Cam Levins - 11.5 100m standing start

I will accept without argument your body fat numbers.

I would question your bone numbers, but I will accept them provisionally, because...

...even using those numbers, if you re-calculate BMI using the "muscle&other" mass, you get 15.1 for women, and 14.5 for men...

...meaning that women have greater muscular hypertrophy, unless you want to argue that they have thicker skin (which is an argument that I would NEVER accept!)

Further, they exhibit that hypertrophy where it counts for sprinting--in the upper legs and butt, and to a lesser extent shoulders. The cross-sectional area of their quads, hams, glutes, delts, etc. is significantly greater than it is for male distance runners. Maximal force production potential is related to this cross-sectional area, and maximal force production is required in sprinting.

Added to that, again, I would question where you got your bone numbers from.

Further, I thought you were talking 10k/marathon runners.

Further, the weights reported for the TFN top 10 female 100m athletes vary fairly widely:

SAFP 125.7goo vs 110wiki

JET 130.1goo vs 117wiki

VCB 134goo vs 130wiki

Madison 135usatf vs 130.1goo

Felix 125usatf vs 121.3goo

KAB 127.9goo vs 120wiki

Ahoure 130wiki vs 125.7goo

Stewart goo data only

Okagbare and Tarmoh, sources equal

Using the greater figures, which I find to be more believable in all cases, then calculating BMI, and averaging those BMI's, their average is 21.74, rather than the 20.5 that you report.

Using those sources, I get essentially the same average height that you got (I got 5'5.5"), but the average weight that I get is 132.44, versus the 126.5 that you report. These numbers would produce a BMI of 21.7

Using 132.44 rather than 126.5, but still using your bone and fat numbers (subject to some verification) gives

132.44-15.89lbs(fat)-21.19lbs(bone)=95.36lbs muscle&other, which is very close to what you calculated for the 5k men...only again, the women are significantly shorter, and significantly more muscled in the sprinting muscles. In fact, if you use those muscle&other figures in BMI, you now get a whopping 15.6 for women compared with the meager 14.5 for men.

I would guess that this gap would only widen even more if one used 10k/marathon runners vs 5k athletes, but that doesn't really matter, because I don't think it is an arguable point that elite female sprinters exhibit more muscular hypertrophy, especially where it counts for sprinting, than do elite male distance runners. The proof is in the photos, it is obvious for all to see.

Hypertrophy = cross-sectional area = max force potential

Neurology and training aside, elite male distance runners don't have even the musculature required to sprint, even when compared to women sprinters.

And, REMEMBER THAT THIS IS APPLES-TO-ORANGES.

The gold standard comparison is men-to-men.

Why don't you do that one?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

women have greater muscular hypertrophy, unless you want to argue that they have thicker skin (which is an argument that I would NEVER accept!

Sprinters have thin skins.

Women sprinters have much more fat than distance runners.

Certainly, the big question mark about how fast distance quys can go in a 100 is their ability to accelerate out of blocks/from a standstill.

I'd say just about all world class 5k guys would be under 12s with a rolling start, if not from a standstill. Bernie Montoya (a current high schooler with ~ 4:01 mile) is shown doing a 50m in ~ 5.3 (albeit hand timed with a jogging start).

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/249744-Workout-Wednesday-Season-7/video/707979-Bernie-Montoya-Sub-4-Ladder-WOW

bubbadeeboo: "I'd say just about all world class 5k guys would be under 12s with a rolling start"

OK, sure!

And in terms of relevancy to a 100m FAT from the blocks or from a standing start, a hand-timed 50m with a "jogging" start is worth exactly...nothing!

Not taking anything away from Montoya, a 4-min mile is obviously great.

bubbadeeboo wrote:

Certainly, the big question mark about how fast distance quys can go in a 100 is their ability to accelerate out of blocks/from a standstill.

I'd say just about all world class 5k guys would be under 12s with a rolling start, if not from a standstill. Bernie Montoya (a current high schooler with ~ 4:01 mile) is shown doing a 50m in ~ 5.3 (albeit hand timed with a jogging start).

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/249744-Workout-Wednesday-Season-7/video/707979-Bernie-Montoya-Sub-4-Ladder-WOW

Why did you mention Montoya? He's nowhere near being a world class distance runner

@Sprintgeezer:

I do see the variation in published weights for the athletes. And the 132 wt you get for the females is fine. But it does not undo my point. Even if the bone mass of the males is a bit greater than 12% (16vs18%)of the females, the higher body fat of the females will keep their total muscle mass relatively close to the males. The overall point is that it's not so much about a difference in muscle mass between the WCFSprinters and the WCMDrunners. It's muscle type & neurology and I agree that the more hypertrophic muscle confers an advantage to sprinters.

But how can you know by looking, that no WCMDrunners have sufficient sprint type muscles to sprint a sub 12 100FAT? Again, 12 is no where near world class sprinting. I've never argued that the distance guys would be as fast as WCFS who happen to be about the same size. Raw leg speed is more stable than endurance. You're arguing that running a 100+ mpw reduces your natural leg speed...significantly?

I mentioned HT&WT, BMI of females sprinters originally because you said:"elite distance runners do not have sufficient body size to perform well in the 100m". I believe females show that it's not so much about "body size", size in the sense of HT&WT. Thinks about Bolt, Bailey, Collins, Felex, Ross etc. They are all very fast sprinters varying greatly in size. So, again, your apple & oranges objection does not work.

Now, after all this, explaining that you and others have done, I'm less confident about my original position i.e. most WCDRunners can sprint sub 12FAT. But I still suspect that "some" can. I wish they would speak up!

subfive: "The overall point is that it's not so much about a difference in muscle mass between the WCFSprinters and the WCMDrunners."

Again, for the same lean muscle mass, a shorter female athlete will exhibit greater hypertrophy than will a taller male athlete, and its distribution will favor the muscles most important to sprinting.

There is no getting around it, they are more hypertrophic in the musculature that counts. Since sprinting is a combination of that size, neurology, fiber composition, and energy supplies (assuming form is the same), elite distance runners do not have sufficient body size to perform well in the 100m. All of those things are needed to "perform well in the 100m."

The question then becomes what "good performance in the 100m" is. You suggest that 12s is nowhere near world-class sprinting, which is obviously true--but that's not the issue; the issue is whether it qualifies as "good 100m performance" for these purposes. Since I was the one who first ruminated at length about the 100m capabilities of elite distance runners, I hereby reinforce the liberty that was mine in defining 12s as "good 100m performance" for these purposes.

You are absolutely correct, of course, that there are both male and female athletes who have the BMI of elite male distance runners, who can go sub-12. Absolutely. This proves that sub-12 can be done with elite male distance runner muscle size/hypertrophy--absolutely. BUT NOT IN ELITE MALE DISTANCE RUNNERS. To get anywhere sub-12 with how they are trained would require much greater hypertrophy than they exhibit, all other things being equal.

And that is the crux: elite male distance runners will not in any way change their training in a way that would be more conducive to producing sprint performance. We are talking about highly-trained male distance athletes. They WILL NOT change their neurology, fiber composition, or energy supplies to favor sprint requirements, because those things would be counter-productive to getting them into the required position at 4,600m or 9,600m.

THE MUSCULAR HYPERTROPHY EXHIBITED BY ELITE MALE DISTANCE RUNNERS IS INSUFFICIENT TO PERMIT THEM TO PRODUCE SUB-12 SECOND FAT FROM THE BLOCKS PERFORMANCE IN THE 100m.

There are of course exceptions to every rule, but that is certainly the rule, which is why none are "speaking up".

There is nothing to say.

@Sprintgeezer:

You still seem to overestimate the merit of your argument! Here it is:

"THE MUSCULAR HYPERTROPHY EXHIBITED BY ELITE MALE DISTANCE RUNNERS IS INSUFFICIENT TO PERMIT THEM TO PRODUCE SUB-12 SECOND FAT FROM THE BLOCKS PERFORMANCE IN THE 100m."

But you've said that you believe some can, you state:

"There are of course exceptions to every rule, but that is certainly the rule".

So how many exceptions does it take to nullify a rule?!

I acknowledge your liberty to define "good 100m performance", you state:

"Since I was the one who first ruminated at length about the 100m capabilities of elite distance runners, I hereby reinforce the liberty that was mine in defining 12s as "good 100m performance" for these purposes."

But we need to be clear about what counts as an "elite distance runner". Your liberty is curtailed here.

The IAAF all time list for the 5000 list 163 guys under 13:08. You are not permitted to claim that these guys are not elite distance runners.

How many "exceptions" to the sub 12FAT rule do you estimate are on this list?

powerofreason wrote:

I doubt that Levins ran 11.5 in trainers; certainly wouldn't with electronic timing.

In HS he ran hi-11 hand timed in spikes. I'm certain he can run 11.5 in trainers now. When he left HS I thought he would be an 800m specialist. (I'm convinced if he had gone that route he would be just as good at 800 as he is at 10k.)

knowerer--

You are "certain" of nothing other than that he ran a hand-timed 11-high in spikes in high school.

Now, finally, THAT is totally believable.

subfive--

With respect, you're still missing the essential point: the qualifier "by elite male distance runners".

That degree of hypertrophy is in actual fact sufficient for other than elite male distance runners to go sub-12, but NOT for elite male distance runners. Why not? Training and selection effect.

How many exceptions would it take to nullify this "rule" that I declared? More than actually exist. As it stands now, there are NO demonstrated exceptions. I have suggested that there could be a handful, maybe something like 3-5. That is insufficient, in view of a number like 163 or thereabouts, to disprove the "rule".

I accept the curtailing of my liberty when it comes to defining an "elite distance runner". I would suggest that nothing up to 1500m is fairly considered "distance", it is middle-distance.

I would be OK to start distance at 5k and include everything beyond that, but I would favor 10k as it lies solidly in the middle. But I'm OK with 5k.

Not sure why you pick 13:08 as a cutoff, but I'm OK with that threshold, too.

How many of those 163 have demonstrated sub-12 FAT 100m time from the blocks?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

knowerer--

You are "certain" of nothing other than that he ran a hand-timed 11-high in spikes in high school..

Well that is precisely what I said above. As for the other stuff I am "convinced".

@Sprintgeezer wrote:

I'm still bothered by the dogmatic flavor of your claim. It's sort of like claiming that "elite male sprinters can't sprint under 9.8". But 7 have gone under 9.8. Only 28 have gone under 9.9 and only 85 have gone under 10 sec. So generally, could we say that elite male sprinters can't sprint under 9.8 or 9.9? I suppose we could.

I picked 13:08 for the 5K because the IAAF alltime list stopped at 13:08. But I think we could extend the list to 13:29 (my prerogative). The Olympic A standard is 13:33. 1067 men have run under 13:29. Of these; 39 have run 3:33 or faster for 1500m and 17 have have run 1:46 or faster for 800M. I still find it hard to believe that most of these men could not sprint a mere sub-12 100M. I suppose those 3 or 5 that you suggest could are in these groups?

Now,don't object by saying you mean only runners who never competed at anything less than 5000m. Nearly all, if not all of these 5000 guys could and some did run elite 10000m times. And to do so, means that they had to do high amounts of endurance training.

I wouldn't consider 13:33 elite. That's almost a minute slower than the world record. If you are in danger of being lapped, you aren't elite. If your 5k time is slower than the 10k world record pace, then you aren't elite.

jdjdj wrote:

I wouldn't consider 13:33 elite. That's almost a minute slower than the world record. If you are in danger of being lapped, you aren't elite. If your 5k time is slower than the 10k world record pace, then you aren't elite.

.

In 2012, only 167 men in the world ran faster than 13:33. And you don't think 13:33 is fast enough to be considered "elite". So in your estimation how fast must one be?

How much mileage would be expected to reach 13:33....typically?

subfive wrote:

jdjdj wrote:

I wouldn't consider 13:33 elite. That's almost a minute slower than the world record. If you are in danger of being lapped, you aren't elite. If your 5k time is slower than the 10k world record pace, then you aren't elite.

.

In 2012, only 167 men in the world ran faster than 13:33. And you don't think 13:33 is fast enough to be considered "elite". So in your estimation how fast must one be?

How much mileage would be expected to reach 13:33....typically?

We're talking about physiology so the number of people is irrelevant. 13:33 is not physiologically elite when there are 26:30 guys running. Elite would be capable of making the Olympic final and within 15-20 seconds of the world record (for 5k).

I nominate this thread for being the dumbest one ever in the history of Letsrun.

subfive--

Unlike jdjdj, I have no problem with considering elite anybody who can make the Olympic A standard, so 13:33 is fine with me. That changes nothing, of course.

You went off the rails in your first paragraph, however.

It is NOT AT ALL like claiming that elite sprinters can't go sub-9.8, because they obviously CAN, because they DEMONSTRABLY HAVE.

Name me a single one of those 1067 elite sub-13:29 men who has demonstrably gone under 12.00 FAT from the blocks with a legal wind, at a period in time anywhere near to when they enjoyed elite 5k status.

(crickets chirping)

I admire the fact that you are unable to accept the proposition, but I don't understand from where your fervor comes.

I am absolutely willing to accept that not a single elite male 100m sprinter could ever go the 5,000m equivalent of a 12.00 FAT 100m time, at a period in time anywhere near to when they enjoy elite 100m status.

Why is your belief so important to you?

I nominate your post as the grossest over-statement in the history of Letsrun. This board has dredged FAR greater depths of stupidity this week alone!