Running as hard during a 100m as a 60m

I think I have a real problem running 100m as hard as I can run the 60. This is another one of my many theories about why my season is not going as well as I wanted or even expected but I still think it has some validity even if it’s not the whole answer.

Today I did a speed end session of:

3*60m w/ walk back
full recovery
100m, walk back and 60m

The first 60 was in ~7.2 FAT equivalent, the 2nd 60 was in ~7.1 FAT equivalent and the third 60 was from prone and not timed.

I gave 15 minutes recovery and did the 100 in 11.7 FAT equivalent. I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t just horrible amounts of deceleration at the end, which wouldn’t make sense since I have a pretty high level of general fitness and have gotten in some good speed end sessions. I think that had I been timed at 60 in the 100m I would have probably been much slower than on the 60m reps earlier in the session. I seem to have a real problem running as fast as I can over the first 60 if I know I’m going 100. I understand the Energy Envelope idea and that its possible that at this level I might have a great race to 60 and then run badly afer but I’d like to at least get that first good 60 because I think it’s a good thing to teach myself and will also end up making the whole race time faster.

The season’s pretty close to over but I’m looking for some good drills that I could do that might help with this problem. I was thinking a session that went something like this:

Gun 30m
Gun 60m
Gun 60m-slow down 30m-Gun 20m
Gun 60m-slow down 30m-Gun 20m
Try to gun 100m and if feasible do another 100m rep

(full recovery after all reps)
might help. Any comments or ideas?

What timing method are you using, and how are you arriving at these FAT equivalents

Sounds like he’s converting manual to FAT.

Pete, how do you get out of the blocks? Are you reacting well? Are your first 30 good? Is the problem still top speed (ie like a few months ago when we toyed with that low hip level after acceleration idea?) Funny thing is that I have the EXACT same problem doing 100’s in training too. I can’t possibly run a good 100 in training. But I can run 80’s and 120’s to the best of my abilities. No idea what’s giving in terms of this. Maybe I’m just accelerating less or over a longer period instead of accelerating full out.

If you tracked my whole season I ended up not being able to run well once after 30m. or so. Then during my first accel session of my GPP that I could focus on acceleration I could clearly notice that my hip was very low on the accels. I think for me the same problem persisted throughout the season and it definitely is a problem with the transition or maybe even the hip level DURING acceleration. That’s what I’m going to work on now, correcting the problem at the start, getting into an appropriate hip position from the first few steps instead of sitting and powering forward.

Guys, why don’t you analyze a full 100m by spliting it into 10s or 20s and then find the speed for each interval and assign it to mid point of that split distnance, Draw a graph and whatever program you want to use and then…

Magic. You will see how everything is going for you. You will not need to guess anymore or ask. The graph will be very clear. Specially if you take someone esle’s splits and graph them beside yours. Someone very good. Maybe world class. And compare and see why you are not running as fast as he is. Its so simple trust me. Just try it.

Good luck

Yes, hand time to FAT equivalent using this method:
Starter says GO! at finish line, I wait until the sound travels to me (since I have no other choice) and then react once I hear it. Poster “Spartacus” wrote about this method on some thread a while ago and I’ve been using it since. Once you get the time you subtract .12 for every 30m. I don’t konw exactly how accurate this is but I think it’s pretty damn close because in my experience if you’re timing a 100 at the finish line in a regular hand timing setup and using a stopwatch that makes a beep sound you will usually hear the beep that means you’ve started it (.24 after) closely followed by the sound of the gun (.4 for 100m). Even if it’s .10 for 30m the times are consistent. The 60m times in the workout I posted were 7.50 and 7.3 something and the 100 time was 12.1 as it read on the stopwatch. I definitely didn’t false start on any.

I think top speed probably is still a bit weaker and 30-60 was probably around 2.9-3.0 in each of the 60s but I doubt that even with relatively weak transition/top speed that if I had run as fast in the first 60 in the hundred as in the 60 reps I could have decelerated that much (4.5-4.6 seconds when most people at around this speed are going 3.7-3.8 for the last 40). The way I felt confirmed this, I’ve been only able to race for the last two weeks or so because of a groin injury and when I did the 60s they felt much faster than anything I had run in a while. When I ran the 100 though it felt like it felt when I was racing; not nearly as fast.

I don’t have the equipment to do this accurately or the time to even do it by hand time. The season is drawing to a close soon and I think this is a pretty good hypotheses so I’m hoping people can just go with the premise and help me brainstorm some ideas for drilling running as hard for a 100 as I do for a 60. We have a meet Monday and I’ll try to get someone to time me at 60 and the official will time me at the 100. This should help to confirm or deny the hypotheses.

Next time you do a workout such as this one, would it be possible to get a split at 60 en route to your 100? That will tell you if you’re declerating massively, or just not running as hard to 60 (I know you plan to do this at the meet, but I think it would be more accurate if the same person timing the finish timed the split). Also you should consider doing a flying 20 session, just to see if your top speed is in line with what you think it is.

At last I can see someone who uses hand times but knows how to properly aproximate them instead of taking the good time and lieing to him self. I like that man. Thats the way to overcome lack of equipment. Good luck

I can’t really think of a way that I could do that accurately but I will hopefully get the 60 en route, albeit with different timers, tomorrow and Saturday and that could tell a lot. As for flying 20s without electronic equiment I can’t think of an accurate way. I could try having the timer stand in the middle but since a tenth would be everything I don’t know if I could really get any real feedback.

You’re making me blush, haha. Thanks man. :smiley:


I am glad someone sees merit in the idea for timing when FAT equipment is not available and only one timer and starter is present. As far as your times ago, your 7.26 (7.50 on clock) and 11.70 (12.1 on clock) should be better.
Based on the way we time, when I ran a 7.39- 7.46s, I also ran a 11.60 for 100m. I have also endeavoured to predict potential from 60m times by mutiplying that time by 1.54 based on data from the splits of many men and women. Again, no theory is accurate given that different qualities are needed for acceleration, top speed, and holding top speed, but certainly you have the potential to run faster. 1.54 times 7.26 should equate to a time around 11.2 (FAT). Ben Johson has such a conversion rate when he ran 6.38 and 9.83 in 1987 WC final. Even a lower conversion rate from women with your approxiamate speed does predict a faster times for you. Here are some examples from a womens semi in 1987 WCs.

Issajenko 7.05 10.99 (1.56)
Phipps 7.53 11.67 (1.55)

Even 1.56 times 7.26 gives you 11.33

Hence, you need to work on running relaxed at top speed in order to hold form as best as you can. This will not be merely achieved by hard running which emphasises endurance as it heavily dependent upon technique. Hence, do your trials every now and then, but have someone watch you run when you do your reps to ensure that you are running efficiently and relaxed, especially from 50-100m or when you do flying 30-70m reps.

I’ve personally had great success using a video camera to gain accurate split times (and hey a SVHS these days is pretty cheap) with one person assisting. By aligning marker cones at each split distance to the point where the person is holding the camera, and X number of frames per second, you can’t go too wrong. Just a thought… I found it better than a hand held stop watch for several accurate times over the one run.

Your right man. Any normal Video cam would do the job great. I use that in training most of the time. But then at some point you could just use a normal stop watch and start timing your self for a while and then back to the video cam. I mean when I use a stop watch, I use it to know how much have I improved RELATIVELY. But I don’t take the time in consideration. When I use the Camera. I get an accurate time with splits to know exactly whats Ok and whats bad.

yeah guys splitting the 100 m in to 10s is really gr8 …it showed me things i never imagined abt my self…for example i decelerated after 60 m then after other 10 meters i accelerated again then one more type i decelerated…strange??’

Whats that man. You deccelerate then reaccelerate. That is the strangest thing I’ve ever seen. How did that happen man. And by what margin are you accelerating and deccelerating. I mean 0.01 and 0.02 changes could be due to gusts of wind or something. I’m really intrested in this. Ever seen this Charlie?? What do you think.