Really surprised myself with a hand timed 100 at 11.??. The runkeeper clock did not show the fraction of a second. Ran this in brooks glycerine, so a pretty heavy shoe. Is this a competitive time?
Really surprised myself with a hand timed 100 at 11.??. The runkeeper clock did not show the fraction of a second. Ran this in brooks glycerine, so a pretty heavy shoe. Is this a competitive time?
Congratulations, you can beat 99% of 12 year olds in the world.
liluzzyvert wrote:
Congratulations, you can beat 99% of 12 year olds in the world.
Score!!!
If you could actually run sub 11, which I doubt, that would be something very special. Big time genetics for that though.
Height, weight if you don't mind. Do you have large ankles?
liluzzyvert wrote:
If you could actually run sub 11, which I doubt, that would be something very special. Big time genetics for that though.
That's cool. What would happen if I challenged a local high schooler to a quick 100 dash? Would I stand any chance, with racing flats or spikes?
5'9" 167 yes large ankles
11.1h or 11.9h?
I don't know about the hundreds of a second. I didn't realize the run keeper timer only showed even seconds.
Damn, similar weight to me height-adjusted which is gigantic by this forums standards. If you aren't at a low body fat already, then definitely work on that.
There's a big difference between 11.1 and 11.9. I realize you ran it in a heavy shoe but without knowing the fraction, it's hard to tell.
For high schoolers, 11.1 is very good. 11.9 is very good....for a girl.
My body fat is,way to high at the moment. I'm curious now what distances you are good at given our similarities.
Run keeper timer? No idea what this is, but if it doesn't keep track of 10ths of a second, its accuracy in general can't be all that strong.
Was this a standing or run-in start? Do you start the timer yourself or does it go on your movement? Same questions for the finish line.
Assuming all the worst in the above, you'd get dusted by an average high school sprinter, even if you wore spikes, but that is still way above average for a 5k runner your age.
If you legitimately ran something like 11.2, in trainers, from a standing start, with a timer that goes off a signal or your movement rather than you starting it manually, a pair of spikes and some block work would have you competing for a national master's championship when you hit 40.
I stopped running in high school and am back after a long hiatus. All I know for sure is that I can run down most guys in team sports. I'm going to assume I'm at the shorter distances but I'm working towards a marathon at the moment. Shorter hill/fell events are something I'd love to try as well.
5kdream wrote:
My body fat is,way to high at the moment. I'm curious now what distances you are good at given our similarities.
Was a fingers on the line, mark set go. I pushed start and stop. I felt tall at 20 yards running on my toes not forefoot. Runkeeper is a running app. The clock is good.,,,GPS not so much. No blocks used. Ran at school track.
Bad.
How can you even get out of bed, let alone look yourself in the mirror, after a performance like that?
5kdream wrote:
Was a fingers on the line, mark set go. I pushed start and stop. I felt tall at 20 yards running on my toes not forefoot. Runkeeper is a running app. The clock is good.,,,GPS not so much. No blocks used. Ran at school track.
How can you push start and stop, while at the same time have your fingers on the line? Were you holding the phone like a baton and hitting the start button with your pinkie? Even in that 'ideal' scenario, starting yourself means you are hitting the start button after you actually initiate forward momentum, meaning you're cutting a minimum for .15 off your time, and realistically more like .3-.4. At the finish its unlikely you're waiting for your torso to cross the finish line and were instead watching your foot cross the line.
It is physically impossible to run on your toes not forefoot, given your height and weight.
If the app's clock were good, it would show 10ths of a second. Even if the timer itself is perfectly accurate, the display could conceivably change from 11 to 12 at 11.5 seconds, or 11.99999 seconds based on how it is programmed, so you may have run anywhere between 10.50 and 11.99 to see 11 on the app, which is the difference between a scholarship level high school sprinter, and a JV scrub.
5kdream wrote:
Really surprised myself with a hand timed 100 at 11.??. The runkeeper clock did not show the fraction of a second. Ran this in brooks glycerine, so a pretty heavy shoe. Is this a competitive time?
Holy smokes. You have awesome basic speed for a distance runner. I wish that I had that. If you could develop your endurance then I would say that you could run some very solid times at 800m (sub 1 50 ?), 1500m (sub 3 40?) and maybe even the longer distances even at age 37. I don't know what your personal situation is but you will probably need good coaching to develop that sort of endurance while keeping your speed.
Any congrats on that achievement anyways.
i think you mean Big League genetics. We're in Trumps America now son.
Linford Christie was running sub-10 at age 38... oh, then he got banned for PED's.