Sprintgeezer is running circles around his detractors on this question. I'll admit that his 12.00 cut-off is arbitrary (how could it be otherwise?); but, I suspect it's very accurate. His point, of course, is that distance runners aren't all that fast, and that they don't have to be to produce powerful finishing kicks (even world class kicking speeds are attainable by national class teenage girls, after all). What we distance runners are very good at, and what we train almost exclusively for, is accessing freakishly high percentages of our top end speed while tired (and, in my long experience, this is where those with the greatest amount of continuous training for distance racing, whether or not they achieve world class status-- and certainly if they do-- separate themselves from the rest, and from even very good junior athletes). Like the rest of you, I am an N of 1; but, I think my long experience is illustrative. I am as mesomorphic a distance athlete as you will ever find (think of a shorter Chris Solinsky). I have a lifetime benchpress best of 243 (at 143lbs) and highjumped 1.75m at age 13 (over my head). I also did a full flight of men's 110 hurdles at age 13 (18.0, but still) and triple jumped 11.80m at 15. Naturally, I started my serious athletic life as a mid-distance guy, and ran a few 100s, 200s, and 400s in official meets. My best times came at age 17-18 (11.8, 23.4, 50.7, all hand-- it was over 30 years ago). When I switched to the longer distances (5k to HM, and eventually marathon) in my mid-20s, I got continually slower over the short range (I could not have come close to 11.8 hand by my late 20s-- 12.5 would have been great); yet, because I could handle big miles without getting hurt, I managed to improve huge amounts over 5k to HM, eventually getting down to the 13:40s, mid-28s and 1:03s (now 20-25 years ago). And, I remained a very strong kicker. During my 15-20 years in the sport, I met and trained with a ton of very good athletes, including a few top 10-20 in the world at the time. Flat out, and over 400m, I remained pretty much as fast or faster than all of them (pretty easy to see when you do hard strides with guys), even some who could outkick me routinely. I knew and ran with a 13:40-low guy who tried repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, to break 55secs for 400 in workouts, who had closed in 55-high several times over 5000m. Even I couldn't believe it when I watched him struggle to run 55 fresh. I admit that it strains credulity to think that a guy who can close a 10k in 53 can't break 51 secs fresh, but I can assure you that the suggestion is entirely plausible. Just because you or someone you know can't access that much of your/their top end while tired doesn't mean it's not possible. Having spent as long as I have up to my eyeballs in the sport, I'm convinced that it is precisely this ability that makes the top guys the freaks they are. Sprintgeezer is right. Most of you would be amazed to learn just how relatively slow guys with years of 100+ weeks in their legs really are. His suggestion that a world class sprinter would have the same difficultly running the equivalent of 12.0 over 5k is probably bang-on. This guy is one of the few valuable resources left on this board.