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

Interesting stuff.

So you were basically totally athletically untrained before this?

I imagine its pretty different for ex-serious distance runners getting into it.

I think you're way optimistic on how fast "most people" could run.

I'd guess with a year of training, maybe 2 out of 3 twenty-something adults could break 17 seconds. Keep in mind that about a third of the population is obese and couldn't run 20 yards at the start of training and probably an equal amount will get injured in the training process.

Harambe wrote:

Interesting stuff.

So you were basically totally athletically untrained before this?

Pretty much. I had no prior sprint experience, and the only notable physical activity I did over the past 10 years was 5 miles a week of easy running.

hobby sprinter wrote:

I also Googled "block settings" and "how to use blocks". Attempts to actually practice with them mostly proved unsatisfactory.

I showed up to the track an hour before my race and was a bit overwhelmed by the atmosphere and focus of the athletes. The practice area was filled with people doing explosive bounds, strides, and speed drills, many of which I had never even seen before. One pole vaulter's run up (with pole in hand) looked faster than my best all-out sprint.

I was so screwed.

LOL. You got balls, I admit. Thanks for the interesting read.

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).

The IAAF tables say it's equivalent to a 4:52.7 mile and a 16:45 5K. Not too shabby for someone who's just roughing it.

fisky wrote:

I think you're way optimistic on how fast "most people" could run.

I'd guess with a year of training, maybe 2 out of 3 twenty-something adults could break 17 seconds. Keep in mind that about a third of the population is obese and couldn't run 20 yards at the start of training and probably an equal amount will get injured in the training process.

+1

Even if the OP was "only" a distance runner in his past athletic experience, and has "only" been running 5 mpw (which says little about being ready to run fast, certainly, but still means you are more active than at least 2/3 of the population), that's going to suggest more potential for running fast than your average Joe who may or may not have gotten off the couch more than 2-3 times a week in the last decade.

I'd assume that the average 100m time for the average adult in the US after a year of pretty decent training would probably be closer to 15 seconds. For only "casual" training (which I would consider to be 2-3 times a week without much structure or plan), probably more like 16-18 seconds, and even that is probably optimistic (such as, either discounting the very obese or those that couldn't train without getting injured within the first couple months and calling it quits).

hobby sprinter wrote:

He said I got 11.96 ... I finished sixth (of 8) with a time of 12.53 and could have gotten fifth if I ran 0.01s faster. I wondered why I underperformed relative to my seed time before concluding that the difference between me reacting to the gun and my friend reacting to my first movement was more than half a second.

Yep, reaction time is terrible for new sprinters. It takes training just to get reaction time down to the 0.15 range. Also, this is why I never believe anyone's self-reported 100 speed.

Great description and way to go on your races, you should be proud . I am a 45yo and was a sprinter/hurdler/jumper. Ran a 12 flat FAT last year off a PR from college of 11 flat. I have been around enough to know that an average male in their 20-30's should be happy with a 16 second 100m.

Look around bro, fat and lazy everywhere. 16 may be too generous!

First of all, I congratulate you for taking up sprinting post-college and in the situation you were in—it's very rare to see this type of interest come about after hs or college. And thanks also for a very informative and well-written post.

As a coach who is also a sprinter, a few general thoughts:

Yes, the use of block starts and even sprint spikes can really throw off novices. The mechanics of sprinting obviously are unique and beyond the time demands of such short events, the physical aspects including the blocks and reaction time needed for a successful start are something not found in distance events.

There is a flip side to this, too: as I'm a sprinter, I was being evaluated by a physical therapist for a running injury two years ago and she was startled to see how close my feet were together running on a normal treadmill at an average jogging pace. I had unknowingly transferred too much of my sprinting stance into running. It was not related to my injury at hand, but something I was, I am embarrassed to say, unaware of in general.

While there is a "sprinter build", you can find sprinters outside of that build, too. In my own case, being 6'2" lead to agility with hurdles you don't get with shorter sprinters, but most people assume by looks I'm a distance runner. The most-integral thing about being successful in sprints is proper training and having the reaction time to get out of the blocks quickly. And overall that can come down to training. Yes, there can of course be genetic advantages, but you look at sprints and the derivative events of relays and hurdles and a lot comes down to proper training and very fast reaction times, which is why elite training outfits like IMG Academy devote so much effort and tech to reaction/coordination training.

Being sedentary is better for your 100 time than being a hobby jogger or a serious distance runner. This isn't a 400; you need speed and explosiveness that's hindered by low mileage jogging or high mileage running.

The standing vertical jump of elite marathoners is something like 12"-13". The corresponding figure for sedentary folks is more like 18"-19". Anecdotally, I know some distance guys who set PRs in the 200 after having to take an extended time off due to injury, burnout, or work demands.

Even if you assume that jogging 5 MPW helped the OP improve his time, there's no way it helped him get from a 15-16 second 100 (your guess for an average adult's capability) to a 12.38 FAT. That's a lot of difference.

hobby sprinter wrote:

I found that the general public could run unattached in some college meets. For me, this was a chance to experience the college track season I've never had. There were tons of hobby joggers running your local road races, but why were there hardly any hobby sprinters running in these meets?

Marketing. 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.

Bragging rights is another reason. Saying you ran a 12 second 100 doesn't sound as impressive to the average person as saying you ran a 4 hour marathon.

I agree with most everything you wrote but it doesn't automatically conflict with the previous point.

Your point was that the average distance runner gets faster at sprinting if they stop training. This is true (in my experience at least). But the previous point was that the average person who has run distance in the past is faster than the average person overall, which is also true because of statistics - the average person overall is pretty obese and way out of shape.

In other words, taking your statement: "Being sedentary is better for your 100 time than being a hobby jogger or a serious distance runner." TRUE for a given individual, holding their overall health and weight constant. FALSE at a population level, the average distance runner is faster than the average sedentary person.

I really think you're too optimistic to think the average person will end up in the low 12s after a season of training, and likewise that sub 12 would be average after a few years of specific coaching.

I believe this because the average kid who chooses to be a sprinter (presumably self select based on being more adept at sprinting) doesn't end up running sub 12 by the end of high school.

but anyway, I found your post really interesting. 5 years ago I was in your same position (distance runner [actually middle distance] in college, hadn't run in the 5 years since I graduated). I stuck with it for for 4 years though, I ran 11.8 my first year and 11.5 by the end of the four years.

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.

The worst of all was pole vault though, I felt like a real idiot being in my late 2ps jumping 10 or 11 feet at a college meet. I didn't feel somewhat normal until I was able to hit 14 feet.

Anyway, thanks for posting, I really could relate to your post. I suspect you're faster than you think, relative to the truly average person, though.

headwind wrote:

The standing vertical jump of elite marathoners is something like 12"-13". The corresponding figure for sedentary folks is more like 18"-19". Anecdotally, I know some distance guys who set PRs in the 200 after having to take an extended time off due to injury, burnout, or work demands.

Distance running does not hurt your explosiveness. When I was at my best running shape, I could dunk easily one or two-handed and hurdled over a 5'6" bar (yes, in a meet, I did it for fun and didn't know how to flop), also long jumped 18+ although I took off about a foot behind the board and had no idea on form. 12 years later I don't run but I'm considerably stronger, and I can just barely throw it down with one hand and I mean barely. And I could definitely not approach those jumping marks.

hobby sprinter wrote:

In December, I got a speed sled to work on my power and acceleration. I also looked into doing deadlifts and squats, but decided that the risk of injury was too high since I would have to learn them from scratch and didn't have anyone to watch my form.

...I also Googled "block settings" and "how to use blocks". Attempts to actually practice with them mostly proved unsatisfactory.

About 3 years ago, I decided to experiment with my routine (I'm almost 70) to get rid of some nagging injuries and get back some speed for my primary race, the 800m. 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.

18.5 +/- 2.3 seconds.

HardLoper wrote:

Also, this is why I never believe anyone's self-reported 100 speed.

I've heard tons of people claim they can run 11 for the 100. Their real time is a second or two slower due to one or more of the following:

- Using a running start instead of a standing start

- Running 100 yards instead of 100 meters (more common for older runners, when they ran the 440 yards instead of the 400 meters. But I have heard of people running down the football field and using that as their 100 time)

- Self timing or having a non-track person time them (means that there's no reaction time, and the stopwatch is often stopped early since the runner or timer anticipates the finish)

- Stopping the stopwatch when a runner's foot, hand, or any part of the body crosses the finish line, not when his torso crosses the line.

- Running with a massive tailwind

- Starting the stopwatch when the timer hears the gun, not when the timer sees the smoke.

- Measuring out 100 meters on the street using Google (this usually ends up being a slight downhill run and a meter short)

- Exaggeration/BS (it's really a 12.4, but I rounded down to the nearest second to get a 12. I've got to brag, so it's an 11.99 now, and if someone asks me, I'll say I ran 11. something)

What was your time prior to training?

Maybe I missed it in your version of War and Peace

Mentioning FAT makes me think this is BS anyway.

Don't forget the "clueless guess" method (Bolt runs 9, and the top women run under 11. I'm slower than them but faster than most people, so I can run an 11.)

13-14 sec