Uncorrelated sprint times

Discuss non-training related topics here.
OliveDynamite
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:21 am

Uncorrelated sprint times

Postby OliveDynamite » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:42 pm

Hello,
I've been left a little confused by my times. I'm seen as a 60m specialist having run 7.00 but my 100m time is 11.26 and my 200m time is 22.80. I've had my 150 timed with the freelap system and got 16.54 and I knock out 16.3's HT in training with no problem.
I've been told I should be running faster than I currently am over the 100m.
I'm left frustrated as I can't seem to break 11 and it's left me wondering whether these times are actually correct as they are?

Thank you in advance

athlete.x
Site Admin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:24 pm

Re: Uncorrelated sprint times

Postby athlete.x » Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:57 pm

Hey thanks for your question!

Were the 60, 100, and 200 times done on automatic or hand timing?

OliveDynamite
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:21 am

Re: Uncorrelated sprint times

Postby OliveDynamite » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:58 pm

Thank you for replying!
Yes they're all electronic

athlete.x
Site Admin
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:24 pm

Re: Uncorrelated sprint times

Postby athlete.x » Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:22 pm

OliveDynamite wrote:Thank you for replying!
Yes they're all electronic


Any chance you have film of you sprinting? It could be a technical issue, where you are doing something early on which leads to breakdown later in the race. Also, it could be training related, depending on the types of training you tend to focus on.

OliveDynamite
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:21 am

Re: Uncorrelated sprint times

Postby OliveDynamite » Sat Aug 27, 2016 9:22 pm

I'm afraid I don't. I've been told that technically I need work as I run seated (ex field hockey player) and I'll be working with this coach and new group properly in the new season.
I was just looking for opinions on whether these times are uncorrelated and whether I technically should be running a quicker 100/200?

pc100
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 11:15 pm

Re: Uncorrelated sprint times

Postby pc100 » Sat Aug 27, 2016 11:39 pm

I think your 100, 150 and 200 times are all correlated. But yes your 60 is quite a bit sharper. If you were to go through 60m in 7.00 during a race and then end up running 11.26 then you would of decelerated a lot during the last 40. Did you prepare better for indoors than outdoors? More accel work etc?

I do also think sometimes athletes can get too caught up on chasing times, especially when it comes to the 11 second barrier. I have very similar 60 and 200 times as you did this season (7.00 and 22.82) but I dipped under 11 on a handful of occasion. I have to say, the races where I didn't worry about the time and ran my own race were the ones which seemed effortless to break that barrier.

There's a good table in the article below which matches times in training and competition pretty accurately imo.

http://speedendurance.com/wp-content/up ... hletes.jpg

http://speedendurance.com/2011/12/16/30 ... revisited/

OliveDynamite
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:21 am

Re: Uncorrelated sprint times

Postby OliveDynamite » Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:30 am

That is interesting! I do get caught up with times a lot but yeah I was just curious to see how the rest of the sprinting community views the 60 to 100 difference.
I'll have a look at the tables! Thank you for your help


Return to “Off-Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests