Why does LRC treat SPEED like it's unchangeable?

Kvothe wrote:

Anaerobic speed is a much lower component of a distance race than aerobic endurance. Sure you can improve your speed, but if you're running a race against a 1430 guy and you're a 15 minute guy, running the last lap fastest isn't going to help, its the other 11.5 that matter. You might say - oh those are speed too - but here is an experiment for you - go out and see how far you can run at a dead sprint on the track and actually time it. If you're very fit you can sprint 500-600 meters. After that, if you took steps to utilize your endurance, ie pace yourself, you'd end up running faster.

WHAT?

Olympians can only hold max velocity for about 60-80 meters...

If people could "Dead Sprint" 500-600 meters we would be looking at a 400m WR in 38 something and an 800 WR in 1:28ish. Bruh

I picked the numbers that I picked because I thought they were fairly equal performance standards. Looking at the IAAF tables, I wasn't perfect, but was pretty close. The IAAF tables list 16:00 as equivalent to running the 100m in 11.9. Both marks are worth 640 points on that table. A 1% increase in the 5k (15:50.4) is worth 666 points. There is not a 666 point mark in the 100m, but the 665 point mark is 11.80 and the 668 point mark is 11.79. Those marks are improvements of .991% and .992%. So on that scale, the percent change is slightly more for the endurance race than a sprint race. Both of those changes seem like reasonable, if not conservative improvements that an athlete could make within a season of training. This is the point I am trying to make.

The IAAF tables don't list a 35 minute 5k. Their 1 point value is 23:45. Taking that to 20 minutes is a 15.5% improvement and is worth 160 points. The equivalent mark in the 100m to 23:45 is 16.79 (1 point). The 160 point mark in the 100m is 14.45. That mark is approximately a 14% improvement. So the IAAF tables agree that It is easier to improve endurance, but probably not by as much as some would think.

I agree that an untrained Usain Bolt would not run 15 seconds. But stick him on the couch for a few years where his only outing is a weekly trip to the grocery store and he might run in the 12's. I definitely know athletes who ran 11 seconds in the 100m in high school (like 10.95) who are in their mid-20's now and would have trouble running under 14 seconds in the 100m.

Here is a link to the IAAF scoring tables if you are interested: file:///C:/Users/Ozzie/Downloads/IAAF%20Scoring%20Tables%20of%20Athletics%20-%20Outdoor%20.pdf

Ozzie wrote:

Here is a link to the IAAF scoring tables if you are interested: file:///C:/Users/Ozzie/Downloads/IAAF%20Scoring%20Tables%20of%20Athletics%20-%20Outdoor%20.pdf

jumpyjoe wrote:

I see a lot of posters on here acting like speed is somehow a more innate talent than endurance and as if it cannot be improved through training. If that were true there would be no reason for sprinters to train and distance runners have even more room to improve b/c they have never worked on speed.

I think there is a lot to be gained by properly developing your speed for most runners. Where does this attitude come from? Is there an actual rational?

Salazar understood this better than most distance runners which is one of the reasons why his runners are very fast.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Teaching the body to cover a 40 dash as fast as possible probably has zero relevance to a mile or 5k time.

Chapter 11 - Maximal Running Speed in Anderson's Running Science disagrees.

Its the issue of gifted vs. grinder argument. The improvements in endurance can be done easily and speed can be improved as well. But, in our brain we dont understand the difference in sigfigs. See large improvements on the clock in endurance are more obvious do to margins of error in performance. Sigfigs in absolute speed are a considerable smaller intervals. However, those numbers are just a significant but a much smaller numeric values.

Here are simple rules that make this easier to understand. First the fastest 100 meters sprinters still need 8.75 years to reach their pinnacles of speed after they became would class. That is still a lot of time after achieving "elite" status. So the gifted are gifted but must still grind to get the most out of their talent.

A more simple way of looking at this could be this way.

A person can become more supple day to day

A person can improved endurance week to week

A person can become more powerful month to month

A person can become faster year to year

A person can become more gritty decade to decade.

Or you can look at speed like Tony Holler father of the "Feed the Cats" system. "Speed is like a tree."

My interpretation of that quote is a tree is growing all the time. As long as the tree's soil is good, it gets rain, and sunlight on a regular basis. You won't notice the change day to day but give it time and come back to the tree it could be the master of the forest.

LateRunnerPhil - that story is awesome, and congratulations on such a remarkable turnaround in fitness.

I don't mean to pry, but am sincerely asking: How did you deal with living like you did in your early twenties? Did you really only leave the house once a week? That would drive me crazy, and I would likely grow rather depressed as a result - did you just love gaming enough for that to be fun for you? I guess my question is a little flawed, since you STOPPED living like that. But genuinely, I am interested.

Again, congratulations on what you are doing now. I find your Tinman posts very informative, and am currently following a slightly modified Tinman program that I have partly based off them.

You can extend a given top mile or 5k pace from being out of shape and untrained all the way to the marathon and beyond with several years of training, while you cannot drop that much time in the sprints and certainly not improve much more than 10-15% if you are an adult. Kids improve a lot as they grow up. Top youth kids in the area might be running low 60 to 58-59 in the 400m now at age 11-12 (boys and girls), for instance, and the best at 17-18 will be running 47-49 on the boys side and maybe 53-55 on the girls side. So, the boys might improve as much as 20% from 11-12 to 17-18, and the girls about 10% from that age. Younger kids might run 80-95 in the 400m and drop to the low 60s or better on the girls side. As a distance runner, you can realize enormous gains. I went from 20ish as an adult on maybe 10M per week to 16 flat on 80-100M per week, and maintained a lot better marathon pace than that initial 5k. In fact, on less than 20 mpw, I ran low 19, yet my marathon pace was eventually about ten seconds better than that. So, I essentially extended my endurance by more than 700%. Good hs sprinters might drop about half a second, or less than 5% (10.5 to 10.0), while good hs distance runners might drop 15-20 seconds in the mile (Josh Thompson dropped roughly 26 seconds) and 1 minute in the 5000m.

Most people can run 100m without stopping. The average untrained person cannot run a 5K without stopping or slowing considerably so of course the level and rate of improvement is going to be much greater for an aerobic running event. It's because people from an early age naturally hone anaerobic talent while ignoring the aerobic one.

LateRunnerPhil uses Usain Bolt as an example of 10% improvement from 15 YO. Usain Bolt didn't sit around playing video games all day and then show up at a track to run 10.5 or 21.7. From what I've read Usain Bolt played lots of soccer and cricket as a youth, probably well into the thousands of hours before he ever started formal sprint training. Because of our "modern lifestyle" most people don't grow up doing aerobic activities that mimic long distance training. Therefore most have very poorly developed aerobic engines as youth and into adulthood depending upon when one entered the sport. How many kids ages 4-10 YO do you know go for a 60+ min run once a week? But many kids 4-10 YO do plenty of skipping, sprinting, and jumping activities on a weekly if not DAILY basis. I don't recall many elite distance runners outside of Africa spending thousands of hours developing their aerobic engines as youth.

As a previous poster stated, distance runners should be incorporating elements of a certain Nike program into a training regimen to improve speed for their event(s).

I agree wrote:

jumpyjoe wrote:

I see a lot of posters on here acting like speed is somehow a more innate talent than endurance and as if it cannot be improved through training. If that were true there would be no reason for sprinters to train and distance runners have even more room to improve b/c they have never worked on speed.

I think there is a lot to be gained by properly developing your speed for most runners. Where does this attitude come from? Is there an actual rational?

Salazar understood this better than most distance runners which is one of the reasons why his runners are very fast.

Wasn't Salazar's top-end speed ridiculously slow for someone that ran 13:11/27:25?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I agree wrote:

Salazar understood this better than most distance runners which is one of the reasons why his runners are very fast.

Wasn't Salazar's top-end speed ridiculously slow for someone that ran 13:11/27:25?

It was. He probably didn't incorporate the elements he had his athletes do for NOP. It was a different era and he changed. I'll leave it at that.

You guys can post all you want, but 400 speed is generally the difference between the haves and the have nots of distance running. No fancy drills or weightlifting is going to close the gap.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

You guys can post all you want, but 400 speed is generally the difference between the haves and the have nots of distance running. No fancy drills or weightlifting is going to close the gap.

It certainly did for Coe.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

You guys can post all you want, but 400 speed is generally the difference between the haves and the have nots of distance running. No fancy drills or weightlifting is going to close the gap.

I know this example hasn't aged well because of speculation, but look at Mo Farah. Guy was a nobody on the world stage until he started focused drills and strength + conditioning with Dave McHenry. He took an already good athlete, gave him a full program, and made him great.

isomalt wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

You guys can post all you want, but 400 speed is generally the difference between the haves and the have nots of distance running. No fancy drills or weightlifting is going to close the gap.

It certainly did for Coe.

My point is that people like Coe, and Bolt would be very fast even without much training. They have lots of fast-twitch fibers and natural speed.

There are many distance runners who are extremely slow-twitch and can't get faster no matter how they try. If someone can't break 27 in the 200, he probably never can get very fast and is better suited for marathons. Salazar understood that and moved up, he never ran a quarter faster than 57 despite great VO2MAX which is also important for a 400m.

Same with Carlos Lopes, who was a big competitor to Fernando Mamede, a 47s 400m guy, while Lopes only had 53s. Both were the best 10k runners in the world at that time.

It also doesn't take as many years to reach the peak level in sprinting. Bolt ran 19.93 at 17, Allyson Felix ran 22.11 at 17. These are insane times for these young ages that can win competitions at the world stage. Payton Payne ran 11.75 at 11-year old kid (and she is a girl, btw).

The best 10k and marathon times for 17 year olds are 28:23 and 2:23. A 2:23 marathon would not be considered highly competitive or elite, as a 19.93 or 22.11 200m would.

Untalented runners often can still be great as distance runners, but would never get anywhere as sprinters. Distance running rewards hard work even if your innate ability isn't great, and you are one of the slower kids in school. In sprinting, if you don't have the genetics, neuromuscular coordination, muscle strength, and high % of fast-twitch fibers you are never going to be fast, even if you train like a world-class sprinter.

Zante wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

You guys can post all you want, but 400 speed is generally the difference between the haves and the have nots of distance running. No fancy drills or weightlifting is going to close the gap.

I know this example hasn't aged well because of speculation, but look at Mo Farah. Guy was a nobody on the world stage until he started focused drills and strength + conditioning with Dave McHenry. He took an already good athlete, gave him a full program, and made him great.

And with all that sprint training, all he was able to do was a 12.98 100m dash, losing significantly to a boxer and long jumper. That's rather a sign that natural speed and explosiveness can't be improved even with training a lot for it.

Kicking at the end of 10k races is 80% aerobic, whoever is most fresh wins. Farah was known for drafting, making sure he saves as much as energy as possible and then be the freshest guy when the race starts counting. Also, his former coach was charged with doping offenses, and he was known to take many supplements so we don't know what he did to be able to cruise fast 10k's and kick strong, but it was not about his speed.

Also, sprint training doesn't turn you from a nobody to an Olympic champion in the 5k and 10k. There were other things at work that mattered far more than him improving his 100 dash (FAT) from say 13.3 to 12.98.

I wanna be clear, I'm not saying a distance runner is magically going to become a fast-twitch guy lol. That's why some of us are more naturally inclined to longer or shorter distances. But to say that it's not worth training because of "injury risk" is so BS. Like I said, it matters less as the distance goes up, that's kinda obvious, but there's always going to be some sort of trainable speed element that you need to work on. If you're going to jog your recovery day once a week as slow as you can, why would you not sprint once a week as fast as you can?

And yeah, a championship 5K/10K guy is not the best example, but to be fair, Farah ran that out of blocks in the offseason. That was probably his first time in blocks ever. The guy also ran 3:28. Say what you will, but if you're not sprinting at least once a week, I don't care who you are, you're not running 3:28 off strides and a cocktail of whatever we suggest Farah was under.

Maybe a better example would be the myriad of ridiculously fast milers who have had success off this approach.

And by the way, I'm not talking about your dedicated "speed day." Often it's just a few flying 30s, 50s, 100-200m repeats, or cutdowns, all with long rest after your main workout. It's once a week. I've done it. My friends have done it. They've gotten faster after adding sprint work to an otherwise standard training program. That's not super taxing either!