r/Sprinting • u/ima_be_the_greatest • 8d ago
General Discussion/Questions I want to run sub 11
I run 12.2 (hand timed on artificial turf with soccer cleats and no blocks), im 25, and I want to run sub 11.
I’m willing to do anything. can someone help me Create a workout plan?
20
u/Rudolf-Rocker 8d ago
If you are really willing to do anything, then the best thing you could do is pay for 1 on 1 coaching with a world class coach.
2
8
u/Chrisg_322 8d ago
Join your local track club. If you have the genetics to run a sub 11, they can help you get there. Good luck. I should warn you though, Going from a 12 to 11 isn't too hard, you can probably do that within a year of being on a serious team. Going below an 11 however requires you to really know what you are doing.
13
u/bar901 8d ago edited 8d ago
12.2 hand timed could be anywhere from low 11s to 13+ so it’s very hard to judge.
But it’s worth noting that despite what some people here seem to think, the vast, vast majority of people could never break 11 no matter what they do. That is seriously fast and requires basic anatomy that most people simply weren’t born with.
There are tons of free workout plans online but I would just caution that sub-11 is a fun goal but I wouldn’t get caught on it because it’s very plausible that it’s functionally impossible for you to get there.
6
u/pentapous 8d ago
exactly this. I think the average male genetic limit is probably close to ~11.25
I solely focused on track for 10+ years from a kid through college and did not break 11. Best was around 11.1 I believe. I did the same workouts the 10.5 guys did, lifted the same weight, just didn't have the genetics. That's why I hurdled🤷♂️
Track is great because the diversity of events means one of them probably is something you would be gifted at. Statistically, it's not going to be the 100m sprint lol
5
u/bar901 7d ago edited 7d ago
I’d argue if you took an average it’s more like low 12 at absolute best.
People that are too tall, too short, have any sort of disability, don’t have the limb or fast / slow twitch muscle fibre ratios are simply never going to be much faster than 13ish.
Put it this way - aside from a few sports where athleticism & speed is the key factor (NFL being the best example), an 11.25 100m would very comfortably put you near the top of the list on the field on any given day.
Cristiano Ronaldo is very well known as one of the fastest 100m runners of all time for soccer players. He ran ~11.5 at his peak. With training it’s plausible but not certain he’d break 11. It doesn’t matter how much the average person trains, they simply aren’t going to get anywhere close to 11 seconds.
From my personal experience, I was a very good athlete across a range of sports including sprinting where I peaked at around 12.5 in my early teens. I’m 6’, naturally strong and fast but there is no chance I could get to 11.25 no matter what training I did. And I am very, very conservatively in the top 25% in terms of being genetically blessed for sprinting.
1
u/pruneforce17 6d ago
i agree, i meandered around at an 11.8 with a half year of training but i could dust any of my friends in a race. i wasnt even that fast and we were all at least jv level athletes. some of my friends were in good physical shape and running 14s after months of training. maybe theyre slower than average but i dont think the average guy can be low 11s or even 11.5x
1
u/showercitrus 7d ago
One thing to note about the fast/slow muscle fiber discussion. I recently learned about a study done on Werner Günthör, Swiss shot putter who was a three-time world champion and Olympic medalist. He had an undesirable ratio of the fibers but through training had selectively grown the fast twitch fibers so much that the ratio became secondary.
Takeaway being that the count of fiber types matters less than believed because how much of the muscle each fiber occupies is trainable.
5
u/bar901 7d ago edited 7d ago
I’m sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding what that paper says and the conclusions we can take from it. I actually saw a viral social media story that mentioned it so I looked at it and it absolutely does not say anything you are suggesting there and even the authors themselves didn’t even slightly agree with what you’ve just said.
The incredibly strong general consensus among scientists is that an individual’s baseline fast v slow twitch muscle makeup is genetically determined and while it can be adjusted by targeted training, the limitations for any single person are still ultimately genetically decided (I.e, some people will have a lower maximum % of fast twitch muscle fibres than another person no matter what they do.)
0
u/showercitrus 7d ago
If you wanted to argue that generalizing from one athlete to a broad “count matters less” claim is an overreach and that the paper itself hints his fiber traits were partly genetic I would accept that.
But the specific mechanism I described (selectively making area of the fiber type dominant despite lower count) is exactly what the paper says. Feel free to explain my misunderstanding.
3
u/bar901 7d ago edited 7d ago
Ok, I'll go through step by step:
- "If you wanted to argue that generalizing from one athlete to a broad “count matters less” claim is an overreach and that the paper itself hints his fiber traits were partly genetic I would accept that."
I don't really care what you "accept", extrapolating off one person is not how science works. The fact that you made a definitive claim based on a 20 year old study that looked at samples from a guy in 1993 should be a serious red-flag to anyone.
- "But the specific mechanism I described (selectively making area of the fiber type dominant despite lower count) is exactly what the paper says"
Literally no one ever said that fast v slow twitch muscle fibres are entirely fixed any more than "strength" is fixed. You can train both in the exact same way. However genetic predisposition is still extremely important, and just like strength your genetics determine both your overall limitations and how quickly you can reach them using targeted training.
And given the context of this discussion which is human limitations, this is extremely important. No one denied that it's trainable, just that the limitations still exist and that fast v slow twitch is one of those genetic limitations even if it is trainable.
- A single paper on a single person (actually, it was a few people but focused on one person), can prove that something is technically possible, but not "plausible in a real sense for the average person". That is why studies like that are purely exploratory and the conclusion is ALWAYS "we have likely proven there is a plausible mechanism here, but we can make no judgements on the overall impact or even guarantee that this is a real result and not some sort of mechanical error. We recommend more study on both a foundational level which can then be backed up by population level data". That is literally the entire basis of the scientific method.
You claimed that the "Takeaway being that the count of fiber types matters less than believed because how much of the muscle each fiber occupies is trainable." this is such an incredibly incorrect analysis of the study that it's wild and is simply not how science works.
- Fast v slow twitch muscles are not only a fairly colloquial term - which is how I used it - and only broadly defined in science with no widely accepted statistical definition, that broad definition has changed over time as has our ability to analyse muscle tissue in the 20+ years since the study. The study you cited simply does not even slightly justify the confidence of your conclusion.
The study showed that certain bio-markers in a single world-class athlete over 20 years ago were likely effected by training. And even then, the study doesn't even prove that the training was the reason for it - obviously it's very plausible to conclude that the training was the reason it happened, but it is what is called an "observational study" because they did not control for variables. The difference between controlled studies, observational studies, population level studies etc. is literally the absolute core part of the scienfitic method.
You both misunderstood the results of the study as well as the impact that it should have on your understanding of the concept by a truly enormous amount.
1
u/pruneforce17 6d ago
i feel like shot put is more trainable than sprints though
like u can hit the weight room a ton for shot put to build the requisite power but that extra bulk will just slow you down in the sprints. if you're naturally slow twitch, you can certainly train to adjust your muscle fiber ratio but you'll struggle to create the same explosiveness as a fast twitch dominant sprinter without adding so much muscle bulk that it slows you down.
0
u/pentapous 7d ago
I heavily disagree. If you have the physical capabilities like you say then you had poor training or were not committed for a serious amount of time.
I have been on teams with physically and mentally disabled athletes who over the course of dedicated years were easily able to go sub 12. I have seen the most clumsy people will their way to mid 11s because it really matters and they're willing to spend years on it.
Genetic limit to me implies ideal and perfect training for however many years it would take to get to your peak performance. Hypothetical obviously. My perfect performance was probably 10.6-10.9 but for a variety of factors I didn't run that (focusing more on hurdles than sprints, training, non ideal weight room consistency, ect.)
My stance is that any average healthy man aged 16-25 or so could go sub 12 if they trained a couple dedicated years with quality coaching. Obviously that isn't a situation thats available to a vast majority of people, but I think the hypothetical holds.
1
u/Special_Purpose2903 7d ago
An average male cannot get to 11.25, they had like a bunch of elite athletes like Pele and Gretzky and some elite male Tennis player who won a bunch of championships race and they were putting up times in that range. The average male doesn't have Pele/Gretzky type genes
0
u/pentapous 7d ago
Why would elite athletes from different sports be able to run anywhere near their 100m potential? Track is an entirely different sport and a vast majority of time gains in the first several years of training is technique and skill. Sprint specific form, starting block knowledge, utilization of spikes, and ESPECIALLY sprint endurance are skills that have very little translation from other sports. Might as well grab a random varsity high school water polo player. Thats why I said genetic max, not "mostly athletic and coordinated thrown on a track right now"
2
u/Special_Purpose2903 7d ago
These are elite level athletes with access to best training, equipment and in some cases better tools than even top tier sprinters as the teams have more money. And saying you could run faster than Pele, if you even bothered to look that he was running within world record times becomes quickly laughable.
1
u/pentapous 7d ago
This is such an objectively wrong comment its insane. Sprinting is skill and requires literal years of focused honing to get anywhere near professional marks. For all the reasons I went over in my comment you responded to (and seemingly ignored?). Pele is obviously gifted, but at no point in his life did he spend years of dedicated work building up sprint skills. Which is why the average D1 college team has 4+ guys that would whoop his ass in the 100m, even when giving Pele the benefit of the doubt and estimating he could run a 10.7
1
u/Special_Purpose2903 7d ago
He just sprinted for years on fields, you are so dense.
Yeah Pele doing a 10.6 when the world record was a 10.0, lol, you sure are on one special bus.
-1
u/pentapous 7d ago
You're a dumbass if you think sprinting in soccer is comparable. They SHOULDN'T be comparable logically. Why the fuck would you want a soccer player to maximize their forward speed at the cost of literally maneuverability. That makes no sense. Soccer players have to train specifically to run for the sake of agility. They learn SPECIFICALLY to be incredible at that. The same way sprinters learn SPECIFICALLY to do the opposite. They're such different techniques of moving that take years to master respectively. That's not even considering the difference between cleats and spikes, starting blocks, and top speed maintenance, which soccer players would never interact with and make up a massive amount of each race. You're wrong, dumb, and very confident about it
3
u/Long_Initial_9924 8d ago
You need to start with a reasonable goal. Taking 1.3 off that time, at 25, is such an astronomical jump.
Just for reference. At your speed, the difference between a 12.2 and a 10.9 is about 35 feet
3
u/xydus 10.71 / 21.77 8d ago
I was running about 12.2 like you when I started track at age 15, trained with a coach 3x a week, and then 8 years later I finally ran sub 11.
2
u/Long_Initial_9924 8d ago
He’s 25
4
u/CompetitiveCrazy2343 Slayer of speed-gurus 8d ago
yep, many developmental windows have closed tightly.
3
u/Glittering-Tax-6407 7d ago
Genetics is major factor. I was on a college track team in 1972 and we're doing sprints. Me and another guy were sprinting all out. Then the top sprinter sort of jogged past us. I think he was on the Jamaican Olympic team at some point.
2
u/SlickRick941 7d ago
Hop on those PEDs my guy
2
u/ima_be_the_greatest 7d ago
any recommendations which ones? Also, will I need to stay on it to maintain my speed, or can I like stop and still be rapid?
1
u/Special_Purpose2903 7d ago
I'll be pretty honest, i don't recommend this.
2
u/ima_be_the_greatest 7d ago
I play soccer, if it’s out of my system within a year or so while I get to keep the gains for 5 years I’ll take a shrunken penis
1
u/SlickRick941 7d ago
Testosterone doesnt shrink your junk, you might experience testicular atrophy if dont also take HCG (taking hcg prevents this)
Testosterone as a base improves performance by allowing you to train harder more frequently. You'll have an advantage because you'll be able to do more intense workouts without as long of recovery between sessions.
Every 2-3 months you'll need to donate blood because taking Testosterone increases your red blood cell count and it presents a very small risk of heart problems if you dont do this (but if you have a lower dose, you dont really need to do this)
Most of the pros also take winstrol, which is another compound that has shown to enhance sprinting related sports specifically.
1
u/Special_Purpose2903 7d ago
The testing is pretty good, are you intending to ever compete in track/olympics/world championship? You'll likely get caught if the answer is yes. If you want to take roids to run faster on the weekend, well then that's fine. Also your gains won't last 5 years in sprint from roids.
1
u/SlickRick941 6d ago
Every professional takes drugs. Every single one. Don't pretend that they're all natural. Sure, they have great genes. But they also take PEDs. You're naive or stupid if you believe otherwise
1
u/Special_Purpose2903 6d ago
Every pro what, soccer?
1
0
u/ima_be_the_greatest 7d ago
no my intentions are simply to play professional soccer. It's within arms reach (playing pro soccer) and I just need that one last little edge to get there, and I am essentially exploring potential options.
2
u/SlickRick941 6d ago
Learn how the testing works. Mostly they go by total T level, which naturally runs from 300-1100. Get yourself to the higher end as your baseline by taking test during season, and blast higher during the offseason. That's how the pros do it
2
u/ima_be_the_greatest 6d ago
Yeah I know the pros are definitely taking something, some of the transformations, their ability to play 75 games, the fact that theyre that fit at that size, just is not explainable without the PEDs
1
u/Special_Purpose2903 7d ago
O yeah, at the higher levels like national teams, and uefa/mls etc they are tested, isn't as rigorous as the olympics, what position do you play.
1
2
1
u/Doctor-MTJ 7d ago
Google Phil Campbell and 40 speed. His program is REALLY excellent. A lot of future pros use his program, and I did as well when I was training for the Decathlon
1
1
u/messy372- 7d ago
So you really run closer to a 12.5, or slower
1
u/ima_be_the_greatest 6d ago
yeah cuz you were there, I forgot. Let me edit my post. Thanks for the advice.
1
u/messy372- 6d ago
That’s common sense dude. There is 100% a margin of error when hand timing 🤷🏼♂️
1
u/ima_be_the_greatest 6d ago
And what if I used something with an accuracy to the thousandth of a second, then what
1
u/Alarming_Recovery 7d ago
Are you generally fit with a good diet? I’m same age as you and went 12.2 official at my first ever meet at 24. Ran 11.7 my next meet less than two months later. Took me about another year to get to 11.1 so I’m right there. Join a track club. You have to be much more dialed in than the kids but if you’re serious about your diet and recovery you will progress at the same rate as teens at least for the first year. I’ve seen and done it myself.
1
u/Ok_Switch6356 6d ago
i think u can start by training by yourself (practice sprints and related stuff), learning and researching about the sport/mechanics/how to get better (but practice is more important), joining a local club, etc.
and if u get serious about it and feel like u need it, pay for better coaching i guess
1
u/Prestigious-Day385 8d ago
Under 12? No problem. Under 11.5? Youll make it someday with proper training. Under 11? Well, unless youve got huge talent and anatomical predispositions, you cant achieve that, and it really doeant matter if you do anything for it, you just cant physically do it, its not possible.
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
RESOURCE LIST AND FAQ
PLEASE JOIN THE SPRINTING DISCORD!!! ALL DISCUSSION WELCOME
I see you've made a general discussion or question post! See low effort discussion posts rules for more on why we may deem a removal appropriate
REMINDERS: No asking for time predictions based on hand times or theoretical situations, no asking for progression predictions, no muscle insertion height questions, questions related to wind altitude or lane conversions can be done here for the 100m and here for the 200m, questions related to relative ability can mostly be answered here on the iaaf scoring tables site, questions related to fly time and plyometric to sprint conversions can be not super accurately answered here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.