Which is easier, getting a sprinter to become an OK distance runner, or getting a distance runner to become an OK sprinter?

Can a Kenyan Marathon Runner run sprints? Sure, but not built for it

Can Usain Bolt run a marathon? More difficult, but possible

Both are equally impossible.

I think the sprinter -> distance runner conversion is way easier than vice versa. Didn't Obea Moore run a sub 4:30 1600 without any distance training? If he can do it, I bet there are tons of 11 flat 100 specialists that could do the sub 5 1500 off a few months of moderately high mileage.

The other way around might be impossible. Mo Farah only ran 12.98, and he's a lot faster than a 30 minute 10K guy.

EPO > talent > training wrote:

I think the sprinter -> distance runner conversion is way easier than vice versa. Didn't Obea Moore run a sub 4:30 1600 without any distance training? If he can do it, I bet there are tons of 11 flat 100 specialists that could do the sub 5 1500 off a few months of moderately high mileage.

The other way around might be impossible. Mo Farah only ran 12.98, and he's a lot faster than a 30 minute 10K guy.

Is a sub 5 any better than a 12:98?

No question that a distance guy can’t sprint. After all, that’s why they became distance guys in the first place.

Sub 12.5 in the 100 is harder than sub 5 in the 1500.

The sprinter can succeed but won't try. The distance runner will try but won't succeed.

Of course a 30:00 guy can run 12.5 for a FAT 100m. To run 30:00 you need to be reasonably fast anyway (14:20, 8:20, 3:55 at 5000m, 3000m and 1500m most likely). After a couple practice with starting blocks and sprint workouts he should be able to do it.

12.5 is a lot better than sub 5 I think. Any reasonable healthy male that is willing to train can run sub 5 in my opinion.

An endurance based guy will have more relative success at sprint than vice versa. But each of them will be crushed by a specialist, no doubt. Imagine Bekele at a 100m Olympic final or Michael Johnson in the Olympic 10km.

KipChode wrote:

Both are equally impossible.

Doubt it. While not common, there are still quite a few decathletes who've run sub 5, and this is after doing 9 other events. They may not be pure 100 guys, but their training is a lot more sprint-oriented than distance-oriented.

I'll take a wild stab at this and say that the 11 flat sprinter needs half a year of distance training to crack 5. The 30 flat 10K guy will get sub 12.5 after a month of sprint and block training.

sub 5 1500 is not equivalent to sub 12.5 100m.

more like sub 4 minutes.

according to usatf decathlon scoring calculator

12.5 100 is 556 pts

5:00 1500 is 560 pts.

So the sub 5 1500 is very slightly more difficult to achieve.

i think it is much harder to get a sprinter to run sub 5 1500. The reason is not so much physiological but psychological. They would not want to do the training.

But there are some distance runners who have great endurance but do not have any fast twitch fibers. Physiologically they

just can't go sub 12.5.

I believe you can convert fast twitch to slow twitch but doing the reverse is much more difficult if not impossible.

Rockstar Games wrote:

An endurance based guy will have more relative success at sprint than vice versa. But each of them will be crushed by a specialist, no doubt. Imagine Bekele at a 100m Olympic final or Michael Johnson in the Olympic 10km.

Put Bekele on Bolt's back in a 100, and he'll run 13 flat.

Put Bolt on Bekele's back in a 100, and he'll run 13 steps.

The challenge is getting the sprinters to do distance training. Trying to get the 200/400 guys to do 2 mile "long runs" in the off season is like herding cats. I don't even want to imagine what would happen if you tried to get a pure 60/100 sprinter to train for the 1500.

With that said, if there was a few million bucks on the line, almost all of the 11 flat sprinters will be running sub 5 within three months. I don't think that more than half of the 30 min. 10K distance guys would be able to go sub 12.5 within that timeframe.

One thing many people fail to understand is that individuals who are talented at one thing are often talented at many things—especially athletes. People like Mo Farah are incredibly athletic, and would perform well in a variety of sports. If someone like him really tried to hammer out the 100m, he would be able to run better than 99.9% of the planet. He might not be winning anything at the professional level but he would still be extremely good at it.

However, the question is more about who would do better in a different discipline. An elite distance runner could still probably be in the top 99% of sprinters on the planet. I have extreme doubts that the same could be said about a large, powerful, pure 100m specialist.

this and this wrote:

I believe you can convert fast twitch to slow twitch but doing the reverse is much more difficult if not impossible.

Do you also believe you have a static number of muscle fibers, with none being created or destroyed?

Muscle fiber type has little or nothing to do with achieving a time as pedestrian as 12.50 anyhow. It's almost all form and learning to run with higher cadence and a more open stride and higher leg speed at footstrike. Leg speed meaning the foot has to be moving faster relative to the center of mass at footstrike to be at rest relative to the ground. Distance runners don't understand this and are limited by braking forces.

this and this wrote:

according to usatf decathlon scoring calculator

12.5 100 is 556 pts

5:00 1500 is 560 pts.

So the sub 5 1500 is very slightly more difficult to achieve.

i think it is much harder to get a sprinter to run sub 5 1500. The reason is not so much physiological but psychological. They would not want to do the training.

But there are some distance runners who have great endurance but do not have any fast twitch fibers. Physiologically they

just can't go sub 12.5.

I believe you can convert fast twitch to slow twitch but doing the reverse is much more difficult if not impossible.

The decathlon tables arent a good indication of relative difficulty. There is a seperate IAAF points list for that specific purpose.

The original points charts for the decathlon set the 1000 points level for each event at the (at the time) world record. A slope was then chosen based on the subjective beliefs of a committee, not in an attempt to make each event equal at any points level other than 1000. These lines dont go through "the origin" on a graph. This has since defined the event and is the framework for how decathletes go about choosing what sort of training to pursue to maximize their points.

By contrast, the iaaf scoring was set up as an attempt to make 400, 600, 800, or any other points level "equal" in each event. There is of course some arguments to be made as to whether the formulas and actuarial tables used are perfect, but that is the underlying objective. These are updated periodically.

My point is, if you want to compare 5 flat and 12.5, the IAAF charts are what you shouls go to, not the decathlon charts.

IAAF scoring tables put a 12.5 at 895 points, and a 4:59.97 1500 at 772, so it would appear that the 1500 is "easier". A 1500 worth 895 points is a 4:41.56.

a guy capable of running 30:00 for 10k (100 x 100m in 18s with zero recovery) will also be able to run a very respectable 1500m. James Wilkinson (Leeds City) ran 30:05 and 3:45.7; Spencer Barden (Belgrave) ran 30:14.1 and 3:39.6, Rod Finch (Southampton RC) ran 30:52.9 and 3:38.0, Colin Reitz (Newham & Essex Beagles) ran 30:56.4 and 3:37.5. all four men also ran under 1:51 for 800m. of the UK athletes who have run 30:xx for 10k the SLOWEST 1500m is 3:51.6 (Chris Buckley of Westbury). so a 30:00 10k guy can already run 15 x 100m in 14.5s with zero recovery. it would not take these guys very long at all to go sub 12.5 and some of them will already be very close to it.

the hard part would be getting a sprinter to understand the concept of "lap".

cheers.

Bad Wigins wrote:

this and this wrote:

I believe you can convert fast twitch to slow twitch but doing the reverse is much more difficult if not impossible.

Do you also believe you have a static number of muscle fibers, with none being created or destroyed?

Muscle fiber type has little or nothing to do with achieving a time as pedestrian as 12.50 anyhow. It's almost all form and learning to run with higher cadence and a more open stride and higher leg speed at footstrike. Leg speed meaning the foot has to be moving faster relative to the center of mass at footstrike to be at rest relative to the ground. Distance runners don't understand this and are limited by braking forces.

Link to your sub 12:50?

1/10 btw

this and this wrote:

I believe you can convert fast twitch to slow twitch but doing the reverse is much more difficult if not impossible.

^ this. An elite sprinter cannot be made into an elite distance runner but will still have a better shot moving up than pure distance runner will moving down into the sprints.

As a distance runner I believe you can workout and get more explosive through hypertrophy or converting IIa and IIx fibers.

My vert started at 19 inches with a max vert of 24 after a year of lifting and plyos it got to 29.5 and 34 respectively. I think you could apply this to 100 meter performance as well.

I'd be shocked if 100% of distance runners couldn't run 12.5 after a year of explosive/power training.