How does "strength" differ from "speed" and "endurance" as a runner?

when distance runners talk about strength work it's all longer workouts, more mileage, long tempos, longer repeats, things of that nature

but its not really making them stronger it's actually making them weaker BUT more efficent over long distances

it should be called efficency work not strength work

Yeah, strength is more like bringing speed and endurance together. I think the terminology is bad, though, and wish people would stop referring to this as strength.

"Strength" is basically slang as used by runners for anything that isn't speed-related. My preference is for terminology of speed= component relating to at or below goal event pace, stamina= mixed component of sustained speed+endurance that relates to event pace or slightly slower, and endurance= overdistance component relating mainly to training components well slower than event pace.

This is wrong.

cavemanman wrote:

but its not really making them stronger it's actually making them weaker BUT more efficent over long distances

it should be called efficency work not strength work

Here's a way I describe it to my motorhead friends.

Muscular strength is like ft lbs of torque in a car.

Aerobic strength is like horsepower.

Just a random bit of info, but there ya go.

Still not sure if I completely understand what is meant by "strength". So in Kara's situation, when she says she's slower but stronger, does that mean she's saying she's slower at shorter distances like 3K or 5K but faster at longer distances like the marathon?

I guess I'm still wondering how someone can be stronger yet slower.

strength can be viewed as being capable to run fast when you're tired. the person with the fastest 200 doesn't always win a kick at the end of a 1600 (assuming all are distance runners), its the one that has the STRENGTH to run the fastest last 200 (or whatever distance they are kicking from, assuming its that type of race), speed would be you're peak velocity threshold, like the fastest 200 you can run. some call intervals "speed-work" because they are working at running a set speed percentage of their goal pace. for me endurance would apply to simply being capable of not dying with a fast early pace, but some would interpret that as strength also. its somewhat arbitrary and confusing, but thats how I think it is

As you see, strength means many things to many people.

Here's a link where it was discussed, in my opinion, not very conclusively.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=3780624&thread=3780348

Maybe the confusion with strength, is not clarifying what is getting stronger.

Strength can mean more power, such as muscular strength from weight lifting or drills.

Strength can mean higher resistance to forces, such as bone strength.

Strength can mean higher resistance to sustained efforts, i.e. stamina.

People claim strength = speed, but I think that means strength is a prerequisite for speed, rather than an interchangeable term. You can have strength without speed, but you can not have speed without strength.

Not weaker in the sense of getting weaker but the opposite of the "strength" not used in running terms, lets just say youre not going to be building any muscle during a "strength" phase in training-do 10x100m all out and youre going to build muscle-but strength work does make you more efficent atleast I feel they do for me.

Not a Scientist wrote:

This is wrong.

cavemanman wrote:

but its not really making them stronger it's actually making them weaker BUT more efficent over long distances

it should be called efficency work not strength work

To answer your question succintly, on letsrun "strength" is used interchangably with "endurance".

post critic wrote:

To answer your question succintly, on letsrun "strength" is used interchangably with "endurance".

This.

"strength" and "endurance/stamina" are no different. So effectively there are two terms, strength and speed, or, if you prefer, endurance and speed.

What Kara probably meant with that quote was that her, say, 800 time would be slower right now but her, say 50k time would be faster.

The three terms should be speed, stamina, and endurance.

Speed is obvious. Stamina is the ability to run relatively far, relatively fast.

Endurance is exercising moderately for long periods.

If I want to get the 100m WR, I need speed.

If I want the 10k record, I need stamina.

If I want the record for running from Los Angeles to New York, I need endurance.

Speed is mostly genetically predetermined, and can be improved only marginally.

Stamina is obtained by systematically training at varying paces, increasing the maximum pace you can endure aerobically.

Endurance is obtained by running long distances at less than maximal effort.

I don't know if any of you ever run in the snow, but I'd say that makes you strong and not fast, you have to put in your speed indoors or wait till the snows gone. But if you run through the snow of a Canadian winter you'll be strong by the end of the winter...

1) Get Jack Daniel's book

2) speed-strength-endurance = repeats/short fast intervals (long rest) - threshold/tempo/long intervals (short rest) - steady state/long runs

3)You're right, she is saying that she is not "fast" at shorter distances, but she is stronger for say 5k-marathon distances.

It's really semantics. Really good question!

I have always seen the distinction differently than do most of you who are posting, so perhaps my view's a total outlier, but here it is: Contrast my old training buddy with me. He could run mile repeats as fast or faster than I could (so he had at least as much speed), and could do more of them - or, could run a 30-mile training run every week, like it was nothing - so he obviously had a lot more endurance than I did. But, if we had to run into a headwind, he was very hard-pressed to keep up with me, because I had more strength. I'm sure that if we had raced a mile but each had to drag a cinderblock behind us, I would have easily beaten him. When we did repeats on a hard hill, he could not keep up with me. He was my height but weighed at least 35 pounds less (I had low body fat, we just had different body types, I naturally had a lot more muscle). He was an amazing runner, it was remarkable running behind him - so light on his feet, he just seemed to me to glide along effortlessly (as long as there was no headwind, no hills, etc..). When I won a mile time trial my coach had a bunch of us do together on the track, I won it by going hard from about 450m out - others in my workout group had higher top-end speed, but I had the strength to maintain this push for that far. This is the quality I think of as "strength" as applied to running - not the same as "power" (which involves applying force over a very short time as a sprinter does), and I feel it is something exemplified, for example by Alberto Juantoreno (or even by the recent deceased Jack LaLanne when he swam pulling a huge number of boats attached with a line - he was probably not a fast swimmer, but I'll suspect many faster swimmers could not have pulled all those boats for that distance). If this is what you mean by "strength," I think it can be developed by certain workouts such as hill repeats, that would not improve either one's endurance or speed. Just my two cents :-) ...

I agree w. Rory and Bill Huntington.

Therefore, I find Kara's quote confusing as well.

Strength to me is epitomized in hill running. I could beat my whole team in arm wrestling (str in conventional terms) but I feel like I have no natural strength in running and suck completely at hills as when compared to my track running and good endurance. Hope that helps a little.