Technical Analysis of 30km and 10000m in Eugene

Renato Canova wrote:

Chet. the point is not some my athlete can be better of Gebre on the track. The point is that some my athlete goes to marathon when is able to reach his top performance in 10000m, too, and this is different from what Gebre did.

Renato, I understand the point, but if these athletes are moving up to the marathon in their ostensible prime and are not any better than an older Geb at 10k, for example, it is still questionable whether they will be better than Geb was/is in the marathon, although I understand there are certain variables outside your control, and you are attempting to address the ones within your control. I think Wanjiru is an obvious example of somebody who took the path you've prescribed above, and it is clear that he succeeded. However, in relation to your assertion that perhaps the younger athlete can slow down less in the marathon in relation to the half, for example, or to put it another way, that the speed decay ratio will be lowered in the younger athlete, this is seemingly counter-intuitive, and yet the jury is still out, and you may be proven correct, but I wouldn't assume this in advance...In other words, most athletes seem to run better in shorter distances relative to longer distances when they are younger (I mean as opposed to when they are older, not in relation to a slow-twitch, fast-twitch muscle fiber composition aspect), so it would be interesting if this ratio can be lowered in the younger athlete...

How many young people train at the same volume as older people?

Again, for understanding if we can change the methodology in order to reach THE BEST PERSONAL POSSIBLE RESULT, we can't compare the result of Haile with the results of other athletes. The individual talent has still a fundamental role, and of course if a young athlete is very much weaker than Haile, also moving to marathon in his prime doesn't allow him in running faster than Gebre.

What I want to try to do, how I expalined before, is to reduce the index of specific marathon endurance from 5% to 4%. If we see that, with something new in training, this is possible, it means that a young Gebre, moving to marathon when able running under 59' in HM, could run the full marathon under 2:03:00. This is my point, and is what I hope possible to show in short time.

Thankyou very much for all your contributions Renato,its great you take the time to help all of us despite constant sniping.was surprised you thought when haile set the record he wasn't under 59 HM shape as he ran 59.30 last October 2010 at the great north run solo from 5k onwards!

Coach Canova all good points but I must beg to differ with you; if you remember both P.Tergat & H.Geb were slow to get up to their performances when they came from their best half-marathon, I think 59.16 & 58:55 respectively. Why did take as long as it did for the both of them to reach the top in the marathon? Was it a total lack of marathon specific & specialized training? It's as if they needed to de-tune their motors to last at pace although they were younger & had peaked at half the distance. I would say they were better after they no longer had the speed or edge on the track. Does this not throw a wrench in your therory? Best regards.

Espresso wrote:

Coach Canova all good points but I must beg to differ with you; if you remember both P.Tergat & H.Geb were slow to get up to their performances when they came from their best half-marathon, I think 59.16 & 58:55 respectively. Why did take as long as it did for the both of them to reach the top in the marathon? Was it a total lack of marathon specific & specialized training? It's as if they needed to de-tune their motors to last at pace although they were younger & had peaked at half the distance. I would say they were better after they no longer had the speed or edge on the track. Does this not throw a wrench in your therory? Best regards.

No, because Renato is trying to improve the percentage of resistance to the marathon, from 5% to 4%, while at the same time retaining and improving the speed of the 10k and halfmarathon. As he said, this is something new. The percentages have been done for shorter distances but not for the marathon. For example 26:17 / 13:27 / 2 = a 4% difference.

The old way was to either get slower as you said and run harder over distance, or else to keep shorter speed and jog a lot for the marathon.

This is not like that and is not the same as before. It is something new, the parts having been done before, but not put together generally as a well known training method for the marathon distance. The faster one can run for the 10k, while effectively training for the marathon, the faster the speed for the marathon.

Whoops I did it again.

26:17 / 12:37 / 2 = a 4% difference.

Currently 58:23 x 2.08 (4 percent increase) = 2:01:26

When the something new puzzle is resolved, then the percentage from HM to FM records can approach the percentage from 5k to 10k.

J.R. wrote:

Currently 58:23 x 2.08 (4 percent increase) = 2:01:26

When the something new puzzle is resolved, then the percentage from HM to FM records can approach the percentage from 5k to 10k.

Yes, except for the fact that this "something new" is simply wishful thinking...

chet wrote:

Yes, except for the fact that this "something new" is simply wishful thinking...

That's where you have it wrong.

J.R. wrote:

Whoops I did it again.

26:17 / 12:37 / 2 = a 4% difference.

What's your point J.R.?

Do you realize that the difference between the 30,000 WR and the marathon WR is only 1.57%

1.001566 = 19.19/6.58/2

1.125065 = 43.18/19.19/2

1.169639 = 1:41.01/43.18/2

1.087681 = 3:26.0/1:41.01/1.875

1.069587 = 7:20.67/3:26.0/2

1.03118 = 12:37.35/7:20.67/1.78633

1.04148 = 26:17.53/12:37.53/2

1.052523 = 58:23/26:17.53/2.10975

1.045339 = 1:26:47/58:23/1.421969

1.015751 = 2:03:59/1:26:47/1.4065

1.061804 = 2:03:59/58:23/2

The percent is in regards to doubling the distance from HM to marathon.

From the HM to the marathon world record is almost a 6% difference in pace.

But from 5k to the 10k world record is only a 4% difference in pace. At all the distances shorter than the 10k, the percentage increase in pace from 1/2 the distance gets much bigger. For example to 800m from 400m is a 16% increase in pace. So it would seem the difference from HM to the marathon should get smaller then 5k to 10, but instead it increases to almost 6%.

There are some particular problems with the marathon, such as energy supplies and heat, that don't apply as much to shorter distances. Even so, there is the possibility that the marathon record can be much faster than it is.

For this to happen takes new approaches to training than were done in the past.

Do you realize that you are holding up one athlete over two events not a large amount of data with a lot of players as your example??

J.R. wrote:

Currently 58:23 x 2.08 (4 percent increase) = 2:01:26

When the something new puzzle is resolved, then the percentage from HM to FM records can approach the percentage from 5k to 10k.

But that 58.23 time by Taddesse was set in the Lisbon Half Marathon, which is somewhat aided by the downhill nature of the course. So maybe a time of about 30 seconds slower is more realistic for comparison?

So that would be 58.53 x 2.08 = 2.02.28

I think the something new puzzle doesn't exist. What is required is perfect conditions, a fast course, perfect pace, and the runner himself must be having a very good race.

That's why it took Haile so long to run under 2.04, those variables don't come together very often.

Is Florence Kiplagat running 10000 meters in Daegu?