They matter equally for both. When you think of percentage terms, it's all the same. You may think you're improving more with training in longer events but it's not true. A second improvement from 11 to 10 in 100m is almost 9%.
I've been involved in track/XC for 20+ years as an athlete or coach. Each year, I'm astounded at how many runners struggle and fail to hit mediocre times such as a 20 minute 5K despite years of training. High mileage, high intensity, low intensity, small taper, huge taper, healthy eating, none of it works for a lot of folks. Injuries pile up, and even those who don't get injured simply can't sustain a 6 min/mile pace for much longer than a mile regardless of how they train. And those are healthy, non-overweight guys.
Meanwhile, I have never seen a young male runner fail to run a sub 14 100m as long as that person has trained for at least a few months. Out of all those who can't run a sub 14 on their first attempt, about half hit that mark within a few weeks of training, and by the end of their first season, almost everyone is under 13.5. And yet, a 13.99 100m is considered to be more impressive than a 19:59 5K.
The saying that "you can't teach speed" is wrong and should be "you can't teach endurance". Almost anyone can be trained to run fast (not talking about elite-level speed, obviously), but most people can't be trained to run long.
This was kind of the conclusion in the book “Sports Gene”. There are a lot of genes that can effect endurance and the few people that have the really good genes can really dominate.
I would be surprised if thats a demonstrable fact. I would think that genetics plays an equal role in either activity. Personally I could imagine getting my poor 2:40s marathoning down to sub-2:40 with a bit more mileage and racing. But no way no how could I ever get my splay-footed 100 below 12, not even juiced god forbid.
I'm having a hard time contextualizing much of anything on this topic. For one thing, as a former sprinter who still tries to dabble in it in old age, I have no point of reference in comparing a 20 minute 5k with a 14 second 100m. You cited the tables for it....but I'm a bit dubious on that. I fear using the tables for running performances like a 14 second 100m is like using those 100m wind calculators to try to figure out what +5.0 MPS wind translates to in "basic". At a certain point, the formulas get wonky and inapplicable.
Frankly, I can't get over how SLOW a 14.0 100m dash is. From a real sprinters perspective....that's not even sprinting. I dunno if that ruffles feathers or is being a jerk, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that from the sprinting "community". I don't know how paltry a 14 second 100 is compared to a 20min 5k, but to me that isn't a fair comparison; breaking 20 is a more significant achievement than break 14 over 100 meters.
Call me crazy, but I think a mid to high 19 minute 5k is perhaps more comparable to a mid to high 12 second 100m. At least in the context of an adult male population. But I'll admit that maybe I'm way off, too.
As an aside, I've never run a competitive 5k. I ran cross country in middle school when the race distance was supposed to be two miles, and I could break 13 minutes in those races. When they said high school moved up to "3.1 miles" I said "see ya!", but that was beside the point as I was a soccer player, anyway. I also ran a 13.1 hand timed 100m dash as an 11 year old (I think, but maybe I was 12) at a Junior Olympics meet. That was before 7th grade, so before I had run any cross country.
it doesn't take that much work to get close to your peak in sprinting - notice I said close - as it does to get close to your peak in distance. And most people do not want to work that hard.
I know a few 10.x 100m guys who couldn't break 14 at the beginning of their freshman year. This may have been caused more by puberty than by training, but I've seen it happen.
OTOH, I don't know any sub 4:30 milers or sub 4:10 1500 guys who couldn't run a sub 7 mile in their middle school PE/gym class mile. Many of them can take months off and still run a 5:xx mile off the couch, as long as they didn't gain a huge amount of weight.
I know a few 10.x 100m guys who couldn't break 14 at the beginning of their freshman year. This may have been caused more by puberty than by training, but I've seen it happen.
OTOH, I don't know any sub 4:30 milers or sub 4:10 1500 guys who couldn't run a sub 7 mile in their middle school PE/gym class mile. Many of them can take months off and still run a 5:xx mile off the couch, as long as they didn't gain a huge amount of weight.
I know a few 10.x 100m guys who couldn't break 14 at the beginning of their freshman year. This may have been caused more by puberty than by training, but I've seen it happen.
OTOH, I don't know any sub 4:30 milers or sub 4:10 1500 guys who couldn't run a sub 7 mile in their middle school PE/gym class mile. Many of them can take months off and still run a 5:xx mile off the couch, as long as they didn't gain a huge amount of weight.
I've been involved in track/XC for 20+ years as an athlete or coach. Each year, I'm astounded at how many runners struggle and fail to hit mediocre times such as a 20 minute 5K despite years of training. High mileage, high intensity, low intensity, small taper, huge taper, healthy eating, none of it works for a lot of folks. Injuries pile up, and even those who don't get injured simply can't sustain a 6 min/mile pace for much longer than a mile regardless of how they train. And those are healthy, non-overweight guys.
Meanwhile, I have never seen a young male runner fail to run a sub 14 100m as long as that person has trained for at least a few months. Out of all those who can't run a sub 14 on their first attempt, about half hit that mark within a few weeks of training, and by the end of their first season, almost everyone is under 13.5. And yet, a 13.99 100m is considered to be more impressive than a 19:59 5K.
The saying that "you can't teach speed" is wrong and should be "you can't teach endurance". Almost anyone can be trained to run fast (not talking about elite-level speed, obviously), but most people can't be trained to run long.
This was kind of the conclusion in the book “Sports Gene”. There are a lot of genes that can effect endurance and the few people that have the really good genes can really dominate.
I'm kind of surprised at the down votes, have you guys read the book? There are 3-4 chapters about distance running and cross country skiing, which are all relevant to this discussion. I think one of the chapters was specifically about Jim Ryan. There are literally people walking around with elite level VO2 maxes with no training! That's cited in the book and is 100% genetic. There are people like Jim Ryan that can reach elite levels of fitness after a short period of training, essentially super-responders. Good book, it's probably due for an update I'm sure there's even more research out now.
Yes. Exactly. It implies a lack of understanding of sprinting to the point that whatever argument trying to be made about genetics and performance equivalencies is not remotely based on logic or understanding of the sprint discipline.
I suppose it's pedantic to point out that the implication of the 10.x is probably more typically (and accurately) described as "sub 11". And that description is usually reserved for people in the 10.9x/10.8x range, who have either reached their "generic" limit (as it were), or are early in their development and recently crossed that threshold (but are likely improving well beyond that shortly). 10.6 and under guys aren't really "sub 11" folk because that doesn't contextualize their performance well enough any longer.
Having said all that, I find it hard to believe that even a high school senior who is barely scrapping under 11 on a hand time wasn't capable of breaking 14 as a freshman....unless the reason they didn't break 14 as a freshman was simply because they didn't RUN as a freshman and had no result at all (or something of the like).
Sprinting can be improved easier than distance running. It doesn't seem that way because most of us are thinking in the context of CONTRIBUTING to a HS XC/TF team.
Mediocre sprinters do not contribute. Straight up NOT GOOD distance runners are often ALREADY in the top 7 of their XC team. Improvement of a guy from 20 minutes to 19 minutes can win you meets in XC. 14 second 100m to 13 second 100m goes from scoring 0 points to... scoring 0 points.
It's more correct to say physiology matters in ALL sports. There is also a mental component that is often overlooked. Some people have exceptional physiology but don't care that much about competing or training at the necessary level. Physiology, desire to train/compete, and sound training methods are the intersection where athletes excel. It's common to have two out of the three and rare to have all three matched along with the athlete's optimal event. That's why there are many who try but few who succeed.
This thread is based on a seriously flawed comparison.
Sub 14 is much easier than sub 20.
I am 52 years old. I was a terrible sprinter.
I can still run sub 14 without any specific sprint training.
No specific distance training... I am running a 25 minute 5k. And I was always a distance guy.
13.99 = 46% slower than the WR
19:59 = 59% slower than the track WR, 56% slower than the road WR.
Sub 14 is a better time, and you're absolutely correct that it's easier. That's the whole point of this thread. Many people can be good at sprinting, but only a tiny fraction have the genetics to be good at distance running.
This thread is based on a seriously flawed comparison.
Sub 14 is much easier than sub 20.
I am 52 years old. I was a terrible sprinter.
I can still run sub 14 without any specific sprint training.
No specific distance training... I am running a 25 minute 5k. And I was always a distance guy.
YES. And that goes to the heart of what the post above you says about "who's contributing in the XC/TF team". A 19/20 5k is NOT equal to a 14/13 100m guy. I think the comparison is closer to high/mid 12s.
To the "contribution" argument, it's still highly unlikely that a 12.5 guy can score you points in high school in a 100. However, in a crummy dual meet in the middle of no where? Something even in the 12s can might get you a point or two. So that renders that critique void as far as I can tell.
This whole debate needs to be reset as saying "a 20 minute 5k is equal to a 12.5 100m, and not a "flying" 100, either, but from the blocks in reaction to a gun". From THAT point of contention, make your arguments about this "genetics" bologna. Annnnd, GO.
This thread is based on a seriously flawed comparison.
Sub 14 is much easier than sub 20.
I am 52 years old. I was a terrible sprinter.
I can still run sub 14 without any specific sprint training.
No specific distance training... I am running a 25 minute 5k. And I was always a distance guy.
13.99 = 46% slower than the WR
19:59 = 59% slower than the track WR, 56% slower than the road WR.
Sub 14 is a better time, and you're absolutely correct that it's easier. That's the whole point of this thread. Many people can be good at sprinting, but only a tiny fraction have the genetics to be good at distance running.
That is not a point of reference. The times and distances skew those percentages. You can't go based on that at ALL. Come on, use some logic here.
I would be surprised if thats a demonstrable fact. I would think that genetics plays an equal role in either activity. Personally I could imagine getting my poor 2:40s marathoning down to sub-2:40 with a bit more mileage and racing. But no way no how could I ever get my splay-footed 100 below 12, not even juiced god forbid.
I've run under 12 in the 100m a few times. It wasn't easy, but I did it.
Now let's say you were to give me Alphaflys, an altitude tent, EPO, and a $1 million prize for breaking 2:40 in the 'thon. Could I do it? Hell no, I'm not sure I could even break 3 if my life depended on it.