Really slow twitch and cannot do well in HS despite loving to run??

heel striking is fine actually wrote:

[quote]doot doot wrote:

You're probably fine form-wise then. [quote]

So the same time with forefoot striking changes things up that much in your book?

It demonstrates that it isn't something OP necessarily needs to focus on.

No, heel striking is not fine. Show me a fast heel striker. I'll show you a thousand faster athletes. There is nothing advantageous about heel striking. Don't normalize shit technique just because its yours.

doot doot wrote:

[

No, heel striking is not fine. Show me a fast heel striker.

Salazar, Amby Burfoot, Barry Magee, Ron Hill, all fast heel strikers. I was never fast but I was a lot faster as a heel striker than before I got suckered into changing.

HRE wrote:

doot doot wrote:

[

No, heel striking is not fine. Show me a fast heel striker.

Salazar, Amby Burfoot, Barry Magee, Ron Hill, all fast heel strikers. I was never fast but I was a lot faster as a heel striker than before I got suckered into changing.

Sorry for your loss. RIP. I'm sure if you had learned to run properly earlier on you wouldn't have been forced to do something so drastic. If your point is that you shouldn't simply force yourself to land mid-/toe-first without some foundational work then maybe we agree.

Fantastic examples of good runners but you forgot Abdi. (And Tadese)

____

Rudisha:

El Guerroj:

Keino:

Lagat:

Komen:

Kipchoge:

GOAT:

Do I need to go on? Sure, you might be fast and flail your arms. Or kick your legs sideways. Or have your head bob up and down. Maybe your torso twists. Maybe you do all that and run decently. But what do all the above athletes have in common? They have WRs and/or gold medals, their form isn't trash and they mid-/forefoot strike.

e.coolguy wrote:

I currently do not run hills, common workouts are: 12x400 w/ 1 min rest @1:15-20, 2 x 2 miles @5k pace w/ 5 min rest on track, and 3 min on 1 min off fartleks. Maybe I should incorporate some hill sprints? Also, I usually do not do longer distance tempos. I usually just do things like the workout I listed before, the 2x2 mile, as a tempo.

Is your HS coach having you do 2 x 3200m for a workout? That's nuts. Mile repeats on the track are the longest you should be doing in high school. I only ever did one workout of 3 x 3200m in college.

Are you writing your own workouts? If so, what is the point of having a coach?

Honestly your times (10:31 and 17:02) aren't that bad for a sophomore.

I never have really had much fast twitch. Couldn't break 60 in HS (and only did it a few times in college), and only had an 800 best of 2:06. I was able to run 4:40 and then 9:42 by my senior year of HS and then got better in college, eventually individually making DIII NCAA XC. So I know what it's like to get dusted by most of your teammates in sprints. Just do strides as much as you can and work hard. I don't think hills would hurt either. You're going to have to get people with your strength.

doot doot wrote:

heel striking is fine actually wrote:

[quote]doot doot wrote:

You're probably fine form-wise then. [quote]

So the same time with forefoot striking changes things up that much in your book?

It demonstrates that it isn't something OP necessarily needs to focus on.

No, heel striking is not fine. Show me a fast heel striker. I'll show you a thousand faster athletes. There is nothing advantageous about heel striking. Don't normalize shit technique just because its yours.

Geoffrey KIrui is a heel slammer. Name the 1000 current faster guys.

Don't glamorize one type of running as the only right method when fast athletes land every way you can imagine.

You can copy them and you'll still be slow. The really fast guys with "crappy form" would be trying to copy the very best. They don't because that's not how they are built to move.

I'll be slower than them but probably faster than you. What is your point?

Say you're a middle school coach. You have a diverse group of brand new runners of all shapes and sizes:

Do you emphasize form drills? Why or why not?

If everyone is pre-destined to one foot strike or another "because that's how they're built" then why does any coach emphazise form drills?

Maybe you will and maybe you won't but it will not be because you forefoot strike and think you have great form.

Middle school coaches do that because like you they drank the Kool-Aid. It also gives them something to do to kill time because kids are generally too lazy to do actual running.

Do you ever notice that guys like El G roll their head all over and their feet turn out and their knees bow out?

Rudisha wobbles his arms and swings them too high. Bolt rocks his shoulders and wobbles his head.

But you have some great still shots there.

heel striking is fine actually wrote:

Maybe you will and maybe you won't but it will not be because you forefoot strike and think you have great form.

Middle school coaches do that because like you they drank the Kool-Aid. It also gives them something to do to kill time because kids are generally too lazy to do actual running.

Do you ever notice that guys like El G roll their head all over and their feet turn out and their knees bow out?

Rudisha wobbles his arms and swings them too high. Bolt rocks his shoulders and wobbles his head.

But you have some great still shots there.

So you're saying there is room for improvement? Like, as in tailoring as much as one can reasonably control to make a more efficient stride to run faster and stay healthy? Dare I call it optimization? As in reducing wasted energy or finding better methods of transferring it...

Why do high school, university, elite/professional coaches and Brother Colm continue to drink the Kook-Aid?

Heel striking defenders = flat earthers. End of story.

I really appreciate the feedback from everyone on this thread. Today, we all did a workout where I believe I have done very well. This week was a down week for me and just to clarify I dropped from 60-65 to about 40-45 for race weeks and 50-55 for regular weeks. However, this week will be about 35 as I am racing a course I haven't run before and I have a shot at winning it. My workout was 8x500 w/ 1:30 rest and I averaged about 1:28-1:30, finished with strides and a cool down. In addition, all PR times I have are from last year and although I don't believe I made an insane amount of improvement I do think I could run a bit faster. I have only ran a 5k once so far this season as here where I live (Florida) we had a hurricane recently ruin what was supposed to be our 2nd meet.

P.S. This thread was not intended to be a debate about footstriking. When I am running very quickly I will tend to run more on my toes for responsiveness and more of a midfoot strike when I am cruising. Everybody is different, however.

No, I'm actually saying the point of diminishing returns is found by running more at all paces. Not drills and form. As soon as drill and form artists start actually running they immediately stop doing those motions.

Yes, to the coaches and Kool-Aid comment. You think elite heel strikers don't have coaches too?

See Geoffrey Kirui again for a view of some nice flat ground.

I got a nice picture of Tola balanced on the outside edge of his heel if you want to have a look at that too.

heel striking is fine actually wrote:

doot doot wrote:

So you're saying there is room for improvement? Like, as in tailoring as much as one can reasonably control to make a more efficient stride to run faster and stay healthy? Dare I call it optimization? As in reducing wasted energy or finding better methods of transferring it...

Why do high school, university, elite/professional coaches and Brother Colm continue to drink the Kook-Aid?

Heel striking defenders = flat earthers. End of story.

As soon as drill and form artists start actually running they immediately stop doing those motions.

🤦🏾‍♂️

Please tell me your involvement with the sport and its future ends with yourself.

doot doot wrote:

One last thought: You included 10k and HM PRs which are pointless and indicate that you race overdistance or at least have your eyes set there. You may be a "distance runner," but you're young and don't actually compete in those events so forget them for now and think of yourself as a racer of short distances who must develop speed if you want to win anything. You have your whole life to plod along in (half-) marathons after you accomplish fast times in the competitive distances you race in now.

Incorrect, doot doot. He DOES actually compete in those events and they're definitely his best events. With the exception of Boston's 18yo limit, anyone his age is welcome to run actual long-distance races. I did. In fact, I did so almost exclusively. I did run a track 5000 once in my teens but nearly every race was 10km or longer. This disproves your theory that if you are young you run mid-distance events.

OP: run the events you are best at. Would you rather win at a certain distance or get dead last at another, more socially acceptable distance. Most on this Board will not approve, but so what? You'll never meet these people in person and they won't have the opportunity to ridicule you if you don't post here to brag about it. Rewind to when I was your age and Internet Message Boards would have been in a complete uproar. My whole teenage training group did marathons and I can assure you that going under 3 would not even get you on the podium for your age group at the time. There were so many kids doing it that it would often take 34:00 10km, significantly under 60 10 mile, maybe around your half time, and 2:45 full to win 17-and-under. These are local races I'm referring to that didn't attract heavy hitters from far away - and during the school year I might add. Peachtree, etc. were in another class entirely.

This true history will be met with disbelief and scorn today but it actually IS possible for slow-twitch teenagers to successfully compete at the events for which they are best suited. Don't beat your head against a wall trying something you will not be good at. If I was better at the mile I might have done it. I wasn't so I didn't.

By the way, doot door, not of your toe-striking pictures shows a foot touching the ground. Mary

Keitany is an unapologetic heel striker too.

doot doot wrote:

Please tell me your involvement with the sport and its future ends with yourself.

You wish, Kool-Aid boy.

On a serious note, switch to cycling, (this is just anecdotal, but throughout my life I know many if not several ex-runners that had your same problem and they did pretty well in cycling, even going pro) I am positive you will do better. Good luck!

If you are lifting, make sure to concentrate on the Olympic lifts. Be sure you have the proper form first and then make sure the reps are explosive.

This can develop the base for speed but not speed itself.

doot doot wrote:

One last thought: You included 10k and HM PRs which are pointless and indicate that you race overdistance or at least have your eyes set there. You may be a "distance runner," but you're young and don't actually compete in those events so forget them for now and think of yourself as a racer of short distances who must develop speed if you want to win anything. You have your whole life to plod along in (half-) marathons after you accomplish fast times in the competitive distances you race in now.

OP, Ignore this bitter dude. If you're really an extreme slow twitcher, and it sounds like you are, you really aren't going to get that much top-end speed no matter what you do. You will get faster than you are now, but you won't be fast compared to peers.

The best training slow twitch distance runners is different for fast-twitchers. There was a thread a day or two ago about it (Tinman's approach), and the books by Steve Magness and Greg McMillan go into it in great detail.

It sounds like your real problem is with your coach, because for the time being you are doing all you can.