HS head coach timed every PE class for a 100m. Results were nothing like what Letsrun predicted

So it sounds like the timing system failed the test of and needs to be calibrated.

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.

A typical person is not a high schooler.

Most people will be at their athletic peak in high school.

So were you expecting faster or slower results?

Alan

letsrun is full of fat losers wrote:

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.

Sounds about right considering that they had no or very little sprint-specific training.

For those that do train for sprints, the average time for guys will be around 12 flat:

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.

That seems fast to me. Two questions.

1) What percent of people didn't have athletic clothes on? I think we can assume they'd be slower.

2) Running start or from a standing start?

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...

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...

Most people will run sub 14, but there are a few unimaginably slow guys out there that will drag down the average.

Exhibit A:

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.

Buddy, I was running 14 seconds flat when I was 10. This is one sorry bunch of high school runners.

1) Most guys dress out. By most, I mean a handful of people a class.

2) Standing start

In other words, the average high school kid has the speed to run a 1:45 marathon and 25 minute 10k, they just don't have the endurance.

I am 60, unfit, but can run 15 sec right now if I went to a track, and can hold 23 sec 100's x 100 (i.e. 10K0 if I got fit again, as I will.

Maybe it is a sign of how obese schoolkids are becoming

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.

curve ball wrote:

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.

There are plenty of people who can run 15 sec for the 100 and cant break an 8 minute mile, and there are also 5 minute milers who can't break 15 sec for a 100. Running a decent mile time has nothing to do with speed [only running a great time does].

MatthewXCountry wrote:

curve ball wrote:

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.

There are plenty of people who can run 15 sec for the 100 and cant break an 8 minute mile, and there are also 5 minute milers who can't break 15 sec for a 100. Running a decent mile time has nothing to do with speed [only running a great time does].

Agree with the first, grossly disagree with the second.

It didn't even look like running. Maybe it was the angle but I'd probably call that more of a jog.

True n False wrote:

MatthewXCountry wrote:

There are plenty of people who can run 15 sec for the 100 and cant break an 8 minute mile, and there are also 5 minute milers who can't break 15 sec for a 100. Running a decent mile time has nothing to do with speed [only running a great time does].

Agree with the first, grossly disagree with the second.

In 8 th grade when i ran my first sub 6 mile, I couldntt break 16 in the 100. Granted, I was quite chunky but thats besides the point

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

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 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 can believe me this wasnt to test speed it was to test a clock. It is what it is.