is a muscular exercise just like distance running is. It is just as trainable. If you haven't been able to improve more than 5% then something is wrong with your training not God.
You don't understand sprinting VS distance running. Leg speed rules all when it comes down to it, but some distance runners (think Bill Rodgers) can overcome slow leg speed with aerobic development.
Aerobic development is essentially unlimited. Muscle fiber ratio is not. If you are not 95% (ish) of the way there in terms of composition, then you can not convert/train enough fibers to improve by huge margins.
You could improve your sprint times by more than 5% if you were significantly overweight or out of shape or recovering from injury, but a healthy athlete will see only small improvements.
"I heard that 12.2 is good because it shows raw talent and the potential to be coached better."
Let's go over this, a little, so you can understand what it means.
Raw talent means how fast you are without any coaching. For you, that means 13.XX. If we or any coach, help you get to 12.2, and I'm sure you can run 12.2, that 12.2 is what you can achieve after being coached better. That would be your limit.
12.2 is a great time for most HS girls. Work hard and you will get it, but 12.2 is the 100m time of a girl whose best event is most likely the 400m.
Make sure you also try the long, triple and high jumps and hurdles.
My all time personal best was 11.66 in Grade 7. I never trained then. I just lost stamina. When I run 100m now in the first 20m I full out go really fast then I get tired and have to jog. When I ran 11.66 I would have this maximum speed, where you think you are running as fast as you can, but then in the last 10m you have this speed that natural comes out thats faster than your maximum speed but you can only produce it in your last 10m. I call this your 'super speed' haha. Anyway I lost that now. And I don't know how to get it back. I think I'm just really unfit for 100m now.
And my Dad got into the Olympics and pretty much trained all his life but got cancer and couldn't compete.
So yeah I am a naturally gifted born runner, thanks.
Stanford Dreams wrote:
My all time personal best was 11.66 in Grade 7. I never trained then. I just lost stamina. When I run 100m now in the first 20m I full out go really fast then I get tired and have to jog. When I ran 11.66 I would have this maximum speed, where you think you are running as fast as you can, but then in the last 10m you have this speed that natural comes out thats faster than your maximum speed but you can only produce it in your last 10m. I call this your 'super speed' haha. Anyway I lost that now. And I don't know how to get it back. I think I'm just really unfit for 100m now.
And my Dad got into the Olympics and pretty much trained all his life but got cancer and couldn't compete.
So yeah I am a naturally gifted born runner, thanks.
Sooo....what's your question, then? You've already run 11.66 as a middle schooler, so you obviously know how to train to run a half second slower than that time.
If you ran a 11.66 in Grade 7 then with proper training you could run it in 10.xx or faster, no matter how out of shape or slow you have become. The talent and ability is there. It is just up to you whether you want it or not.
I have seen similar situation where 7th graders had unbelievable talent but chose not to use it until their Junior year of high school. They were able to make huge gains in a short time and went on to run D-1 and qualify for Olympics.
That's Great! Thanks for posting!
Stanford Dreams wrote:
My all time personal best was 11.66 in Grade 7.
I just lost stamina.
And I don't know how to get it back. I think I'm just really unfit for 100m now.
And my Dad got into the Olympics
So yeah I am a naturally gifted born runner, thanks.
Assuming that your "thanks" is mildly sarcastic. Glad you have the sass to put on the track.
Anyways, if you have that natural ability and muscle composition, the you most likely lack conditioning and body composition.
You will need to strength train, improve body composition (lose fat and gain lean muscle), and you will need to improve conditioning through tempo running (for sprinters, that might be 3x4x100m at 70%) a couple times per week.
After conditioning up for a month or so and getting stronger, then you add the speed. Flying 30's, block starts, hill sprints, etc.
You might stand a chance, but it will take work.
The longer a female athlete goes without training, the harder it is to get back to her younger form.
Good luck :)
I took biology wrote:
Not quite man wrote:This is wrong and makes no sense. Genes are not god given. They are predictable, modifiable, and come from your parents. Sprinting is a muscular exercise just like distance running is. It is just as trainable. If you haven't been able to improve more than 5% then something is wrong with your training not God.
Your 95% idea is easily shown to be wrong. That means that nobody has ever improved their 100m time by more than .5 seconds.
Genes are not modifiable (except with random mutation or insertion of viral genetic material, which isn't what you're talking about).
Genes are entirely modifiable. That's why you look different now than when you were born. If you really took biology, then you must not have passed.
Coach Foo wrote:
You don't understand sprinting VS distance running. Leg speed rules all when it comes down to it, but some distance runners (think Bill Rodgers) can overcome slow leg speed with aerobic development.
Aerobic development is essentially unlimited. Muscle fiber ratio is not. If you are not 95% (ish) of the way there in terms of composition, then you can not convert/train enough fibers to improve by huge margins.
You could improve your sprint times by more than 5% if you were significantly overweight or out of shape or recovering from injury, but a healthy athlete will see only small improvements.
No, it is you who doesn't understand. This has nothing to do with muscle fiber ratio. You can keep your fiber ratio the same and improve either your speed (or your endurance).
No, you don't have to be overweight or recovering from injury. I've seen it happen plenty of times in healthy athletes.
You don't know what you are talking about regarding biology, physiology, or training.
Not quite man wrote:
I took biology wrote:Genes are not modifiable (except with random mutation or insertion of viral genetic material, which isn't what you're talking about).
Genes are entirely modifiable. That's why you look different now than when you were born. If you really took biology, then you must not have passed.
I'm assuming you're trolling, but if not, no genes are not modifiable. The extent to which a gene is expressed changes based on a variety of factors, but the actual nucleotide sequence does not change (except by random mutation or insertion of viral genetic material).
Not quite man wrote:
Coach Foo wrote:You don't understand sprinting VS distance running. Leg speed rules all when it comes down to it, but some distance runners (think Bill Rodgers) can overcome slow leg speed with aerobic development.
Aerobic development is essentially unlimited. Muscle fiber ratio is not. If you are not 95% (ish) of the way there in terms of composition, then you can not convert/train enough fibers to improve by huge margins.
You could improve your sprint times by more than 5% if you were significantly overweight or out of shape or recovering from injury, but a healthy athlete will see only small improvements.
I've seen it happen plenty of times in healthy athletes.
You don't know what you are talking about regarding biology, physiology, or training.
If the athletes you "saw" having "it" happen were still in adolescence, then yes, they may improve in the 100 significantly.
If they are 'full' grown, however, I doubt you would see more than a 1 second improvement in their 100m unless they were starting from less than average athletic ability (ex: completely sedentary).
7/10 but saying "grade 7" outs you as a troll. They don't use that term in Aus. Plus, kids in Aus haven't heard of Stanford.
Congratulations on having used to run 13.xx and now partway down the page having run 11.66 in fact in "grade seven," surely, a world record by far!! Stanford's coach is now making some calls to get this done.