Your 100m Sprint Time?

route9

I was out running earlier today and at the end of a quick 2-2.5k run I remembered I had been wanting to test how fast I could run 100m. I rarely sprint and have no training in sprinting (or in running in general!).

In any case, I managed it in about 16 seconds for the 100m, but I think I could get this down a little more as I had to slow down to check my watch towards the end (need to figure out how to get the stopwatch working). I was also not that long up and had only had a fairly small breakfast.

So two questions:

-Is this a decent enough 100m time for a fairly novice runner who currently has a 5k time of about 30 mins?

and

-What is your time, if you've tried this before?

Just asking out of interest, although I love to sprint when I do - can't beat the feeling of running at 95% of your max!!

ahnowbrowncow

How did you measure the 100m?

I've done it a few times on a football pitch by setting my Garmin to 100m intervals so it stops the clock when I've ran 100m, not sure how accurate it is.
Lowest I've got was 11.8 and probably averaging around 12.5s -13s.

Would love to go to a track and time it properly.

walshb

30 minute 5k time would indicate either you're quite slow and unfit or have very little leg speed. 16 secs for 100 seems quite good considering your 5 k time. That's without knowing to much about your personal circumstances-fitness- training-sex.

Chivito550

route9 wrote: »

I was out running earlier today and at the end of a quick 2-2.5k run I remembered I had been wanting to test how fast I could run 100m. I rarely sprint and have no training in sprinting (or in running in general!).

In any case, I managed it in about 16 seconds for the 100m, but I think I could get this down a little more as I had to slow down to check my watch towards the end (need to figure out how to get the stopwatch working). I was also not that long up and had only had a fairly small breakfast.

So two questions:

-Is this a decent enough 100m time for a fairly novice runner who currently has a 5k time of about 30 mins?

and

-What is your time, if you've tried this before?

Just asking out of interest, although I love to sprint when I do - can't beat the feeling of running at 95% of your max!!

For 100m, you don't run at 95%. You run flat out, 100%.

I very much doubt the accuracy of your time. For one, you probably didn't run the exact distance, if you are relying on a Garmin. Two, you probably had a running start, and three, you are hand timing it.

The only way you will know is by running it properly, preferably on a track, and from a standing start.

Mint Sauce

About 15 seconds from a standing start, ie, not blocks.

walshb

Do you really run flat out or is it at all paced? Even very slightly paced.

Chivito550

My best is 12.58, though that was wind assisted. 12.63 my best legal time. Hopefully I'll get that down to sub 12.4 this year now that I am training for the shorter sprints.

route9

Chivito550 wrote: »

For 100m, you don't run at 95%. You run flat out, 100%.

I very much doubt the accuracy of your time. For one, you probably didn't run the exact distance, if you are relying on a Garmin. Two, you probably had a running start, and three, you are hand timing it.

The only way you will know is by running it properly, preferably on a track, and from a standing start.

Funny you say that as I was only just thinking it has to be 100%, how could it not be!

Yeah it's pretty rough to be fair, I didn't have a running start though, I just walked to a point, hit the timer and then sprinted. However I couldn't figure out to have it time exactly 0.10km so I was glancing down and slowing towards the end so I could see when it hit the distance. Also, I was running on an uneven tarmac path with a curve in the middle, so maybe at a slight disadvantage there!

route9

walshb wrote: »

30 minute 5k time would indicate either you're quite slow and unfit or have very little leg speed. 16 secs for 100 seems quite good considering your 5 k time. That's without knowing to much about your personal circumstances-fitness- training-sex.

Hey walshb, I am 34 (35 next month actually), male and would train 2-3 times a week. A bit slow alright but I am taking my training up a notch the past couple of weeks, need to do more running more frequently so this time should come down fairly quickly.

Thanks, that's great to hear! Also I should mention I am more fast-twitch than slow-twitch which probably helps. I put on muscle easily and would have done a lot more weight and resistance training than running over the years.

Chivito550

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

How did you measure the 100m?

I've done it a few times on a football pitch by setting my Garmin to 100m intervals so it stops the clock when I've ran 100m, not sure how accurate it is.
Lowest I've got was 11.8 and probably averaging around 12.5s -13s.

Would love to go to a track and time it properly.

There is absolutely no way you ran 11.8 seconds for 100m. And on a football pitch? Come on now!

If you are getting times that are varying by 1.2 seconds, then the Garmin is clearly useless for measuring such short distance. Remember, being off by 3-4m is huge over 100m.

route9

Chivito550 wrote: »

My best is 12.58, though that was wind assisted. 12.63 my best legal time. Hopefully I'll get that down to sub 12.4 this year now that I am training for the shorter sprints.

12.63 seems pretty damn good...I was just happy today I ran more than half as quickly as Usain Bolt :pac:

Chivito550

route9 wrote: »

Funny you say that as I was only just thinking it has to be 100%, how could it not be!

Yeah it's pretty rough to be fair, I didn't have a running start though, I just walked to a point, hit the timer and then sprinted. However I couldn't figure out to have it time exactly 0.10km so I was glancing down and slowing towards the end so I could see when it hit the distance. Also, I was running on an uneven tarmac path with a curve in the middle, so maybe at a slight disadvantage there!

Go to a track and do it there. Santry, Irishtown, Greystones, Tallaght or Leixlip if you live in the Dublin area.

route9

Chivito550 wrote: »

Go to a track and do it there. Santry, Irishtown, Greystones, Tallaght or Leixlip if you live in the Dublin area.

Yeah defo will. I actually would have done today only the local running track wasn't open to casual users today - otherwise I'd have gone there. Will try Santry I think as I'm in D15 (unless there's a track that's closer).

On a track would you use a Garmin then to measure it, or just stop the clock once you hit the 100m mark on the track? Or both?

iAcesHigh

Chivito550 wrote: »

Go to a track and do it there. Santry, Irishtown, Greystones, Tallaght or Leixlip if you live in the Dublin area.

While we're at it, where would be some tracks open for public in South Dublin area (just the above or?)

thierry14

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

How did you measure the 100m?

I've done it a few times on a football pitch by setting my Garmin to 100m intervals so it stops the clock when I've ran 100m, not sure how accurate it is.
Lowest I've got was 11.8

11.8 on a pitch in football boots?

Your as fast as professionals if so

ultraman1

Did 100m in 21:06 last year on track..felt longer

Chivito550

thierry14 wrote: »

11.8 on a pitch in football boots?

Your as fast as professionals if so

While we are at it, most 100m or shorter sprint times you hear quoted by footballers and rugby players are complete tripe, like that clownish claim that some Arsenal chap was faster than Bolt. It's an insult to the intelligence of the educated sports follower.

Only way you know how fast you can run 100m is by running a 100m race on a track with FAT timing. The distance is too short to be relying on wild hand times, and unless you are in a track, the chances are you won't measure out 100m properly, so what's the point?

Chivito550

iAcesHigh wrote: »

While we're at it, where would be some tracks open for public in South Dublin area (just the above or?)

Santry, Irishtown, and Greystones are open to the public. Leixlip isn't but if you contact Le Cheile they would probably accommodate you. Tallaght is not open to the public. ALSAA is technically for members, but they allow you to pay to use it as a guest (though it depends who you get at the desk) Dreadful track though, don't use it.

Donore have a 300m track and do not allow any non members to use it. No use for running a 100m anyway.

Greystones is 2e per session, Santry 8e, ALSAA a crazy 10e, and Irishtown 5.20e.

That's the lot. 6 400m synthetic tracks in the greater Dublin area, 2 of which are private, and one which is in dreadful condition. Compare that to the 4-5 tracks in a 2 mile radius of each other in a small part of Paris, all free, and open to the public, and served by excellent public transportation. Discussion for a different thread I guess.

walshb

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

How did you measure the 100m?

I've done it a few times on a football pitch by setting my Garmin to 100m intervals so it stops the clock when I've ran 100m, not sure how accurate it is.
Lowest I've got was 11.8 and probably averaging around 12.5s -13s.

Would love to go to a track and time it properly.

That's a superb time for a grass pitch. With real dedication and specific training you could get very low 11s there.

rainbow kirby

Great way to put people off by charging €8-10 for use of a track. 3 quid for my local track for non-club members.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

That's a superb time for a grass pitch. With real dedication and specific training you could get very low 11s there.

It's clearly fictitious.

pconn062

Chivito550 wrote: »

It's clearly fictitious.

So is walshb's comment.

OP don't worry about the handheld time you recorded. Are you more interested in improving your 100m time than running 5k's? When people start running they generally start with a 5k then move up in distance, but there is a whole range of distances and events you could try. Maybe the 100m could be your main event. If you really want to improve your time you should go down to your local athletics club and have a chat with the sprint coach, you would be amazed how much you can improve with some basic technique and training.

Chivito550

pconn062 wrote: »

So is walshb's comment.

OP don't worry about the handheld time you recorded. Are you more interested in improving your 100m time than running 5k's? When people start running they generally start with a 5k then move up in distance, but there is a whole range of distances and events you could try. Maybe the 100m could be your main event. If you really want to improve your time you should go down to your local athletics club and have a chat with the sprint coach, you would be amazed how much you can improve with some basic technique and training.

Yeh the more people sprinting the better. If you're more interested in sprinting then the above is sound advice. Join a club, focus on improving technically, and obviously improve fitness and strength as well.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

It's clearly fictitious.

Because it's faster than you?:)

walshb

pconn062 wrote: »

So is walshb's comment.

.

No, it is not fictitious. The poster has one post. All that is in it is a time of 11.8 seconds. He mentions grass, and that is all. Are we really saying that an adult male, if the poster is an adult male, cannot run 11.8 seconds for 100 metres?

The grass. What was the condition of the grass? For all we know it could have been ideal for a good fast time. Very short, almost like a putting green.

So, until I hear some more specific details about the poster and the conditions I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the time. It's not an extraordinary time.

pconn062

walshb wrote: »

No, it is not fictitious. The poster has one post. All that is in it is a time of 11.8 seconds. He mentions grass, and that is all. Are we really saying that an adult male, if the poster is an adult male, cannot run 11.8 seconds for 100 metres?

The grass. What was the condition of the grass? For all we know it could have been ideal for a good fast time. Very short, almost like a putting green.

So, until I hear some more specific details about the poster and the conditions I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the time. It's not an extraordinary time.

Okey-doke.

walshb

pconn062 wrote: »

Okey-doke.

That's fine if you have nothing to contribute or add, but it seems silly that you'd make a decision/assumption on what exactly I meant when I posted. No need to reply. I just thought that I'd point out the silliness of your assumption.

pconn062

walshb wrote: »

That's fine if you have nothing to contribute or add, but it seems silly that you'd make a decision/assumption on what exactly I meant when I posted. No need to reply. I just thought that I'd point out the silliness of your assumption.

Okey-doke.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

No, it is not fictitious. The poster has one post. All that is in it is a time of 11.8 seconds. He mentions grass, and that is all. Are we really saying that an adult male, if the poster is an adult male, cannot run 11.8 seconds for 100 metres?

The grass. What was the condition of the grass? For all we know it could have been ideal for a good fast time. Very short, almost like a putting green.

So, until I hear some more specific details about the poster and the conditions I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the time. It's not an extraordinary time.

You're some character. He says he ran 11.8 but usually runs 12.5-13.00 (which is probably over estimating things as it is) on a football pitch. That to me shows that the timing is flawed. You can't have that level of variation in 100m times like that.

The likeliness is:
1) Short course
2) Wild hand time
3) Running start

Sure I've run a 10k once in around 32 minutes. I usually get in or around the 39-40 minute mark though.

walshb

Like I said, one single post with no information apart from a grass pitch. We need a lot more before dismissing it. Was it wind aided? If so, heavily or lightly? Maybe there is some very valid reasons that saw that time.

I'll ask again, what is so extraordinary with 11.8 seconds? If the person running it supplies us with details and facts, then I think the time is well worth looking at.

You are the character here. Dismissing it so certainly without knowing Jack sh1t! It's too much of a know-all attitude!

IvoryTower

13 seconds standing, i like to think with spikes and out of the blocks I could hit 12, I like to think a lot of things though!

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Like I said, one single post with no information apart from a grass pitch. We need a lot more before dismissing it. Was it wind aided? If so, heavily or lightly? Maybe there is some very valid reasons that saw that time.

I'll ask again, what is so extraordinary with 11.8 seconds? If the person running it supplies us with details and facts, then I think the time is well worth looking at.

You are the character here. Dismissing it so certainly without knowing Jack sh1t! It's too much of a know-all attitude!

The bloke who posted it seems to be running around 18 and a half minutes for 5k. Let's be honest, hardly the type of calibre of runner who could blast out an 11.8 on a grass pitch, probably in runners, off no training.

Notwork Error

Maybe they did or didn't run it but I'd doubt it on grass and using a Garmin to measure it, only way to find out for sure is to run a race. I once ran a 2:48 mile by garmin and the shorter the distance, the less accurate it is.

This is what you're dealing with

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

The bloke who posted it seems to be running around 18 and a half minutes for 5k. Let's be honest, hardly the type of calibre of runner who could blast out an 11.8 on a grass pitch, probably in runners, off no training.

I am not sure the comparison to his 5 k time is accurate. Your 5 k time is a deal slower, no? 18:30 for 5 k is a very decent time. Not for a club runner. Are you saying that because you run 18:30 for 5 k that means you cannot run sub 12 for 100? I ask because I want to be clear on what you mean.

I will wait for the poster to get back. I am not ready to dismiss the claim with such certainty. I'll await some more information.

iAcesHigh

Notwork Error wrote: »

Maybe they did or didn't run it but I'd doubt it on grass and using a Garmin to measure it, only way to find out for sure is to run a race. I once ran a 2:48 mile by garmin and the shorter the distance, the less accurate it is.

This is what you're dealing with

Not getting into arguments but boy, I never got something like this using 910xt...

walshb

I assume the claim that Jonah Lomu weighing 18-19 stones running circa 11 seconds for 100 was also BS?

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I am not sure the comparison to his 5 k time is accurate. Your 5 k time is a deal slower, no? 18:30 for 5 k is a very decent time. Not for a club runner. Are you saying that because you run 18:30 for 5 k that means you cannot run sub 12 for 100? I ask because I want to be clear on what you mean.

I will wait for the poster to get back. I am not ready to dismiss the claim with such certainty. I'll await some more information.

The guy clearly trains as a distance runner, and these times are what he manages in events he trains for. So to think he could perform at a much higher standard in an event he does not train for is not exactly believable.

Notwork Error

iAcesHigh wrote: »

Not getting into arguments but boy, I never got something like this using 910xt...

Yeah, it's a bit of an exaggerated way of showing that Garmins aren't precise but just trying to get the point across and as Chivito mentioned, a few metres make a big difference over 100m

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I assume the claim that Jonah Lomu weighing 18-19 stones running circa 11 seconds for 100 was also BS?

If he ran that in a 100m race then it's not BS. If it's hand timed off a running start, like so many people do, then it's total BS.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

The guy clearly trains as a distance runner, and these times are what he manages in events he trains for. So to think he could perform at a much higher standard in an event he does not train for is not exactly believable.

I still cannot see what is so extraordinary with 11.8 seconds. Sprinting is the one distance where physiology and natural talent/leg speed are so very needed. You can never train to have these. You can train to improve these, but you either have it or you don't. Not possible that he has natural leg speed and power? That is why with specific training and dedication he could be low 11s.

We have women in this country running well below 12. Yes, elite athletes, but still women, that are at a huge disadvantage to begin with due to their sex.

I find the dismissal odd. Particluarly for a 100 meter claim. Had he claimed he ran a mile in 4 mins 10 on a grass pitch off very little training I would be a lot more skeptical. This is a flat out sprint. 12-13 seconds of hard effort, and for a naturally talented male with natural leg speed this is not at all odd or unbelievable. 11.8 seconds may well be explainable.

For it to be actually believed it needs to be ran correctly over the correct distance with decent timing. I agree with this. My point is more about the dismissal that it's possible.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I still cannot see what is so extraordinary with 11.8 seconds. Sprinting is the one distance where physiology and natural talent/leg speed are so very needed. You can never train to have these. You can train to improve these, but you either have it or you don't. Not possible that he has natural leg speed and power? That is why with specific training and dedication he could be low 11s.

We have women in this country running well below 12. Yes, elite athletes, but still women, that are at a huge disadvantage to begin with due to their sex.

I find the dismissal odd. Particluarly for a 100 meter claim. Had he claimed he ran a mile in 4 mins 10 on a grass pitch off very little training I would be a lot more skeptical. This is a flat out sprint. 12-13 seconds of hard effort, and for a naturally talenetd male with natural leg speed this is not at all odd or unbelievable. 11.8 seconds may well be explainable.

For it to be actually believed it needs to be ran correctly over the correct distance with decent timing. I agree with this. My point is more about the dismissal that it's possible.

I never dismissed it was possible. Of course it is. Heaps of people run faster than that. What I am saying is that this particular guy did not run it. Garmin distances over 100m is so laughable. It could be off by say 8m. And hand timing over 100m is useless. It is meaningless. And if there is a running start, then this further invalidates any sort of time.

Onto the track is the only way of knowing. Anything else is generally BS.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

I never dismissed it was possible. Of course it is. Heaps of people run faster than that. What I am saying is that this particular guy did not run it. Garmin distances over 100m is so laughable. It could be off by say 8m. And hand timing over 100m is useless. It is meaningless. And if there is a running start, then this further invalidates any sort of time.

Onto the track is the only way of knowing. Anything else is generally BS.

Fair enough. I realise that you didn't say that it wasn't possible. But it kind of came across as you dismissing him a bit too easily. The poster himself seems to realise that it's not gospel. His post implies that he knows it's not a verified time.

Clearlier

walshb wrote: »

I still cannot see what is so extraordinary with 11.8 seconds. Sprinting is the one distance where physiology and natural talent/leg speed are so very needed. You can never train to have these. You can train to improve these, but you either have it or you don't. Not possible that he has natural leg speed and power? That is why with specific training and dedication he could be low 11s.

We have women in this country running well below 12. Yes, elite athletes, but still women, that are at a huge disadvantage to begin with due to their sex.

I find the dismissal odd. Particluarly for a 100 meter claim. Had he claimed he ran a mile in 4 mins 10 on a grass pitch off very little training I would be a lot more skeptical. This is a flat out sprint. 12-13 seconds of hard effort, and for a naturally talented male with natural leg speed this is not at all odd or unbelievable. 11.8 seconds may well be explainable.

For it to be actually believed it needs to be ran correctly over the correct distance with decent timing. I agree with this. My point is more about the dismissal that it's possible.

I think you'll find that it's 11.8 seconds of hard effort :pac:

FWIW - I ran the 100m in a track race in 14.0 on the same day as I ran a 5k in 20 mins. I'm probably naturally best suited to something like the 800 and when I played rugby was always the quickest or second quickest on my team however all of my training is endurance based with the odd stride being the only thing I had run at any kind of pace for a few years before that 100m.

Based just on that I think that 100m in 11.8 on grass is unlikely. Add in how it was measured and you have reasonable grounds for scepticism as to it's accuracy.

All that said ahnowbrowncow didn't make any outlandish claims here. He merely stated what he had done and added that he'd love to get a correct time on a track.

Joeface

Best way to do it is probably go to the nearest running track , Have a friend come to time it and run the Sprint twice .

If its windy once in each direction .(Salt Flat rules ) also if you bring someone extra to run it with you it can help with getting the best out of you .


PB is 11.02s Long time ago ...would love to train for a bit now and see how close or far away I am . (only run 10ks these days)
the step up in to the 10s is quiet massive and in to the low 10s is even bigger again .

walshb

Clearlier wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's 11.8 seconds of hard effort :pac:

Yes, hence why I added that 11.8 seconds could well be explained.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that it would need to be accurately verified.

As mentioned by you, and alluded to be by me, it's not an outlandish claim.

BTW, you mention your running 5 k in 20 mins, and say that basedoff this 11.8 is unlikely. I assume that's for you?

He has run sub 19 for 5 k.

ahnowbrowncow

Chivito550 wrote: »

The guy clearly trains as a distance runner, and these times are what he manages in events he trains for. So to think he could perform at a much higher standard in an event he does not train for is not exactly believable.

You know nothing about me. I don't obviously train as a distance runner. I go for an odd 5k run each week.

I play soccer and Gaelic and train 3 to 4 times plus two matches a week so I don't have the time or enegy to try attain a 15 or 16 min 5k.

The times I stated are true, no reason for me to lie. I already stated I doubted the accuracy of them as I'm relying totally on my Garmin watch to stop the timer when I've reached 100m.

Just had a look at my Garmin connect, I did 5 x 100m with 3 min rest, it was 11.9 so I was slower than I had stated.

Splits were 11.9s, 12.4s, 12.2s, 12.9s, and 13.7s

walshb

Very respectable speed that!

Chivito550

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

You know nothing about me. I don't obviously train as a distance runner. I go for an odd 5k run each week.

I play soccer and Gaelic and train 3 to 4 times plus two matches a week so I don't have the time or enegy to try attain a 15 or 16 min 5k.

The times I stated are true, no reason for me to lie. I already stated I doubted the accuracy of them as I'm relying totally on my Garmin watch to stop the timer when I've reached 100m.

Just had a look at my Garmin connect, I did 5 x 100m with 3 min rest, it was 11.9 so I was slower than I had stated.

Splits were 11.9s, 12.4s, 12.2s, 12.9s, and 13.7s

Garmin times are pointless. Get to a track and time one. Better still, enter a race next summer. If you are what you say you are, then you'll be well competitive in the Dublin Graded Meets and elsewhere.

I just don't buy Garmin and hand times for such short distances. But the fact you train as a field sports player makes the possibility more plausible. That changes things slightly.

I never tend to buy the times GAA, Soccer and Rugby players spout out though. They are usually never accurate.

ultrapercy

Chivito550 wrote: »

Garmin times are pointless. Get to a track and time one. Better still, enter a race next summer. If you are what you say you are, then you'll be well competitive in the Dublin Graded Meets and elsewhere.

I just don't buy Garmin and hand times for such short distances. But the fact you train as a field sports player makes the possibility more plausible. That changes things slightly.

I never tend to buy the times GAA, Soccer and Rugby players spout out though. They are usually never accurate.

Ya you are correct but thats not because they are spoofers it's because of a lack of knowledge and appreciation for athletics in general and sprinting in particular. In any ball sport team there are 3 or 4 relatively fast people and usually one faster than everyone. The fastest safely assume they are very fast then in comparison to the fastest in the world. As you rightly say a trip to a track even hand timed would be an educator.

Joeface

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZqEj-Qyg6U

decent enough example

route9

So what is the best way to record your 100m on the track? Unless someone or something else is recording your sprint, won't you still have to hit stop on your Garmin once you hit the finish line?