Is a PB in secondary event always significant for the main event ?

Renato Canova wrote:

I'm sure that who well knows the history of athletics is able to give a correct mean to the PB of the athletes.

But, in this site, there are many runners that don't have experience, and look at the official results without interpreting them. Our explanations are for these people.

Vipam, are you paying attention???

A good example of someone with a slow PB in the 400m but excellent results in distance events was Carlos Lopes. A friend of mine who trained with Carlos says that Lopes had a PB of only about 60 seconds for the 400m. His best 10 x 400m workouts were only at 63 seconds with one minute rest, typically 64 seconds. His countryman were more than 10 seconds faster over short distances, but Carlos was with them or ahead of them in races 5km and longer. I will ask my friend what Carlos ran for the mile race and we can determine a correlation between 400m speed and 1500-one mile times for a man who had excellent endurance. Tinman

Tinman wrote:

A good example of someone with a slow PB in the 400m but excellent results in distance events was Carlos Lopes. A friend of mine who trained with Carlos says that Lopes had a PB of only about 60 seconds for the 400m.

i would be absolutely shocked it lopes' pb in the 400 was 60.

sub4fella wrote:

"or even get close"?

Bekele clearly got more speed than Geb, who did 3.31 (without specific training!?).....so I think Kenny is capable of a faster time.

I hope Kenny will run a 1500 this year to prove you wrong :>

3.26 is "only" 55/400 pace, bekele can go sub48/400 for sure.

The only way Bekele could break 48 is on a bicycle.

Jos Hermens listed Geb at 48.9.

My friend stated as such, and he trained with Lopes and Mamede in the 1970s as an elite runner himself. I will know more when my friend replies to my email. Tinman

Renato Canova wrote:

I read in another post regarding Bernard Lagat that someone speaks about doping because "1:46 is to slow for running 3:26".

There are many reasons for PB in different event that seem not to have any relation with the best PB..........

Here we go again, another elaborate explanation of why Lagat is/was not juiced up. Lagat is a cheater, but none of the decision makers care, so let the guy run. The sport is jacked with drugs and the bureaucrats do what they do best, so we are left with a jacked up sport. Lets leave it at that.

Have you not read any of phoenix's detailed information on the subject?

that was Lopes' Road to Success with very little talent, nothing faster than vV02max but very hard aerobic running for years and years and after a long time he had progressed to the top.

trackhead wrote:

Have you not read any of phoenix's detailed information on the subject?

Yeah, I read Phoenix's detailed information. Especially number nine:

9) I do not have any association with Mr. Lagat and have never met him. I hate to see people get ripped when it is not justifiable. Mr. Lagat is well educated and has a lot thing going for him besides track. He is one of the last athletes that would "need" to cheat.

Those last two sentences are pretty naive. Phoenix says to keep an open mind, but his is clearly shut. Quite shocking for a "scientist" to demonstrate reckless bias as indicated by the latter part of the paragraph. Let the data do the talking, nothing more and nothing less.

He also has to use the words:

"If the sample is not treated properly, proteases or other elements will degrade the protein of interest, in this case endogenous (natural) EPO."

and the words:

"If Mr. Lagat's A sample was not properly treated."

And the words:

"The sample was likely treated properly hence there was no decay? (This is a statement for the second sample)

Not such a convincing argument with a bunch of ifs and a few likelys.

Pheonix was not there during the testing, so he needs to use a lot of ifs to back up his argument. Therefore, without arguing about his knowledge of the test, I know that his argument is no better than anyone else making a guess.

A little logic can break down a crappy argument no matter how deeply worded it is.

For example, the PB of Lagat in 800m was at the beginning of the season (also with 13:19 in 5k), when his real value could be about 3:34 in 1500, and he never ran 800 at the top of his shape.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He was almost at the top of his shape and it wasn't at the beginning of the season. So , stop finding escuse.

3:32.99 1 DNG Stockholm 5 Aug

1:46.00 PB 8 ISTAF Berlin 10 Aug

3:30.55 SB 2 WK Zürich 15 Aug

I don't think he will be faster on the 800m.

Regarding El Guerrouj, he ran the 800m in 1995 and is not interested in this distance.

Mud, here I don't want to discuss if Lagat is clean or not : my opinion is that he is TOTALLY CLEAN, but is my opinion. What I want to say, is that is not possible to justify the idea that an athlete is doped because "with 1:46 is not possible running in 3:26". And this assertion was in a specific post on Letsrun, not in another place.

So, what I try to demonstrate is that many times the "official" correlations among PB in secondary events and PB in main event are wrong, because of different reasons, that are explained in this post.

Regarding, for example, the basic value that you must have for running a mile in 4:00, personally I don't think that an athlete able running 400m in 55.0 can run a mile in 4 min. He needs of sure at least 53.0, if very resistant.

When Cova won World Championships '83 in Helsinki with his last lap in 53.2 (10000m), one week later he had the curiosity to test his speed in 400m. He ran in a regional meeting, and was n. 2 in 52.8. Before winning Helsinki, the value of Cova in 1500m was 3:42, like 4:00 for a mile. And, of sure, he was one of the most resistant runners of the period.

Regarding Carlos Lopes, he was of sure very slow, but because never used this type of training. But his PB of 60.0 is completely untrue. His PB in 1500m was 3:41.2 in 1982, that is the pace of 1:13.7 every 500m (14.74 every 100m = 58.96 on 400m). So, this is another example of how, looking at "official" PB, is possible to have wrong ideas about the athletes (during his 27:17.48 in '84, back Mamede 27:13.81, their final lap was : 52.8 for Mamede, 56.6 for Lopes, not so slow !).

Bof, is very clear that you don't know how is possible to manage the last period of training before an important championship. If you look at a race of 800m for a specialist of 1500m, 5 days after winning in Stockholm and 5 days before running in Zurich, thinking that can show the real value on the distance of the athlete, you are completely wrong. A good coach USES the 800m race like training, after, for example, having a tough work 3 days after the first race of Stockholm, having again a good training 2 days after the race.

So, my opinion is that Lagat could run under 1:45 with a race prepared for running fast.

I want to remember that Lagat was already able running in 1:46.02 (the same time) in 1998, when his best in 1500m was 3:34.48. Or do you think that is possible to improve of 8.0 in 1500m without improving 1.5 in 800m ?

So, one thing is the statistic, another the capacity of coaching athletes. And really I see that the most part of readers have no idea about the training of top athletes.

Renato,

I have a question regarding training; as long distance runners how do you think we should train for basic and general speed? I've learned a great deal about aerobic training from your posts, but am still very confused on how I would approach speed. Any help would be appreciated.

mud, you are an idiot. what phoenix has done is no different than what happens in court rooms across the country every day. he has introduced reasonable doubt, backed up with valid scientific information.it is you, my friend, who does not have the open mind. phoenix has more sway because he is not just making a guess; he is presenting the various possibilities of what happened during testing (these are finite, by the way). your argument, as far as i can tell, boils down to, he tested positive, so he is guilty. wow, now that's compelling.

The first training that every long distance runner can use, good for every period of preparation, is to sprint from 60 to 100m climbing. Speed is a quality depending of nervous capacity and muscle strenght. Nervous capacity is the capacity of high explosive concentration, thet you need for recruiting the higher number of fibres of a muscle. Strenght of a muscle is the capacity of producing tension, and speed of contraction.

Our muscles don't work like the engine of a car. If you have an engine able to do 5000 revolutions reaching 180 km of speed, when you go at 100 km of speed you use only 3000 revolutions, but the engine works in the same way.

Instead, if we have a muscle made with 100 fibres, we use the most part of the fibres during max. speed, and only a part of these reducing the speed. For example, jogging you can use 20% of your fibres, ALWAYS THE SAME.

So, when you have to use speed, you are not able to use the percentage of fibres normally resting. These fibres are less strong, but also unable to receive in short time the order of the brain.

Running always at slow speed, you de-fuse your nervous system regarding the fibres that you don't use normally.

So, the best way for training not the speed, but the CAPACITY OF NERVOUS SYSTEM, basic for the speed, is to do short efforts at max.intensity, like short sprints uphill. You must interpret this work in explosive way, like a sprinter, not using progressive speed, because the first aim is to develop the capacity of the brain.

Running for a time of 10/15 sec, you cannot do too much lactate. You can use 1min / 1:30 of recovery, so lactic acid can be eliminated almost totally.

But what you have to remember is that THIS IS A TRAINING FOR THE NERVOUS SYSTEM, needing max intensity, so recovery times are not very important.

Too many times, long runners give big importance to recovery times also in type of training not having the goal of improving endurance, but basic nervous and muscular qualities. This is a mistake, when we are speaking about RAPIDITY we are speaking about a quality, when we are speaking about SPEED we are speaking about the USE of that quality. And, for a long runner, we must train the basic quality before the practical expression of this.

So, is not true that long run can reduce speed, and that speed can reduce endurance. Training is what you do, not what you don't do, and you don't improve your speed IF YOU DON'T USE SPEED, at the same way you don't improve your endurance IF YOU DON'T USE ENDURANCE.

I'm not sure why you didn't just comment in the other thread, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one thinking along similar lines. Taking another thought from the other thread, we often see runners that are excellent at the 100/200, or 200/400, or 400/800(rare), or 800/1500, or the 1500/5000+, and sub-par at the other distances. Based on his 13:19 at Mt. SAC, which has no crowd or intensity to help the athletes out, I'd say Bernard is a 1500/5000+ runner. Also, with El G's 12:50 5000, he appears to be a 1500/5000+ runner as well.

Maybe you could help me out with the training of a top-tier, or second-tier athlete. A friend that I sometimes advise is prepping for the USA trials steeplechase. His speed seems to be his limiter, about a 54 400PB, as he is much more competitive in the 3000SC, 5000, 10000; is OK in the 1500, and gets killed in the 800. In the month leading up to his big race, the 3000SC, if he can race any distance on any weekend, which might you choose?

Weekend 1 ?

Weekend 2 ?

Weekend 3 ?

Weekend 4 ?

Weekend 5 3000SC goal 8:3x

By the way, your English is awesome. I know it's not your first language, but that actually helps, as you choose words that are not standard, and it helps me think a little outside the box. I hope you continue to post here.

Renato,

Good examples as usual. At this time last year Bekele was only 13:13, but it was only a matter of time, he was definately faster. His 3,000m was much faster.

On the Bekele/ Geb subject of speed, I'm not sure Bekele has Geb's 1500m speed. He only won the 10,000m by a couple of feet, not significantly faster. I'm not sure he would of won 2 weeks later in better than 29:29. If so, not by much.

Renato,

With regards to runners going down a distance as they age, as in Bucher. What type of runner is best suited to do this? L. Kiplagat also seems to be better at 10,000m than the marathon.

Most runners are always going up a distance by maximizing speed at 800m to then move to the 1500m or 1500m to 5000m? Which makes sense.

I can see an advantage also in maximizing resistance in the 1500m to then drop down to the 800m, like Bucher. Any thoughts?

Excellent post Renato!

How steep should the hills be?

Can you give us an example how much the 400m speed has improved in an athlete doing these hill-sprints for 6-8 weeks? If the athlete only was using 20% of his fibers before he started.

400m time before:

400m time after: