does anybody have absolutey no speed whatsoever but still run well at longer distances?

All right. I'm calling BS on everyone who answered yes to this question. There is no way you can run under 15 in a 5k and can't go all out and race a 400 under 60.

Here's where I think people are mistaken

1. They take there 400m split from a race there sophomore year in high school when they were considerably less developed or there fastest 400m rep in practice. (The qualification is that you can't break 60 in the 400, not that you haven't done it before!!!!!)

Some nut even stated their coach ran 3:52 for a 1500 without running under 60. UMMM.... how coud you average 62.0 seconds per lap for 3.75 laps without having the ability to run one lap under 60? I call BS on this one and all the other 14:2x or 14:3x marks.

C O A C H wrote:

Alberto Salazar ran between 50 seconds and 60 seconds for 400m, and it was a lot closer to 60 than 50.

Geb ran between 40 seconds and 70 seconds for 400m.

Runningart2004 wrote:

The distance runner who runs a sub 15:00 5k yet can barely break 60 for the 400m likely can barely break 15 for the open 100m. This runner likely runs a 400m very evenly: 15, 14, 14, 14. His lack of speed is likely the reason why he is so good at the 5k-marathon. If he had better speed, his endurance would likely be worse.

This is a really good point. I ran 51.7 for the 400 when I was 20, but at age 30 training for the marathon could barely break 60 flat out and felt my limitation was speed. Several times I ran 100's with flying starts, trying to improve my speed, and was barely able to get in 14's.

Buddy Edelen said he was only able to run 55 for 400, broke 2:00 for 800 only once, yet ran 28:28 for 6 miles, a WR for the marathon 2:14 and was international cross country champion. Going along with what Art said above, Edelen ran a series of ~45x 110 every week and considered this a very important part of his training, not to improve his peak speed, but to carry on the speed that he had over distance.

By the way, I have many running books, and Edelen's "A Cold Clear Day" written by Frank Murphy, is my favorite.

I'm not talking about the ability to run very fast over 400m. I'm talking about the ability to put up a decent 400m. I'm talking about the types of guys who run 60/2:06/4:25. Better as the distance goes up, but where will the extra improvement come from? Better endurance? I doubt it. I agree that if you take a huge sample size, the best 400m guys will not be the best marathoners. But will the slowest 400m guys be the best marathoners? No.

I agree with that finishing an effort at close to max speed is a product of endurance (greater endurance=greater % of max speed attained at the end of a race), but there comes a point where your endurance is nearly maximized and diminishing returns set in. Then the only thing to do is work on speed (which doesn't have to mean sacrificing much endurance if done the right way)

No, the ability to close a race fast does have a lot to do with speed. It has more to do with who is less tired with 200 to go, but if both are equally fresh (or equally tired)the person with more speed will likely win. It's not just about energy systems, it's about mechanics as well. Have you seen Gebreselassies 10000m WC wins? Closing in 24high is a product of his endurance, yes, but if you think speed has "absolutely nothing to do with it" then that is just crazy. What if there was a guy next to him who was completely fresh but only had 27 second speed? I don't see him winning...

Why can't speed be improved without sacrificing endurance? You emphasize this whenever it comes up, but I think you overemphasize it. Raw speed can be improved at the same time as endurance for most people. I could see this being argued for someone already performing at a high level at both (Alan Webb for instance) but for someone who has 60 second 400m speed? I doubt spending a couple days a week on short hill sprints, weights for the core/glute/quad/hamstring muscles, and maybe pylos will cause a great decrease in endurance as long as mileage is kept up. Endurance has to do with the heart muscle, speed has to do with the specific leg muscle power and correct muscle firing patterns. The only overlap between speed and endurance are

fast twitch/slow twitch fiber changes

changes in morphology, particularly upper body muscle

the first could be a factor, but the second is avoidable if mileage is kept up

What does being genetically gifted have anything to do with being able to run both a good 1500 and a good marathon relative to each other? Just because someone is slower doesn't mean they can't follow the same training principles that elites do and achieve success at a variety of distances.

The majority of people fall along a single line in this table. Gebreselassie is about at the 82/83 level (ignore the 5k and 10k numbers, no way 12:37/26:17=7:14 and 2:01:10)...just because someone is slower doesn't mean they can't have both speed and endurance.

You still don't get it. I'm not saying improving speed isn't about improving endurance. It's about giving your endurance something to work off of. If you improve your speed by a lot and sacrifice a little endurance then your are probably still faster. 60X110% is still slower then 55X112%-even though 110% is better endurance (the ability to endure at a submaximal pace)

Funny you should mention Bekele. The Ethiopians finish most workouts with either short hill sprints or 50m sprints on the track in spikes. They realize the benefits of sprinting speed. Haile Gebreselassie has maintained some presence on the track even while focusing on the marathon, and in his day did 150m sprints regularly. The speed training clearly has effected their endurance, right? So no, we can't all be Kenenisa, we can't all be Haile, but a lack of genetic ability is a poor excuse for a bad training method.

*Affected

also, to answer the original question, yes it is possible to run well at longer distances without focusing on speed, but you will probably not run to your potential without at least a little bit of shorter stuff-pure speed is one of those things where a little can go a long way.

How fast could Dibaba or Defar run in an open 400m?

55-something.

slow and low wrote:

my prs:

400m: 61

800m: 2:09

1500m: 4:06

Mile: 4:24

3k: 8:30

5k: 14:53

10k: 30:45

1/2: 69:35

marathon: 2:26

400m speed is overrated and really not THAT big a factor in running fast at longer distances. obviously if you are someone like Alan Webb and can run 46point, it makes running a 10k at 65's more comfortable, but some guys can run closer to their all-out speed for a long way.

Says someone who clearly has never run at truly high level meets. Even in the NCAA you have to be fast.

runchi wrote:

I have never broken 60 (maybe could come close) but at the end of last year I was running 14:45 for the 5k after a 2:23 marathon.

Wow! You telling the truth there? I pretty much figured anyone who could break 10 minutes even for 2 miles would be able to run sub 60 for 400 meters.

Ah yes...but there is typically an inverse relationship between speed development and endurance development. Most of the improvements in 400m time for distance runners comes from endurance, not speed.

Alan

50m sprints or hills with jogging rest....Lydiard's 50/50 or 100/100 drills....What is the limiting factor of performance in these workouts? Endurance.

These workouts help to improve your mechanical effeciency, but I bet Bekele as well as other elites run the 100m dash as fast today as they did when they were teenagers. Minor improvements will come in tersm of machanical effeciency...but at 100m those improvements are hard to detect. Over 400m improved muscular/mechanical effeciency will help you sustain speed much better...hence why a typically high school distance runner could see his 400m time drop by 5 seconds over 4 years while his 100m doesn't drop at all.

Unless you're resting 90s - 3:00 between efforts you really aren't training speed. It typically will take around 90s to restore ATP and will take around 3:00 to restore your CNS.

Alan

resting 90s to 3 mins is exactly what he is talking about. lydiard's 50/50 drill is a max lactate workout, doing 50m sprints with long recovery or hill sprints with long recovery is working on your ability to run fast and will not have a negative effect on endurance. He has Marathon runners doing all out hill sprints a couple times a week in preparation to run a marathon. This is a workout for your nervous system so you can learn to to recruit a large percentage of your fibers which most long distance runners cannot do.

Renato quote below.

"It's of sure accettable to put sprints after a workout, but my advice is not to use this system like normal system of training. I prefer to put sprints uphill after long run (after aerobic training, not involving too much fast fibres) also if some time I put sets of very short sprints (for example, 6 x 60m uphill) between one interval and another, when I go for long intervals (4 x 3000m + 1 x 1000m with 6 x 60m sprints among each one).

Anyway, everything is possible. The most important thing is to think that is important what you do, not what you don't do. So, respecting a good balance in training, you can use the biggest percentage of training in aerobic way, because the intensity is lower and you don't need long recovery, and, when intensity is higher, you can reduce the number of workouts. Training is like a pyramid, the big base is aerobic, then, increasing the speed, you go for less time and have to use with less frequency this type of workouts. Different is the situation of short sprints, that, not provoking high lactate, have only a neuromuscolar mean. You can go often for this type of workout, without any problem and without any interference with other type of training. This is the main type of training for the biomechanical system of an athlete, but don't forget that the endurance (specific or general) is something regarding the bioenergetical and enzymatic system."

faster than you think wrote:

They think that not having a fast 400 pr makes them seem like they're doing more with less, and it's a weird source of pride.

Exactly what I think. I'm sure there ARE people with eye popping slow 400's, but most examples you see take it with a grain of salt. Most of these guys haven't really tried to go faster. Trust me if I lit an actual fire in their pants and they had to finish that 400 to dunk their flaming behind in water.

well dueche, that's not at all what the OP was about. Read the initial post and answer the question.Oh, and how many Olympic finals have you made?

not true at all wrote:

you are mediocre D2 college runner, and you are saying that 400m speed isnt important? I hope you arent trying to use your times to support your claim because if anything you are doing just the opposite. If you want to be successful at any track event(marathon doesnt count) then you need to be able to run low 50's for 400. Every guy on the medal stands at the Olympics can run 52 and under for a 400. Every miler in the finals of the olympics can break 50. The top 10 guys in the 5k can all run 150 or so in the 800. If you dont have speed, you are not going to ever be competitive on the track, because you cant win without it.

As the other poster said, I am talking about full recovery...why wouldn't I be?

Bekele probably runs the 100m dash within a few tenths of a second of what he could do as a 17-18 year old, but he still works on speed-to MAINTAIN it! If he didn't do sprints on the track or on the hills I'm sure his 100m time (and fantastic kick) will have slowed. Pure speedwork for someone who already has good speed and good mechanics like Bekele is mostly for maintenance purposes. For someone who has bad speed and bad mechanics, pure speed can help a lot. You say that endurance work compromises speed and power-so doesn't that make it that much more important to try and maintain it as much as possible?

From a post (worth reading the entire thing) from this thread:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=162612

"The point is, I can think of a number of reasons why you might not be able to run fast. I would figure it out pretty quick if I could observe you, but? without that, here?s some possibilities:

1. You run like a marathon dude on your heels and have no idea how to get up on the balls of your feet and sprint. (Someone already suggested you work with a sprint coach)

2. Your leg muscles are weak and you run from your knees, not from your hips. (A good coach would confirm this, and you might need some weight work to strengthen your legs (esp: hip extensors) and some drills to improve your coordination. Even better, malmo?s ?heels? which do a pretty good job of combining all these.)

3. Your ?style? is horrendous, arms and legs everywhichway? (weeks and weeks or malmo?s ?heeels? and coordination drills with someone observing/videoing before slowly trying to transfer this into faster running on the track)

4. You haven?t a fast twitch fibre in your body (you say otherwise, without saying how you are so sure)."

As Canova says, always ADD, never replace. Just because you are reading the speed manual doesn't mean you have to put the endurance book back on the shelf.

the rocket wrote:

All right. I'm calling BS on everyone who answered yes to this question. There is no way you can run under 15 in a 5k and can't go all out and race a 400 under 60.

Then maybe you'll call double BS on me. I ran 14:57 for 5K, and never broke 30 for 200 meters. And believe me, I tried.

you must be the most unathletic person ever AND never trained speed...I know moderately athletic fat guys who have never train that could run 30 seconds for 200m.

Runningart2004 wrote:

The distance runner who runs a sub 15:00 5k yet can barely break 60 for the 400m likely can barely break 15 for the open 100m.

That is awesome! Me and most of my non-running snot nosed friends could break 15 in our sleep. I guess it is true soon as you move up in distance you slow down on the shorter stuff.

Purely a coincidence that Geb can run a fast 1500?

You are having an off day there, Art.

You can regenerate all the ATP you want, nobody has any endurance at a pace they can't hit.