What I heard today: "Cross Country Kills Speed."

Pure XC does kill speed. There is no doubt about that. But if you have the right mix you can maintain and then come track season move away from the mileage.

There is a reason there are no sub 45 second guys who have also run sub 13:30

Generally speaking, I don't think there is any doubt that cross country builds strength, and contributes to the aerobic base of a competitive mid or distance track runner.

The problem I see with your average high school kid is that many who run, and contribute in some way to their cross country team, are simply non-competitive on the track. It may be that cross country is an easier environment to remain fairly anonymous in the masses of the pack, and these types just don't like getting outed on the track with fewer participants per heat, who knows.

I also find that runners who gravitate more to the cross country side of the house, also, generally again, like to concentrate on the 3200 in hs, and stay away from the mile or 800 like the plague. I know a kid in our area who was 2nd at state in xc as a freshman, but hadn't broken 4:40 in the mile as a sophomore, because he concentrated on the 3200 in track. Doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think xc "ruins" speed, but it appears to change the mindset of a certain sector of the participants to stick to the longer track races, staying in that comfort pace range, instead of mixing it up more in track.

more like speed kills cross country, ya thats right

he sayed what wrote:

There is a reason there are no sub 45 second guys who have also run sub 13:30

I bet Cruz or Coe could have. Anyone else?

its like this wrote:

It's the classic chicken and egg debate.

I was at a farm and noticed an egg lying on the ground when, lo and behold, a chicken ran up and actually started having sex with the egg! This lasted for only a few seconds before the chicken stopped and fell asleep next to the egg. I said to myself, "Well, I guess that answers that question."

In my opinion cross country doesn´t make you slower....maybe you loose your specific speed in case of you training for cross. If you want to run cross, the speed is not important. Only the specific strength and a high mileage for cross is important.

Would this be a truism for most high-school runners: Year-round speed ends up killing speed, ie no periodization.

he sayed what wrote:

There is a reason there are no sub 45 second guys who have also run sub 13:30

And that would be because the fibre types necessary to run inside 45 seconds for 400m aren't conducive to running 13:30 for 5000m, and having nothing to do with the training involved.

Bud Winter the San Jose State Coach in the era of "Speed City" used to have Lee Evans and Tommie Smith run cross country. It was only four miles in those days (or at least that's what the raced) and Lee was quoted as saying, "I hated Bud during cross country but I loved him during track", Lee ran 43.8 and Tommie 19.87 both gold medalist in the 68 Olympics. Speed kills, only those that don't have any!!!

mathematician wrote:

he sayed what wrote:

There is a reason there are no sub 45 second guys who have also run sub 13:30

I bet Cruz or Coe could have. Anyone else?

I was thinking of Coe. Quite likely could have run 13:30, but not sure about 45. Think about it. Only 12 men in the UK have broken 45 (all 400 specialists except Akabusi who ran 400 hurdles). Has any middle distance runner broken 45 beside Juanterana? Who has run 13:30 and also done a decent 800? Ovett, Aouita, El G.

Also bear in mind to run 45 and 13:30 in one season is much more difficult than over the course of a career. Probably Ovett would have had the best chance - he ran 47 as a junior, before cross country killed his speed!

MD runners need to work on both explosive speed and over-distance strength. But you have a lot more room for improvement with over-distance strength. Pretty much all the best MD runners have significant periods of distance work that de-emphasizes speed: they lose speed in the short term, but get it back later.

There really isn't room for debate about this for milers. But even 800 guys run cross. Nick Symmonds ran cross throughout high school and college, winning state twice in high school and leading his team at DIII nationals his senior year in college. The following spring, he won DIII nationals 800 and 1500, and then took second in the 800 at U.S. Nationals. He's not still running cross because he's simply not competitive at the professional level, but he still does significant base mileage in the fall, of which he said, "I’ve said before that I truly believe this is where an athlete makes much of their progress. The stronger I become this fall the more speed work Ill be able to put in the spring as well as providing me the fitness to extend my outdoor season well into the summer."

That is probably one of the dumbest statements I've heard from a coach. Many college coaches have their mid distance guys and girls do cross to build strength that will end up helping them on the track. For example a guy I raced against in HS ran the 400m and 800m. His fastest 400 was like 51,50 and he never did XC until his coach in college made him do cross country to build strength and that man is now running 46,47.

I mean even look at a lot of the most respected college coaches and you will notice they all of there guys and girls do XC even if it isn't there speacialty because it will help them when track comes along because they are building a solid and gaining a lot of strength from XC that coaches can use to build off of when it comes time to run on the track.

Look at the example of Sergey Lebid, is a great XC runner but doesn't do so well on the track.

Cross Country has its pros and cons, training specifically for it builds strenght, endurance, mental toughness, etc, but it may kill the speed and form that's necessary for running fast track times.

Distance athletes should run Cross Country, but if they want to be good at track events they can't afford to lose their speed. It's wise to run some fast strides on a leveled surface during Cross Country season to keep up with your speed and form required for track and road racing.

Matlock, why are you speaking about something you don't know ? I was the coach of Sergey Lebid from 2000 till 2004. He always was not interested in the track season, because, winning European CC Championships, could have a long part of season in cross with very good appearance and big economic advantages, due to the system that there is in Europe about the cross season. He always was in top shape during the period November - December - January, facing Kenyans that, in that period, were at 70% of their shape, and for that reason was able to win many international cross beating African runners.

Only one year we tried to prepare track, and he at the end of the season was n. 1 in the World in 3000m (7:35) and was 2nd in 5000m in Berlin meeting (13:11).

The reality is very much different : cross doesn't kill speed, and speed doesn't kill cross. In training, the only way to lose what you have is.... not to train the quality. This means that, if you run 30 km fast, but every week you go for two sessions of short sprint uphill, and speed on track, YOU CAN MAINTAIN YOUR SPEED INCREASING YOUR SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE.

All my athletes, increasing the volume of LONG FAST RUN and LONG INTERVALS (effect : improvement of Aerobic Power, or, if you prefer, of your Lactic Threshold), going to longer distances, when try some short distance are able to improve their PB or, if this is old, to maintain the same level.

At the end, the philosophy is easy : IN TRAINING YOU LOSE WHAT YOU DON'T TRAIN.

We need to ADD what we don't do, not TO REPLACE WHAT WE DO.

ciego no más wrote:

he sayed what wrote:

There is a reason there are no sub 45 second guys who have also run sub 13:30

And that would be because the fibre types necessary to run inside 45 seconds for 400m aren't conducive to running 13:30 for 5000m, and having nothing to do with the training involved.

EXACTLY. There is really nothing else to say.

I few years back I was training for cross nationals and decided to stay away from the track. I did all my workouts on trails and grassy fields. I did however do a indoor 3k befor cross nationals and I was really surprised how easy it actually felt to go through the mile in 4.15 or 4.16 (ran 7.58)

wellok wrote:

ciego no más wrote:

And that would be because the fibre types necessary to run inside 45 seconds for 400m aren't conducive to running 13:30 for 5000m, and having nothing to do with the training involved.

EXACTLY. There is really nothing else to say.

Coe. Cruz. Webb. and now Rudisha.

the scheduling is also completely different for pros than american high schoolers (ie xc ends in november instead of march)

Renato Canova wrote:

Matlock, why are you speaking about something you don't know ? I was the coach of Sergey Lebid from 2000 till 2004. .

I've never, ever typed this before....but....matlock got pwned.

As far as the current debate goes. I had a girl who ran 400/800 in track. She was average, with 62/2:37 PR's. She ran cross as a junior and in her junior year of track dropped to 61/2:26. Of course, she was also much improved at the 1600, but rarely ran it. If xc kills speed, why did her 400 improve?