Your 100m Sprint Time?

route9 · 18-10-2015 10:19PM #1

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 · 18-10-2015 10:29PM

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 · 18-10-2015 10:31PM

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 · 18-10-2015 10:31PM

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 · 18-10-2015 10:32PM

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

walshb · 18-10-2015 10:33PM

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

Chivito550 · 18-10-2015 10:34PM

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 · 18-10-2015 10:42PM

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 · 18-10-2015 10:44PM

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 · 18-10-2015 10:45PM

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 · 18-10-2015 10:45PM

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 · 18-10-2015 10:47PM

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 · 18-10-2015 10:49PM

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 · 19-10-2015 12:39AM

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 · 19-10-2015 12:44AM

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 · 19-10-2015 09:08AM

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

Chivito550 · 19-10-2015 09:11AM

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 · 19-10-2015 09:20AM

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 · 19-10-2015 09:43AM

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 · 19-10-2015 09:49AM

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 · 19-10-2015 09:56AM

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 · 19-10-2015 10:16AM

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 · 19-10-2015 10:19AM

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 · 19-10-2015 10:22AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

It's clearly fictitious.

Because it's faster than you?:)

walshb · 19-10-2015 10:34AM

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 · 19-10-2015 10:40AM

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 · 19-10-2015 10:43AM

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 · 19-10-2015 10:45AM

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 · 19-10-2015 10:54AM

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 · 19-10-2015 11:01AM

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 · 19-10-2015 11:08AM

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!

Your 100m Sprint Time?

Comments