Can anyone train hard enough to eventually run an 11 second 100m?

elephino wrote:

Hey What wrote:

They're OLYMPIC DECATHLETES. They are not "anyone." Hello?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/992/397/9c9.gif

So what was your point? That elite power athletes can run sub 11? Well no sh!t!

enzo111 wrote:

Can anyone train hard enough to eventually run an 11 second 100m?

No way. Train all healthy males, what's the median 100m PR? I'd say somewhere around 13 sec.

Decathlons are won by power athlets only wrote:

So what was your point? That elite power athletes can run sub 11? Well no sh!t!

The point was that of the 32 top power athletes in an event where at least 4 of the 10 events depend on sprint speed and all of whom are great athletes who spend a good portion of their training on sprinting, 13 of the 32 did NOT run under 11 seconds. So the idea of "anyone" being able to do it...

I would say a lot of people can if they train properly for it and from enough time. Yeah obviously the person with no limbs isn't going to be able to do it but I think a lot more people are capable of hitting a sub 11 sprint time than you may think (sub 10 is another story though). The problem is not many people know how to train sprinting properly.

FACT: Precisely 8.9% of the male population of the United States could run a 100m in 11.00 seconds or less if properly trained during their peak athletic years.

Yes. But they have to put in the work.

FAX ON STAX wrote:

FACT: Precisely 8.9% of the male population of the United States could run a 100m in 11.00 seconds or less if properly trained during their peak athletic years.

What is this based on? Citation?

This thread has brought the dullards out in their droves. How many elite middle distance runners - say, Olympic 1500 medalists - could run sub-11? And these guys aren't "anyone" but amongst the best of all time at their events. And some of you think all it would take is some sprint training to do it. You have no idea how fast sub-11 is, even for elite athletes.

I’m pretty sure that less than 10% of all pro male soccer players run sub 11 and professional soccer plays have the best sprinting talent on the planet excepet world class sprinters.

Sub 11 is rare, very rare. I estimate considerably less than 0.01% of the population have the genetic ability to go sub 11. Probably closer to 0.001%.

I bet only 1.5%-2% have the ability to go sub 12.

Sub 13 I would say 8.5-10% maybe.

Sub 14 would be most common and would probably be attainable by 40-50% of the male population in their prime, most men would top out their ability around 13.5s.

Runners are the most delusional people I have ever seen wrote:

“if a guy with world class ability can do it, anyone can do it”

Hilarious

My first thought when I saw this as I was scrolling was that "Hilarious" was a Greek philosopher that you were quoting.

GB07 wrote:

FAX ON STAX wrote:

FACT: Precisely 8.9% of the male population of the United States could run a 100m in 11.00 seconds or less if properly trained during their peak athletic years.

What is this based on? Citation?

If you start something with "FACT" (and it must be in all caps), then it is true.

enzo111 wrote:

Can anyone train hard enough to eventually run an 11 second 100m?

https://pinoyathletics.info/can-anyone-train-hard-enough-that-they-can-eventually-run-an-11-second-100-meter-dash/

Wtf nooooooo. If anyone could run an 11 second 100m, track would be a more competitive sport.

Luv2Run wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

I have ran 11 something with a flying start, a lot of people could. Nick Symmonds 12.3 FAT is worth 11 something flying. If Nick and I can do it, anyone can.

You ran 11 "something"--that could be a long way from 11.00.

The question is about an 11 second 100, not 11.00, let alone sub 11, let alone FAT. The point stands that I've ran an 11. Nick Symmonds too.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

You ran 11 "something"--that could be a long way from 11.00.

The question is about an 11 second 100, not 11.00, let alone sub 11, let alone FAT. The point stands that I've ran an 11. Nick Symmonds too.

So who talks of running 10 for the 100m when they mean anywhere between 10-flat and 10.99? And off a flying start? Only a casuist like yourself would interpret the thread as meaning "somewhere between 11 and 12", and with at least a second advantage off a flying start. I bet you ran 11.99 off a flying start with a force-10 gale wind assist. Which means you're good for a 14 sec FAT.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I bet you ran 11.99 off a flying start with a force-10 gale wind assist. Which means you're good for a 14 sec FAT.

I bet you haven't ran an 11, even with a flying start, or you wouldn't be so jealous.

But instead of feeling bad, scroll up to where I said if I can do it, anyone can! Just train hard and you'll be there within a few years.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I bet you ran 11.99 off a flying start with a force-10 gale wind assist. Which means you're good for a 14 sec FAT.

I bet you haven't ran an 11, even with a flying start, or you wouldn't be so jealous.

But instead of feeling bad, scroll up to where I said if I can do it, anyone can! Just train hard and you'll be there within a few years.

I'm not making the claim. You are. And you are nowhere near it - and I dare say never will be - thus proving the question in the thread to be as dumb as it looks.

I very clearly "claimed" to have ran 11.xx flying. Now you're saying that's a lie? How would you know?

I am more convinced than ever that YOU haven't ever dipped under 12 under any circumstance. Else why so mad?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

You ran 11 "something"--that could be a long way from 11.00.

The question is about an 11 second 100, not 11.00, let alone sub 11, let alone FAT. The point stands that I've ran an 11. Nick Symmonds too.

So if I ran a 2:59 marathon, I've run a "2 hour marathon". Sweet!

Bad Wigins wrote:

I very clearly "claimed" to have ran 11.xx flying. Now you're saying that's a lie? How would you know?

I am more convinced than ever that YOU haven't ever dipped under 12 under any circumstance. Else why so mad?

The OP asked about an 11s 100m, not 11.xx (what the f*ck is that?) and also off a flying start. Because you don't say what your actual time was I'm guessing you probably used an alarm clock, that you ran closer to 12s than 11, and off a flying start you likely gained about a second. So, by any conventional measure you're probably good for somewhere between 13-14s. Good for you, if you feel that's an achievement, but it does nothing to prove the OP's question.