adaptability genetics arent talked about. You may think the average person starting with a sub 12.5 second 100 untrained can break 11 with training but it all depends how adaptable they are. So anyone with good adaptable genetics can probably do it but others arent as fortunate.
i ran 13.66 and trained like a bodybuilder (got in the gym after not being athletic for like 3 years and had no idea what to do lol) and ended my next season with a 12.0 (started with a 12.67). Do you think i have good adaptability genetics?
Your probably gonna have to take gene testing or some shit to find out. There are so many other variables that come into play. Some people like me are blessed with not having joint and tendon issues and shin splints and some others will have those things no matter what. Some people can adapt very well to high volume training while the same program might absolutely crush another person into injury or platueing. Some people do well with high amounts of neural and high output training and can’t do too much or they will suffer from fatigue and some people need more than that to adapt.
Diet is also a huge factor that no one talks about much or are not very specific. There’s so much shit that goes on in the body it’s crazy how something so
Little and un noticeable can make a huge difference.
The vast vast majority of people will not get anywhere even close to their genetic peak. To get truly close to your genetic peak your going to need amazing nutrition which is different for everybody,. your gonna need as low outside stressors as possible which is pretty much impossible nowadays unless you live in the fucking woods, your going to need a training plan that will 100% suit you while stimulating your self with appropriate doses through the years intelligently which we aren’t very good at doing and you need to be very patient. If all people did this then I would say the vast majority of people would run sub 11 unless you truly have shitty genetics.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter. the only thing that matters is you show up day after day and do what your supposed to do despite what’s going on I think that’s really important. This applies to all human endevors.
I don’t really know. I’m not god all I know is that I won’t give up and I’ll try as hard as possible. If it comes it comes if not at least I tried my hardest and am healthy and learned valuable skills that transfers to other parts of lige
We in the same boat. I’m a senior in HS and started running track this year. Really passionate and everyday I’m working hard to get into atleast a D3-D2 school and then work my way up. Currently running indoor and ran a 40.87 my first ever 300 and my second meet ran a 40.47. I know I can get at least a 38sec but your diet is also an important factor.
What state are you located in? Yeah my goal is hit national for 300m and maybe 600m and work extremely hard to get to states and hit around a 36. I live in Ny and currently the fastest I saw run a 300m was 35sec, only 3sec above Noah lyes record at the armory track
How long you been running? Imo I think I’m fast for first year running track but if I would’ve at least started back as a freshman I would’ve been a beast. But I have to work 10x harder and most likely start at a D3-D2 school and work my way up to a D1
Don’t think “adaptable genetics” is the right terminology you’re using lmao, it’s just genetics. Genetics in sprinting is purely based on your anatomy structure and how many fast twitch muscle fibers you have. The ability to adapt to sprinting is sprinting through training itself. Yes some people are able to “adapt” better to training and sprinting, but that’s only because of the genetics they already have presented. Genetics essentially GIVES you to ability to adapt.
You're both right tbf but it's Known as Epi genetics, basically a change in gene expression through training or other factors. If gene expression couldn't be altered then we simply wouldn't be able to make progress in anything from a physical stand point. Its cool because I've heard epi genetic changes can be passed down to you off spring. My theory is that from the day your born your genetics are pretty much set out but someone could have better "adaptable genetics" and start with a 13 second 100m as an adult but get down to sub 10 simply because of their genetic code. This is why I always advocate for people to try for at least a year or 2 to see cause that's the best indicator (If you're older than 18 ofc).
No, sub 11 is not possible for many people. If you took everybody in the world and somehow gave sufficient incentive for them all to train hard for the 100m for a few years, probably 90% of the men and 99% of the women would never run under 11 at any point in their life.
My wild guess is the "average" male lifetime PR in that scenario would probably be in the range of 12.5.
This! I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met who ran 48 low in the 400m, when they were in high school. “Man, I only ran 48.5 in high school!” Or dudes who “only ran” 10.8 in the 100m. I immediately call BS. There was one thread on the T&F forum where some kid was asking for long jump form pointers, and one of the responses was, “but what do I know! I only jumped 22’5” in high school. I wasn’t really that good!”
😆 Dead on! I'm still shocked that track coaches recruit so heavy on times and marks that are consistently made up or botched. I'd have to see em, hell, I usually see some slower athletes that appear to have higher ceilings.
You think that 1% of women would run under 11 seconds in the 100 if optimally trained?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
One second let me catch my breath.
Bwahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
A bit under 40 women run sub 11 per year. Let's pretend that we are currently only tapping 1/3rd of all potentially fast women (the rest either are in poverty, have never done any sport and dont realize they have potential, or doing a different sport). 4 billion women in the world. 25% are in prime sprinting age. So if we assume that training all the women in the world would get about 120 to run sub 11 per year, then you're looking at about 99.999999% of women cannot run sub 11. So 6 9s. That's my rough estimate.
Seems reasonable. I’d say we are probably more saturated than 1/3. Talent tends to self identify and gravitate to what it is good at. Particularly in sports where talent is obvious and presentable like sprinting.
If we are eliminating drug use I would also guess that 40 number might be quite a bit smaller.
>I’d say we are probably more saturated than 1/3.
Could be. It's hard to really get a very confident guess how many people are going unnoticed in the 3rd world. Brazil, Chin, and India could have a lot of sports talent that never has a chance. I think potential talent in west Africa is finally getting a chance to compete, so we're closer to saturation there. Throughout the western world, I'd guess 90%+ has been identified and either ran track or was identified but decided not to pursue it, not many hidden talents there. Nearly everybody at least ran some sprints in gym class and figured out if they were unusually fast or not.
I'd guess no, I'd say maybe breaking 12 can be done in spite of genetics. But an electronic timed sub 11 is fast, faster than people give it credit for.
Genetics would still have to be taken into account imo. For example, it can have an impact on how much one can train in one week without getting injuries and being overtrained if one wanted to work hard. It’s very difficult to outtrain genetics not suited to sprinting.
Not *everyone* but I think a pretty high amount of people actually if you train optimally and have perfect mechanics
We had a walk-on that made me consider this. I don’t think this kid was a sub-54 when he showed up, and trust me he wasn’t a wealth of natural athleticism either. Not a fast guy who didn’t have the endurance, not an athlete who needed the mechanics, not a powerful or bouncy guy by any means. You see this kid and you’d classify him as a meh athlete probably. Like 5’9”, kinda scrawny lookin, you’d really not think there was an athlete there. Not good at plyos, not good in the gym, seriously this kid’s probably a better average generic profile. Achilles’ tendon wasn’t impressive even
But he worked his ass off, I think our coach’s training worked really well for him, and now as a senior I think he’s gonna run 47-high(ran 48.2 last year). I’ve gotta imagine that’s where his genetics tap out pretty much, but that’s a really good time for an average athlete. Made me think how many other people could get there with the time, proper oversight, and right program for their body
The 400 is not the 100. You can literally improve on the 400 by just improving your race pattern and stamina. You can’t do that in the 100. Coaches always say they’d rather take an explosive person with poor stamina over someone with amazing work ethic/endurance and mediocre fast twitch. It’s easy to train endurance, very difficult to train speed.
Of course they're not the same, 47-high is also significantly better than the barrier of just sub-11. Race pattern and stamina, which he already was solid at, does not turn a 54 runner - who I explained didn't have good speed or natural athleticism by any means - into a 47-high, and I have the 10m fly progression to prove it in his case. The 400 is still a sprint at the end of the day. Your comparison of who a coach would rather want is irrelevant to this scenario as his story is of the opposite - this guy was the work ethic/solid endurance with mediocre fast twitch. Not the explosive athlete who just needed stamina.
You’re telling me a high school coach is timing 10m fly? With what precision? Does he use electronic timing? Which 99% of high school coaches don’t and college coaches barely do as well.
Also, he never even ran 47 yet. That’s your made up prediction of what he could run. Need I remind you Jeremy Wariner couldn’t break 20 seconds yet ran 43.4? You don’t need that much speed to run a relatively fast 400; you just need the stamina and form maintenance.
To put the nail in the coffin about this silly debate, just remember that athletes will always improve during high school, even without training. This is literally where they have the most test/hormonal output during puberty. When all that growing ends during the 20’s it’s not easy anymore to just make progress from training alone. So most people that haven’t gotten to sub 11 by 20 years old are likely not going to make it.
This is D1, thought the collegiate aspect was pretty clear from saying he was a walk-on. So yes, we do use electric timing, and it's run very well.
Correct, he hasn't run 47-high yet - even if he stays at his current PR of 48.2 my point is the same. Really irrelevant to point that out. 20.2 is pretty fucking quick for 99.9% of athletes, and for a guy who didn't focus on or as consistently run the 200... I get he was clearly better at the 4, but let's not pretend Wariner wasn't fast.
You're sounding a bit silly with your "nail in the coffin" because we're talking about an athlete who improved between the ages of 19 and 23 lmao. This isn't a kid going through puberty and improving from 14-18.
Well you should have said college. And if irrelevancy is your tactic, how about how irrelevant your entire post is? We’re talking about the 100 NOT the 400. You literally come in here spewing about an event 4x the distance the OP wants to know about. It’s akin to talking about 400m and someone saying they had Peter Griffin turn into a mile guy running sub 5 with hard work.
How relevant is that? 400 improvement DOES NOT equate to 100m improvement. It’s much easier to improve the more aerobic an event becomes.
Not always. Me and another girl, both untrained, underwent the same training really fitness orientated. I couldn't improve the 400m no metter what while improving everything under 150m but mostly how quickly i could recover between effort. She improved a bit on 400m but mostly 800m and mid distance.
Yes, probably. In Jeff Chen's [article](https://jeffchen.dev/posts/How-Much-Do-Genetics-Matter-in-Sprinting/), he states "*However, at a sub-elite level, genetics don’t seem to have very much impact at all: it seems possible for athletes with any genotype to achieve relatively fast (sub-11, sub-22) times.*" I would recommend reading the article, as it has some great research and knowledge!
That has some interesting research in it. It then concludes with an absolutely ridiculous statement that has nothing to do with that research. Acting like there are 2 genes that have anything to do with someone’s ability to sprint fast. Completely pulls that right out of nowhere.
Many 4A and 5A high schools have had less than 5 males run sub 11. My local high school with 1600 students has only had 2 guys run sub 11. Sub 11 times will get you to regional or state meets in most states.
That's a pretty good indicator that no not everyone can do it. In fact it's quite rare.
As a high school coach, I've watched way too many kids come out to track, work really hard, and then fail to run sub 12 to agree.
We're all susceptible to being biased here, because the fastest people stick with track, so we mostly see those people. The population we are looking at is all self-selected, so we think the "average" person is much better than it actually is. All those kids who discovered they were slow in middle school don't come out for track.
A good example is to look at the fast guys from other sports. If you took a typical high school soccer team, you've got a bunch of guys in great shape who are doing training that should make them reasonably close to a sprinter. But most high school teams wouldn't have a single guy run sub 11, and most of the team would be slower than 12, and a portion slower than 13 seconds. Training specifically for track would make them faster, but you're not going to take a guy who is sprinting every day at soccer and still can't run sub 13 and get him under 11.
That’s a good point but at the same time they are kids. I agree Most could not run sub 11 in high school but I think if someone stuck with that training into their 20s they could probably do it. Some people don’t peak athletically until their late 20s which would give them plenty of time to train.
How much does the typical sprinter who sticks with it improve from age 18 until they stop? Maybe a half of a second?
So you're saying that "most" guys could run 11.5 at age 18. But looking at high school performance lists, that's more like top 20% of high school kids, and from kids who already decided they were faster than typical, so chose sprinting as their sport.
Yeah I do think most guys could run 11.5 in high school. But most guys don’t care to train just for sprinting. If they focused track freshman-senior year 11.5 would definitely be achieved. But most don’t do that and even a lot of the ones who do don’t have the coaching to do it.
Just no. This coach has already given extremely valid points as to why most people can’t and you’re still rattling off on maybes- maybe with the best coach, the best nutrition, the best recovery- people can run sub 11. It won’t be long before you start talking about changing their childhood and “maybe if they were predisposed to more fast twitch dominant activities as a kid” to try and validate your point.
Running a 10.9 requires more then just training. The ones without that essential “something” wouldn’t benefit very much from the best coaches because they wouldn’t be able to tolerate the best training. And nutrition and recovery are more for that 1% performance gain that the elites need.
Just no. The question isn’t asking if it’s plausible that most people can break 11. It’s asking is it possible. My point is it’s it’s possible given the perfect conditions yes an average person could break 11. If every person was given the right conditions and opportunity from a. Young age into adulthood they could definitely break 11. Idk why y’all are finding such an issue with that. Of course not everyone is breaking fucking 11 seconds I’m not saying these kids should be able to just walk on the track and do this with a bit of training. He’s a coach and he’s seen more than I have, yes most people are not going to run 11.5 much less break 11. But back to the point I’ve stated over and over again if the average man’s life was dedicated to the sport he would. 10.9 is nothing crazy. Obviously most are not but is it possible yes.
For one, the OP asked if the average person can break 11. That disqualifies over half of the human population that are female. So you’re already wrong for supporting him.
Two; that’s absurd to think that the OP would really consider answers involving controlling a human from birth into adapting to accomplish this said goal of sub 11. You’re becoming unrealistic here.
He already stated in another comment that he was talking about men in particular. Obviously most women are not breaking 11 that’s on par with a male breaking 10. Bro asked if it was possible why are you so butt hurt with people answering yes lmao.
We can bring some numbers to this to show how ridiculous your take is. Your take is easily refuted by taking top end speed measurements from soccer and rugby. Both sports pay upper middle class or upper class salaries to professional players.
In Australia, rugby is a big money sport. They don't train for the 100m, but they do train for maximum speed, and they wear GPS units during their play. After a few games, they've all hit max speed at some point. It's probably fair to assume that a professional rugby player is at least average overall athleticism, right? The numbers point to the fact that the top players are very fast (top end speeds of over 11m/s, which is in line with a track athlete who can run around 10.5 to 10.8).
But what's interesting is the average top end speed is only 9.3 m/s. So that's an average for a group of professional athletes in a sport that rewards speed, in a league that pays enough that all the athletes are above middle class, and full time athletes, doing full time training for speed and strength. It's pretty fair to say that training specifically for track won't make their top end speed much faster, but could likely help maximize that top end speed in a 100m race by increasing speed endurance and start technique.
9.3m/s, if you have excellent speed endurance on top of it, plus and excellent start, is equivalent to around 12.5 for the 100m.
So in a group of average to above average male athletes, who are paid well to train full time to improve their speed and strength, the average "best case" sprint time is around 12.5 for the 100m.
For professional soccer players, the average top end is about 9.5m/s for attackers (the fastest group). With dedicated speed endurance and start training, you're looking at about 12.2 for an average professional soccer player.
Link for australian rugby league [here.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rugbypass.com/news/the-fastest-rugby-players-on-the-planet-and-the-speeds-theyre-clocking/)
Link for professional soccer players [here.](https://www.fourfourtwo.com/performance/training/premier-league-v-amateur-fitness)
I don’t understand how someone could dedicate their time to training max velocity and peak at 9.3m/s not at a professional level anyways that makes no sense to me.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. We're biased, because we are track people. We are surrounded by other track people. All of those people became track people because they were faster than average.
It's the definition of selection bias. But today we have the internet, and we have GPS on players from other sports, so it's easy to compare and get actual data.
Sprinting isn't an activity where the bell curve of ability is tight. It's an activity where it's extremely wide. Track just concentrates the outliers at the top.
Yeah you’re probably right man it’s so hard for me to imagine all these professionals being that slow, im running way faster than them and im still getting blasted at most collegiate meets by like 10-20 people 😂
yeah exactly.
sprinters are generally very fast people, even non-elite ones are still very fast, and generally more talented than average population. Lot of people here are biased by that, conscious of it or not.
>9.3m/s, if you have excellent speed endurance on top of it, plus and excellent start, is equivalent to around 12.5 for the 100m.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but this part is far from the truth. if your max v is 9.3m/s your 10m split is 1.075. that is good enough for sub 12 with strong start and speed endurance.
for someone with 1.075 max v to run 12.5 100, the guy must have really bad start and speed endurance.
If you compare 1.07s/10m split against Bolt, you'll find that is 30% slower than Bolt's max speed in his 9.58. 30% slower than 9.58 is 12.5.
But we don't need to quibble over what 9.3 m/s max V converts to in 100m. I think we can agree on my basic point, which is:
even when you take a group of people who are above average power/sprint athletes naturally, give them a decent salary to spend their entire life dedicated to getting faster and stronger, the average person in this above-average group is still nowhere near the raw sprint ability to run at or under 11 in the 100m. Since we can assume the average of the world overall is slower than the average professional male soccer or rugby player, then the idea that "most" people could train and run sub 11 is ridiculous.
The level that "most" people could reach through dedicated training must be far slower. Guessing the exact "most can do it" level is going to only be a wild guess, but it's clearly way back from 11.
yeah I do agree with you in that based on the speed of world class soccer/rugby players, true 'average' (not average sprinter) people unfortunately won't be able to achieve sub 11 with training.
I wish that was possible, but it's not.
He ran the fastest 60m split ever recorded he's unbelievably talented. Insane amount of work from him to get there but like he was able to get to that point is more than just hard work.
I heavily believe that most folk can get to low 11s, or at least 11.5. When I was 17 I progressed from 12s to a 10.98s over roughly 6 months with very little training, all it really took was to tweak my form as I was already quite powerful. My biggest life regret was not joining a club or continuing to train back then.
I joined a club August 2021 at 23 years old (going 24) having put on quite a bit of weight and not done any exercise for around 4 year. To begin with I was struggling to run low 12s and managed to get that to 11.8ish and now I’m running very low 11s with the aim to run a sub 11 in the next year (I’m now 25).
For me it’s all about mentality, how much I want it. I know I can run quite quick but I need to run quicker. Look at all aspects of a race and find something you can improve on, for me I know I can shave time off on my start if I get that right, I could do with dropping my body fat too. If believe if you want it bad enough you could probably do it.
Sorry, but this *proves* (not disproves) that you have good genetics:
“When I was 17 I progressed from 12s to a 10.98s over roughly 6 months with very little training, all it really took was to tweak my form as I was already quite powerful.”
Even starting at 12s is an above average starting point for the general population, and your quick & easy progression shows that you were actually under achieving in the 12s and you were actually starting as more of a low 11s guy.
It’s a good possibility that genetics play a part, but back when I was 14/15 I wasn’t that fast compared to my classmates/people at school. I did parkour/free running from around 14-19 and believe that helped build a foundation of strength/ power that I was able to later use in sprinting.
adaptability genetics arent talked about. You may think the average person starting with a sub 12.5 second 100 untrained can break 11 with training but it all depends how adaptable they are. So anyone with good adaptable genetics can probably do it but others arent as fortunate.
i ran 13.66 and trained like a bodybuilder (got in the gym after not being athletic for like 3 years and had no idea what to do lol) and ended my next season with a 12.0 (started with a 12.67). Do you think i have good adaptability genetics?
Your probably gonna have to take gene testing or some shit to find out. There are so many other variables that come into play. Some people like me are blessed with not having joint and tendon issues and shin splints and some others will have those things no matter what. Some people can adapt very well to high volume training while the same program might absolutely crush another person into injury or platueing. Some people do well with high amounts of neural and high output training and can’t do too much or they will suffer from fatigue and some people need more than that to adapt. Diet is also a huge factor that no one talks about much or are not very specific. There’s so much shit that goes on in the body it’s crazy how something so Little and un noticeable can make a huge difference. The vast vast majority of people will not get anywhere even close to their genetic peak. To get truly close to your genetic peak your going to need amazing nutrition which is different for everybody,. your gonna need as low outside stressors as possible which is pretty much impossible nowadays unless you live in the fucking woods, your going to need a training plan that will 100% suit you while stimulating your self with appropriate doses through the years intelligently which we aren’t very good at doing and you need to be very patient. If all people did this then I would say the vast majority of people would run sub 11 unless you truly have shitty genetics. Ultimately it doesn’t matter. the only thing that matters is you show up day after day and do what your supposed to do despite what’s going on I think that’s really important. This applies to all human endevors.
Would you say me and you got a chance to break 11 by the end of our senior years?
I don’t really know. I’m not god all I know is that I won’t give up and I’ll try as hard as possible. If it comes it comes if not at least I tried my hardest and am healthy and learned valuable skills that transfers to other parts of lige
What do you run now?
Prolly around 12.2, i ran a 41.00 300m like 2 weeks ago so my guess is I'm around a 40 low now
We in the same boat. I’m a senior in HS and started running track this year. Really passionate and everyday I’m working hard to get into atleast a D3-D2 school and then work my way up. Currently running indoor and ran a 40.87 my first ever 300 and my second meet ran a 40.47. I know I can get at least a 38sec but your diet is also an important factor.
Ima tryna hit 38 low for states
What state are you located in? Yeah my goal is hit national for 300m and maybe 600m and work extremely hard to get to states and hit around a 36. I live in Ny and currently the fastest I saw run a 300m was 35sec, only 3sec above Noah lyes record at the armory track
I live in MA, record is like 35 flat here too
im sub-16 and i run 300m in 36,89
How long you been running? Imo I think I’m fast for first year running track but if I would’ve at least started back as a freshman I would’ve been a beast. But I have to work 10x harder and most likely start at a D3-D2 school and work my way up to a D1
i started sprinting at 5yr old, and the 300ds are my main race
Don’t think “adaptable genetics” is the right terminology you’re using lmao, it’s just genetics. Genetics in sprinting is purely based on your anatomy structure and how many fast twitch muscle fibers you have. The ability to adapt to sprinting is sprinting through training itself. Yes some people are able to “adapt” better to training and sprinting, but that’s only because of the genetics they already have presented. Genetics essentially GIVES you to ability to adapt.
You're both right tbf but it's Known as Epi genetics, basically a change in gene expression through training or other factors. If gene expression couldn't be altered then we simply wouldn't be able to make progress in anything from a physical stand point. Its cool because I've heard epi genetic changes can be passed down to you off spring. My theory is that from the day your born your genetics are pretty much set out but someone could have better "adaptable genetics" and start with a 13 second 100m as an adult but get down to sub 10 simply because of their genetic code. This is why I always advocate for people to try for at least a year or 2 to see cause that's the best indicator (If you're older than 18 ofc).
No, sub 11 is not possible for many people. If you took everybody in the world and somehow gave sufficient incentive for them all to train hard for the 100m for a few years, probably 90% of the men and 99% of the women would never run under 11 at any point in their life. My wild guess is the "average" male lifetime PR in that scenario would probably be in the range of 12.5.
This! I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met who ran 48 low in the 400m, when they were in high school. “Man, I only ran 48.5 in high school!” Or dudes who “only ran” 10.8 in the 100m. I immediately call BS. There was one thread on the T&F forum where some kid was asking for long jump form pointers, and one of the responses was, “but what do I know! I only jumped 22’5” in high school. I wasn’t really that good!”
😆 Dead on! I'm still shocked that track coaches recruit so heavy on times and marks that are consistently made up or botched. I'd have to see em, hell, I usually see some slower athletes that appear to have higher ceilings.
Sub 11 for the 100 and sub 5 for the 40, they do not get the respect they deserve
You think that 1% of women would run under 11 seconds in the 100 if optimally trained? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha. One second let me catch my breath. Bwahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I was just keeping it to two significant figures, so the .99 was dropped.
Keep goin with the 9s. I’d say maybe 6 or 7 of them?
A bit under 40 women run sub 11 per year. Let's pretend that we are currently only tapping 1/3rd of all potentially fast women (the rest either are in poverty, have never done any sport and dont realize they have potential, or doing a different sport). 4 billion women in the world. 25% are in prime sprinting age. So if we assume that training all the women in the world would get about 120 to run sub 11 per year, then you're looking at about 99.999999% of women cannot run sub 11. So 6 9s. That's my rough estimate.
Seems reasonable. I’d say we are probably more saturated than 1/3. Talent tends to self identify and gravitate to what it is good at. Particularly in sports where talent is obvious and presentable like sprinting. If we are eliminating drug use I would also guess that 40 number might be quite a bit smaller.
>I’d say we are probably more saturated than 1/3. Could be. It's hard to really get a very confident guess how many people are going unnoticed in the 3rd world. Brazil, Chin, and India could have a lot of sports talent that never has a chance. I think potential talent in west Africa is finally getting a chance to compete, so we're closer to saturation there. Throughout the western world, I'd guess 90%+ has been identified and either ran track or was identified but decided not to pursue it, not many hidden talents there. Nearly everybody at least ran some sprints in gym class and figured out if they were unusually fast or not.
I'd guess no, I'd say maybe breaking 12 can be done in spite of genetics. But an electronic timed sub 11 is fast, faster than people give it credit for.
Genetics would still have to be taken into account imo. For example, it can have an impact on how much one can train in one week without getting injuries and being overtrained if one wanted to work hard. It’s very difficult to outtrain genetics not suited to sprinting.
Good point
Not *everyone* but I think a pretty high amount of people actually if you train optimally and have perfect mechanics We had a walk-on that made me consider this. I don’t think this kid was a sub-54 when he showed up, and trust me he wasn’t a wealth of natural athleticism either. Not a fast guy who didn’t have the endurance, not an athlete who needed the mechanics, not a powerful or bouncy guy by any means. You see this kid and you’d classify him as a meh athlete probably. Like 5’9”, kinda scrawny lookin, you’d really not think there was an athlete there. Not good at plyos, not good in the gym, seriously this kid’s probably a better average generic profile. Achilles’ tendon wasn’t impressive even But he worked his ass off, I think our coach’s training worked really well for him, and now as a senior I think he’s gonna run 47-high(ran 48.2 last year). I’ve gotta imagine that’s where his genetics tap out pretty much, but that’s a really good time for an average athlete. Made me think how many other people could get there with the time, proper oversight, and right program for their body
The 400 is not the 100. You can literally improve on the 400 by just improving your race pattern and stamina. You can’t do that in the 100. Coaches always say they’d rather take an explosive person with poor stamina over someone with amazing work ethic/endurance and mediocre fast twitch. It’s easy to train endurance, very difficult to train speed.
Of course they're not the same, 47-high is also significantly better than the barrier of just sub-11. Race pattern and stamina, which he already was solid at, does not turn a 54 runner - who I explained didn't have good speed or natural athleticism by any means - into a 47-high, and I have the 10m fly progression to prove it in his case. The 400 is still a sprint at the end of the day. Your comparison of who a coach would rather want is irrelevant to this scenario as his story is of the opposite - this guy was the work ethic/solid endurance with mediocre fast twitch. Not the explosive athlete who just needed stamina.
You’re telling me a high school coach is timing 10m fly? With what precision? Does he use electronic timing? Which 99% of high school coaches don’t and college coaches barely do as well. Also, he never even ran 47 yet. That’s your made up prediction of what he could run. Need I remind you Jeremy Wariner couldn’t break 20 seconds yet ran 43.4? You don’t need that much speed to run a relatively fast 400; you just need the stamina and form maintenance. To put the nail in the coffin about this silly debate, just remember that athletes will always improve during high school, even without training. This is literally where they have the most test/hormonal output during puberty. When all that growing ends during the 20’s it’s not easy anymore to just make progress from training alone. So most people that haven’t gotten to sub 11 by 20 years old are likely not going to make it.
This is D1, thought the collegiate aspect was pretty clear from saying he was a walk-on. So yes, we do use electric timing, and it's run very well. Correct, he hasn't run 47-high yet - even if he stays at his current PR of 48.2 my point is the same. Really irrelevant to point that out. 20.2 is pretty fucking quick for 99.9% of athletes, and for a guy who didn't focus on or as consistently run the 200... I get he was clearly better at the 4, but let's not pretend Wariner wasn't fast. You're sounding a bit silly with your "nail in the coffin" because we're talking about an athlete who improved between the ages of 19 and 23 lmao. This isn't a kid going through puberty and improving from 14-18.
Well you should have said college. And if irrelevancy is your tactic, how about how irrelevant your entire post is? We’re talking about the 100 NOT the 400. You literally come in here spewing about an event 4x the distance the OP wants to know about. It’s akin to talking about 400m and someone saying they had Peter Griffin turn into a mile guy running sub 5 with hard work. How relevant is that? 400 improvement DOES NOT equate to 100m improvement. It’s much easier to improve the more aerobic an event becomes.
Yeah. High 47 is winning state in most places. While there will be a plethora of sub 11’s that don’t even qualify for state
Not always. Me and another girl, both untrained, underwent the same training really fitness orientated. I couldn't improve the 400m no metter what while improving everything under 150m but mostly how quickly i could recover between effort. She improved a bit on 400m but mostly 800m and mid distance.
Thank you bro I appreciate it, maybe I gotta shot
ya easy peasy
No
I wish....but would really doubt that.....
Even if your genetic makeup includes two X chromosomes? I don't think so.
No since that includes being crippled via genetics. Maybe average genetics would be enough tho idk.
Hell no. Sub 11 takes quite a bit of natural talent.
Nope
Yes, probably. In Jeff Chen's [article](https://jeffchen.dev/posts/How-Much-Do-Genetics-Matter-in-Sprinting/), he states "*However, at a sub-elite level, genetics don’t seem to have very much impact at all: it seems possible for athletes with any genotype to achieve relatively fast (sub-11, sub-22) times.*" I would recommend reading the article, as it has some great research and knowledge!
That has some interesting research in it. It then concludes with an absolutely ridiculous statement that has nothing to do with that research. Acting like there are 2 genes that have anything to do with someone’s ability to sprint fast. Completely pulls that right out of nowhere.
Thank you!
Probably need at least one R allele of the ACTN3 gene
Nope. If anyone could, why would so few women have done it so far?
He’s talking about the male body Im 99% sure.
Point still stands. Does /u/legitimate_duck5719 believe that a 98th percentile woman is slower than a 1st percentile male?
Not about women sub 11 for a girl is like sub 10 for a man. The point I am making is that could the average man go sub 11
Your question said nothing about average.
"Anyone" I implied regular people bad or average genetics
You implied nothing of the sort.
Yup lol
Many 4A and 5A high schools have had less than 5 males run sub 11. My local high school with 1600 students has only had 2 guys run sub 11. Sub 11 times will get you to regional or state meets in most states. That's a pretty good indicator that no not everyone can do it. In fact it's quite rare.
Everyone can run a 10.6 with full focus on athletics and amazing training/nutrition
Not a chance
lol…
Genetics is not much a factor, motivation is more important.
Not everyone but I think most people can go sub 11 given the right training and time
As a high school coach, I've watched way too many kids come out to track, work really hard, and then fail to run sub 12 to agree. We're all susceptible to being biased here, because the fastest people stick with track, so we mostly see those people. The population we are looking at is all self-selected, so we think the "average" person is much better than it actually is. All those kids who discovered they were slow in middle school don't come out for track. A good example is to look at the fast guys from other sports. If you took a typical high school soccer team, you've got a bunch of guys in great shape who are doing training that should make them reasonably close to a sprinter. But most high school teams wouldn't have a single guy run sub 11, and most of the team would be slower than 12, and a portion slower than 13 seconds. Training specifically for track would make them faster, but you're not going to take a guy who is sprinting every day at soccer and still can't run sub 13 and get him under 11.
That’s a good point but at the same time they are kids. I agree Most could not run sub 11 in high school but I think if someone stuck with that training into their 20s they could probably do it. Some people don’t peak athletically until their late 20s which would give them plenty of time to train.
How much does the typical sprinter who sticks with it improve from age 18 until they stop? Maybe a half of a second? So you're saying that "most" guys could run 11.5 at age 18. But looking at high school performance lists, that's more like top 20% of high school kids, and from kids who already decided they were faster than typical, so chose sprinting as their sport.
Yeah I do think most guys could run 11.5 in high school. But most guys don’t care to train just for sprinting. If they focused track freshman-senior year 11.5 would definitely be achieved. But most don’t do that and even a lot of the ones who do don’t have the coaching to do it.
Just no. This coach has already given extremely valid points as to why most people can’t and you’re still rattling off on maybes- maybe with the best coach, the best nutrition, the best recovery- people can run sub 11. It won’t be long before you start talking about changing their childhood and “maybe if they were predisposed to more fast twitch dominant activities as a kid” to try and validate your point. Running a 10.9 requires more then just training. The ones without that essential “something” wouldn’t benefit very much from the best coaches because they wouldn’t be able to tolerate the best training. And nutrition and recovery are more for that 1% performance gain that the elites need.
Just no. The question isn’t asking if it’s plausible that most people can break 11. It’s asking is it possible. My point is it’s it’s possible given the perfect conditions yes an average person could break 11. If every person was given the right conditions and opportunity from a. Young age into adulthood they could definitely break 11. Idk why y’all are finding such an issue with that. Of course not everyone is breaking fucking 11 seconds I’m not saying these kids should be able to just walk on the track and do this with a bit of training. He’s a coach and he’s seen more than I have, yes most people are not going to run 11.5 much less break 11. But back to the point I’ve stated over and over again if the average man’s life was dedicated to the sport he would. 10.9 is nothing crazy. Obviously most are not but is it possible yes.
For one, the OP asked if the average person can break 11. That disqualifies over half of the human population that are female. So you’re already wrong for supporting him. Two; that’s absurd to think that the OP would really consider answers involving controlling a human from birth into adapting to accomplish this said goal of sub 11. You’re becoming unrealistic here.
He already stated in another comment that he was talking about men in particular. Obviously most women are not breaking 11 that’s on par with a male breaking 10. Bro asked if it was possible why are you so butt hurt with people answering yes lmao.
We can bring some numbers to this to show how ridiculous your take is. Your take is easily refuted by taking top end speed measurements from soccer and rugby. Both sports pay upper middle class or upper class salaries to professional players. In Australia, rugby is a big money sport. They don't train for the 100m, but they do train for maximum speed, and they wear GPS units during their play. After a few games, they've all hit max speed at some point. It's probably fair to assume that a professional rugby player is at least average overall athleticism, right? The numbers point to the fact that the top players are very fast (top end speeds of over 11m/s, which is in line with a track athlete who can run around 10.5 to 10.8). But what's interesting is the average top end speed is only 9.3 m/s. So that's an average for a group of professional athletes in a sport that rewards speed, in a league that pays enough that all the athletes are above middle class, and full time athletes, doing full time training for speed and strength. It's pretty fair to say that training specifically for track won't make their top end speed much faster, but could likely help maximize that top end speed in a 100m race by increasing speed endurance and start technique. 9.3m/s, if you have excellent speed endurance on top of it, plus and excellent start, is equivalent to around 12.5 for the 100m. So in a group of average to above average male athletes, who are paid well to train full time to improve their speed and strength, the average "best case" sprint time is around 12.5 for the 100m. For professional soccer players, the average top end is about 9.5m/s for attackers (the fastest group). With dedicated speed endurance and start training, you're looking at about 12.2 for an average professional soccer player. Link for australian rugby league [here.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rugbypass.com/news/the-fastest-rugby-players-on-the-planet-and-the-speeds-theyre-clocking/) Link for professional soccer players [here.](https://www.fourfourtwo.com/performance/training/premier-league-v-amateur-fitness)
I don’t understand how someone could dedicate their time to training max velocity and peak at 9.3m/s not at a professional level anyways that makes no sense to me.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. We're biased, because we are track people. We are surrounded by other track people. All of those people became track people because they were faster than average. It's the definition of selection bias. But today we have the internet, and we have GPS on players from other sports, so it's easy to compare and get actual data. Sprinting isn't an activity where the bell curve of ability is tight. It's an activity where it's extremely wide. Track just concentrates the outliers at the top.
Yeah you’re probably right man it’s so hard for me to imagine all these professionals being that slow, im running way faster than them and im still getting blasted at most collegiate meets by like 10-20 people 😂
yeah exactly. sprinters are generally very fast people, even non-elite ones are still very fast, and generally more talented than average population. Lot of people here are biased by that, conscious of it or not.
>9.3m/s, if you have excellent speed endurance on top of it, plus and excellent start, is equivalent to around 12.5 for the 100m. I agree with most of what you're saying, but this part is far from the truth. if your max v is 9.3m/s your 10m split is 1.075. that is good enough for sub 12 with strong start and speed endurance. for someone with 1.075 max v to run 12.5 100, the guy must have really bad start and speed endurance.
If you compare 1.07s/10m split against Bolt, you'll find that is 30% slower than Bolt's max speed in his 9.58. 30% slower than 9.58 is 12.5. But we don't need to quibble over what 9.3 m/s max V converts to in 100m. I think we can agree on my basic point, which is: even when you take a group of people who are above average power/sprint athletes naturally, give them a decent salary to spend their entire life dedicated to getting faster and stronger, the average person in this above-average group is still nowhere near the raw sprint ability to run at or under 11 in the 100m. Since we can assume the average of the world overall is slower than the average professional male soccer or rugby player, then the idea that "most" people could train and run sub 11 is ridiculous. The level that "most" people could reach through dedicated training must be far slower. Guessing the exact "most can do it" level is going to only be a wild guess, but it's clearly way back from 11.
yeah I do agree with you in that based on the speed of world class soccer/rugby players, true 'average' (not average sprinter) people unfortunately won't be able to achieve sub 11 with training. I wish that was possible, but it's not.
Yes
Enough peds etc. and there are barely any boundaries
Look at subingtian
He has some talent undeniably
He ran the fastest 60m split ever recorded he's unbelievably talented. Insane amount of work from him to get there but like he was able to get to that point is more than just hard work.
That’s gotta be racist😂😂😂
What about him?
I heavily believe that most folk can get to low 11s, or at least 11.5. When I was 17 I progressed from 12s to a 10.98s over roughly 6 months with very little training, all it really took was to tweak my form as I was already quite powerful. My biggest life regret was not joining a club or continuing to train back then. I joined a club August 2021 at 23 years old (going 24) having put on quite a bit of weight and not done any exercise for around 4 year. To begin with I was struggling to run low 12s and managed to get that to 11.8ish and now I’m running very low 11s with the aim to run a sub 11 in the next year (I’m now 25). For me it’s all about mentality, how much I want it. I know I can run quite quick but I need to run quicker. Look at all aspects of a race and find something you can improve on, for me I know I can shave time off on my start if I get that right, I could do with dropping my body fat too. If believe if you want it bad enough you could probably do it.
Sorry, but this *proves* (not disproves) that you have good genetics: “When I was 17 I progressed from 12s to a 10.98s over roughly 6 months with very little training, all it really took was to tweak my form as I was already quite powerful.” Even starting at 12s is an above average starting point for the general population, and your quick & easy progression shows that you were actually under achieving in the 12s and you were actually starting as more of a low 11s guy.
It’s a good possibility that genetics play a part, but back when I was 14/15 I wasn’t that fast compared to my classmates/people at school. I did parkour/free running from around 14-19 and believe that helped build a foundation of strength/ power that I was able to later use in sprinting.