Average person's sprint speed, if moderately trained

Untrained:

17

40

95

Trained:

14

32

70

And that’s for fit people at a healthy weight in their 20s.

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!

Well, I have actually gone via a one year experiment similar to this. After quitting swimming and rowing competitively, I started running at the age of 16 more than 30 years ago. The training was focused on middle distances but there was a stress on technique and sprints as well. After this year, I have made my lifetime PBs: 2:14 for 800m, 2:53 for 1000m, 9:58 for 3000m, and 17:23 for 5000m.

At the end of this year at the age of 17, I got properly timed at 6.9s for 50m and 13.5s for 100m. The times were 7.1s per 50m and 13.8s for 100m the year before but I was altready in a decent shape.

Now, there was only one overweight kid out of 17 guys in highschool and he could still run around 14s per 100m (he was actually quite fast). However, there were only 3-4 guys faster than my 13.5s. The best one could do it in 11.8s, none of them were runners. This was at the age of 17 but probably not much different than at 20. So, my guess for average 100m time would be 14.2s and you can probably get this down to 13.7s with training. As they say, you cannot really teach speed but you can streamline the technique a bit but there is a limit.

We did not run 200m and 400m in PE on high school, so thos would be harder to assess.

Interesting info. I'm 33, and have run regularly for the past 5-6 years, and always thought I had a good kick. Today I had a great kick at the end of the 5K I ran, on medium length grass without studs in them, and I could feel a slight slipage underfoot. My Garmin said I hit between 3:14 and 3:36 pace for the last .06 of a mile, which is 96m, and Jack Daniels calculator says that equals about a 12.55 sec time, so I was pretty happy with that.

Training over the last six months has been about 15 miles a week, with cycling up a couple hills every day on the way to college, and been doing the ABCs and strides for the past week, which might have helped my fast twitch muscles a bit.

I already know, cool story, bro.

I was once doing mile repeats with a guy on the track. He stopped at the beginning of the homestretch. During the recovery jog, I asked him why he stopped. He said the Garmin beeped at one mile. He was about 90 meters from the finish line.

Moderately trained as in not a slob:

Men: 13.5

Women: 16.0

You can’t be serious! wrote:

I was once doing mile repeats with a guy on the track. He stopped at the beginning of the homestretch. During the recovery jog, I asked him why he stopped. He said the Garmin beeped at one mile. He was about 90 meters from the finish line.

I understand your point, but quality gps watches can still give you some sort of idea.

I happened to run the 400m in high school in about 55s - a 55s time was enough to win probably 85% of the meets, so that's probably on the fast side.

Old400runner wrote:

I happened to run the 400m in high school in about 55s - a 55s time was enough to win probably 85% of the meets, so that's probably on the fast side.

Yeah this. I would go with 1:15 if moderately trained and under 1:00 if highly trained (for a male).

Dude, America is way worse than Europe.

1:11 without any training at all as a 39 year old is FIRE compared to 95% of all men your age and you definitely have some natural talent.

My first 400m was after 2 years of hobbyjogging 20 mpw at 9:00 pace was 1:35. I have never been overweight. I played a bit of spccer until age 12 but got into some bad habits and dropped sport, later picked it back up in my 20s though.

With 2 years of training and getting into way better overall shape, I am not slightly skinny-fat anymore and I now have an athletic physique, my best 400M at age 33 is 1:03. Best 100 is something around 13 mid.