cooptastic wrote:
If you don't see differences in efficiency, running form, strength, and other areas between world class men and women, then you need to get your eyes checked.
Who are you watching? Have you ever seen Tirunesh Dibaba or Meseret Defar glide along the track, or watch them turn on their kick? It's as impressive as any man.
Effort is Effort,
You hit the nail on the head. The reason that elites are able to recovery is because of their efficiency. As an elite runner for 16 years now, I am just beginning to understand why and how I have had efficiency in my own running career thus far and how to improve it in the future. This is an aspect that very few runners grasp. There are many factors involved with creating the efficiency with which one can have, but it starts with a mental and visual mindset that allows it to happen. Regardless, of our genetic make-up we can all acheive a better efficiency than we have currently.
Jeremy- (
)
Jhuffman wrote:
As an elite runner for 16 years now
Bold claim to make!
Tage,
You got me, I have only been at the elite level for around 8 years. What I intended to say was that I have been running competitively for 16 years, as well as have run elite times. Atleast some people actually read my posts. Thanks!
Jeremy-(
)
During the begining of a season when I am not as fit a run a 4mi race I have to make sure that I am not hurting at all the first 1.5 to 2 miles of the race or I will burn out before the end. Towards the end of the season I can give a stronger effort for a longer period of time before tying up. So when I run a pr at the end of the season I think it hurt alot more than when I would bonk at the begining of the season.
I think it depends on one's level of conditioning.
A miler who is running at the top of his conditioning, and who is in reality a 4:20 miler, may experience this as relatively easy. Same with a 3:57 miler.
I know this from personal experience. When I was 18 years old I broke my own PR by ten seconds in the mile and ran a 4:09.5. I was barely winded afterwards, felt fantastic, legs full of life. In all the best races I ever ran I finished feeling good, although I had run as hard as I could.
At an even higher level, you see this in the top East African runners. It's always been astonishing to me to see sub-3:50 miles where the runner breaks the tape, barely out of breath, walks a few steps, then starts jogging his recovery lap. THIS may not be the same for someone who's PR-ing at 4:20. But level of conditioning vis. one's potential ultimate performance is the key thing.
Of course the 3:57 miler is probably in better shape than the 4:20 miler. But my (slightly windy) point is made.
Can we be real here for a second or is that asking too much? Ok. A 3:57 miler is obviously working much harder than a 4:20 miler and I'm 110% positive that he simply gives that much more effort in a race. Furthermore, running a sub-4:00 mile is something special that most of you people only dream about but will never get to experience. When you run sub-4:00 you're all like 'holy shit i just accomplished something that most letsrun posters only dream about' but when you run 4:20 your all 'well i suck i guess ill go continue sleepwalking through my mediocre life'... You get the idea. Nobodies.
Dick Devos wrote:
Can we be real here for a second or is that asking too much? Ok. A 3:57 miler is obviously working much harder than a 4:20 miler and I'm 110% positive that he simply gives that much more effort in a race. Furthermore, running a sub-4:00 mile is something special that most of you people only dream about but will never get to experience. When you run sub-4:00 you're all like 'holy shit i just accomplished something that most letsrun posters only dream about' but when you run 4:20 your all 'well i suck i guess ill go continue sleepwalking through my mediocre life'... You get the idea. Nobodies.
So, if the 4:20 miler has a 400m best of 60s and the 3:57 miler has a 400m best of 48, is the 3:57 runner still working harder?
If the aerobic and the anaerobic systems of the 4:20 miler has been woked on as extensively as that of the 3:57 miler then there is a chance that the efforts could feel somewhat similar.
However this is not likely. To run a 3:57 mile one has to do an extraordinary amount of development of the aerobic and anaerobic systems. The 4:20 miler will feel probably worse, because of the lack of this development. The 3:57 miler will also be better mentally prepared because the quantity and quality of work is so much higher. There are also other factors of genetic talent and efficiency that will predispose the 3:57 miler to not be as wasted from the effort
I think the 3:57 miler would feel more discomfort, but not by much. I can't speak for running but I know that they test lactate levels in swimming, and I believe the highest level tested was 22 millimoles, which was Matt Biondi, who just happened to hold about 5 American records at the time. But it wasn't like he was 22 and everybody else in the world is 10. So my opinion is that the world-class guy is hurting just a little bit more.
If you ever read interviews with El G or Lagat or others like them, they will say things like "I tied up the last 40 meters." Yeah, who doesn't? But I think what they are saying that they tied up beyond what most of us are even able to get to.
If a world class marathoner has a superior aerobic system than us mortals, wouldn't it make sense that a world class middle distance runner would have a superior anaerobic system than the rest of us? In other words, that they would be able to create more lactate?
Again, I don't think it is a huge difference. If you put a muscle fiber in a solution that is below a certain pH, it WILL NOT contract, no matter what electrical charge you run through it. So you can only override the lactate level with superior desire/pain tolerance up to a point. After that, you can be sending all of the nerve impulses that you want to the muscles and they are not physiologically capable of contracting.
Sean Nunn