100m times for ELITE MID to LONG DISTANCE

Nosauceforyou wrote:

I ran 15:53 5k, and I had no kick at all, but I still managed to run a 13s 100m and you think Mo who does lots of heavy weight training and speedwork can't run much faster than 12.9 with some proper sprinting techniques? You must be dumb at best.

On a side note, Bekele already said in an interview he once ran 11-flat for the 100m. Mo, who is more speed-oriented, certainly can run at least 11.4-11.5 with proper training.

So you watched the video of Farah running 12.9, being destroyed by a big guy running 11.5, and concluded that Farah could in fact beat that guy but just, didn't?

BullSlacker wrote:

Nosauceforyou wrote:

I ran 15:53 5k, and I had no kick at all, but I still managed to run a 13s 100m and you think Mo who does lots of heavy weight training and speedwork can't run much faster than 12.9 with some proper sprinting techniques? You must be dumb at best.

On a side note, Bekele already said in an interview he once ran 11-flat for the 100m. Mo, who is more speed-oriented, certainly can run at least 11.4-11.5 with proper training.

So you watched the video of Farah running 12.9, being destroyed by a big guy running 11.5, and concluded that Farah could in fact beat that guy but just, didn't?

I would wager his psyche has already suppressed all memory of watching that video as it is in such contradiction to the falsely held beliefs he desperately clings to.

The obvious is obvious.

Some people just don't want to see it.

BullSlacker wrote:

Nosauceforyou wrote:

I ran 15:53 5k, and I had no kick at all, but I still managed to run a 13s 100m and you think Mo who does lots of heavy weight training and speedwork can't run much faster than 12.9 with some proper sprinting techniques? You must be dumb at best.

On a side note, Bekele already said in an interview he once ran 11-flat for the 100m. Mo, who is more speed-oriented, certainly can run at least 11.4-11.5 with proper training.

So you watched the video of Farah running 12.9, being destroyed by a big guy running 11.5, and concluded that Farah could in fact beat that guy but just, didn't?

lol

This one is pretty obvious. Take one guy who can run 13s for 100m and 3:30 for 1500m versus a guy that can run 12s for 100m and 3:30 for 1500m. The guy with the 13/3:30 combo will be much faster over 5k than the 12s 1500m guy.

They don't have this for running yet, because power hasn't really arrived at a serious level yet, but it's still a power duration curve and could be modeled. A guy with 3:28/26:40ish is never going to have much sprint, but it makes sense that Farah has such a good kick in light of that, as he has very very good anaerobic capacity. There are many guys on the circuit that have close to Farah's sustainable aerobic capacity, but not many that run 1500m in 3:28. Why? Anerobic work capacity. Farah can do more kJ of anerobic work than the others can, which gives him a noticeably faster 1500. This larger anaerobic reservoir is also why he can kick so well, he can go longer anaerobically before fatiguing.

Top speed is limited by power you can apply to the track and efficiency. Extension of that is largely a factor of anaerobic capacity for the first 20-40 seconds, with the aerobic contribution becoming greater, until it reaches max for most people around the 2-3 minute mark. Which is exactly why 400 runners need very little aerobic training, contribution of energy aerobically is small in a 45s event. 800 you can see both sides. Some guys crush 800 because they have a large AWC, others are stronger aerobically. When you get to the 1500, you have to be pretty damn good aerobically.

All I'm saying is that this one for fun race isn't the best indication that moe can only run a 12.9.

I think if mid distance runners ran the 100m more often, you'd see some different trends.

Stating that there's no proof that mid d runners can run that fast is kinda silly. Of course there's no evidence. If it were run more, then we'd know. Of course Moe and other distance guys can't break 11. That's ridiculous. But there's certainly Mid D guys that can, and Moe's max certainly isn't 12.5. I don't care how slow twitch you are, your 100m time is not going to be a slower pace than you can run a 400m. It might be close, but not slower.

But Bekele said his PB is 11 flat...that doesn't mean he could necessarily ran it at the same time he did his 10,000m WR but did it at some point in his life which looking at his build..I would believe.

I know a top ultra runner who used to be a decathlete and break 11 regularly but now looking at his build doubt he would be close.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

Moe's max certainly isn't 12.5. I don't care how slow twitch you are, your 100m time is not going to be a slower pace than you can run a 400m. It might be close, but not slower.

Not sure. I don't think its out of the question to say that Mo can't go faster than 12.5. The main issue being the start. I think there is probably something about being fast v slow twitch and that training that really hampers production of power before cadence is higher.

I have no doubt Mo can physically hit low-mid 11s pace given a flying start. The fact that he can run 49.xx or so all but guarantees it. But that's a world of difference from the actual start of a 100m sprint. Distance guys get killed there. Killed.

Same goes with Bekele 11s 100m. Running start? I'd entertain the notion. Standing/blocks? No chance in hell.

James Bowness ran 1.45 (just!) this summer and has a track pb of 22.7 in a race from 2014. Don't have a 100m time for him.

http://www.powerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=7166

Rhyme or reason is a funny thing. Here is a Rando HSr from OH with sub 17 5K, sub 50 400, and 11.3 100. Also, his 800 is a 2:02?!

http://oh.milesplit.com/athletes/pro/4541642-sam-janson/stats#.WGMVAIE8LYU

I ran a 11.81 sophomore year, being an 800 guy at 1:58, I'm sure someone like makloufi can surely go sub 11

Rupp went 10.9 flying 100

/nuff said

8hundred wrote:

I ran a 11.81 sophomore year, being an 800 guy at 1:58, I'm sure someone like makloufi can surely go sub 11

What was your 400 time if you don't mind me asking?

No doubt that Makhloufi could run 46, maybe 45, but he isn't going sub-11.

It happened wrote:

Rupp went 10.9 flying 100

/nuff said

Which equates to like a 12.5 out of blocks, and he crushed Mo Darah in that workout. Nuff said.

Some posters on this board have an obsession with sub-11 times, putting it up as some ungodly display of unobtainable speed. The pale truth remains: sub-11 is massively commonplace, in high school and above. I sense the reason some replies here are so incredulous of middle distance pros being capable of it is that this forum is skewed towards the longer distances. Most training replies have to do with upping easy base mileage, with strides and low rest/active rest intervals substituting as some notion of speed work. The recent 5*60m thread is a rarity, and even then some replies urged short rest. Outside of the LRC long distance bubble, sub-11 is quite common.

Like you said Farah has a great aerobic capacity coupled with a good anaerobic capacity, which is why he can run a fast last lap and is fast from the 1500m and longer. But even the 400 is more aerobic than previously thought, according to a study that examined the aerobic/anaerobic energy system utilization of some "elite level" runners at different distances:

200m run: 29% aerobic; 71% anaerobic

400m run: 43% aerobic; 57% anaerobic

800m run: 66% aerobic: 34% anaerobic

1500m run: 84% aerobic; 16% anaerobic

Note that the ratios are a bit different when comparing a 43sec/50+ sec 400m runners, same goes with the 800m etc. remembering also individual differences.

I´ve red that the 400m WR holder Van Niekerk´s base training doesn´t consist highly lactic workouts, and consists also more of aerobic conditioning (capacity in my terminology). But at some point of the preparation his training consists or some hard long repetitions which can be classified as an aerobic power work. But it´s not as beneficial if you neglect the easy aerobic conditioning in the base phase. It hasn´t ruined his top speed (9.98 100m). To utilize the anaerobic power maximally 400m and up, it demands the AeC to be in balance with the AnC. Otherwise the lactate accumulates quickly forcing you to slow down more rapidly. Not to forget that better AeC allows you recover faster and also do more of the AnP work, which is highly spesific for the 400-800meters.

"Coming from a 200m background, van Niekerk admits he dislikes endurance work. Yet killer sessions and reps of 800m and 1000m have proved vital for his improvement in 2015, though he describes them as “a drag and torture”.

"Running an 800m might take me two minutes, but it is then reassuring to know I’ll only need to run for 43 or 44 seconds for a 400m,” he explains. “I know the training is going to help me for my 400m. As well as the physical benefits of this type of training, it has helped my mindset too.”

It´s off topic, but isn´t it quite common thinking, when for an example a 400-800m runner is slowing down sooner and or more dramatically race after race, the coach might put in more of traditional, lactic speed endurance workouts and or rest days (might think that the athlete is just tired, could be true sometimes), instead of increasing the aerobic capacity/conditioning work to get the aerobic/anaerobic systems in balance. Excessive AnP work and or racing will bring down both the anaerobic and aerobic energy systems. And you´re more exhausted and slower even after a 100-200m sprint. A recharge period might be needed, taking at least 10 days without any AnP/AeP workouts, emphasizing aerobic conditioning and some short sprints with long recoveries. This period could refresh both the anaerobic and aerobic energy systems. Also some training changes afterward is needed to not to lose the balance again.

Obsessedwith11 wrote:

Some posters on this board have an obsession with sub-11 times, putting it up as some ungodly display of unobtainable speed. The pale truth remains: sub-11 is massively commonplace, in high school and above. I sense the reason some replies here are so incredulous of middle distance pros being capable of it is that this forum is skewed towards the longer distances. Most training replies have to do with upping easy base mileage, with strides and low rest/active rest intervals substituting as some notion of speed work. The recent 5*60m thread is a rarity, and even then some replies urged short rest. Outside of the LRC long distance bubble, sub-11 is quite common.

I know of many High Schools who have never had a sub 11. Not that's common.

Alan

Lots of good stuff there. I get very similar numbers looking at cycling curves, about 35-40% coming from aerobic contributions at 45s.

What is a little less clear is the relationship between pure speed/max power and ones time at events moving out from about 400 up. Max power seems to exert very minimal influence on AWC, other than influencing the maximal "burn rate" of AWC.

Going back to cycling, nearly everyone has the natural sprint force production to exhaust AWC in 30s or so, even if they had a world class AWC.

In running however, it's different. We see guys that clearly have a good AWC, but are pretty terrible at 400/800, distances long enough where max speed theoretically shouldn't have much play, especially by 800 getting off the line quick is not the difference maker between sub 2 and sub 1:50. To clarify, we know someone like say, Mo Farah, has the AWC to run somewhere in the mid 1:40's for 800, especially combined with his excellent aerobic fitness. However, I'm sure there are plenty of HS/college athletes that have AWC that is similar to that of Farah (think someone that would run 4:50/19:45), but you don't see them running high 1:5x/52.xx like you might expect from that AWC, and you also see guys that can't even get up to the flying speed that a 500m WR holder can.

If you look at cycling, literally just about every single guy can hold for 5s the same power you would need to set a kilo (approx 1 min) WR. TONS of guys can't hit 12s 100m speed for a couple seconds even given a flying start.

My guess is that force production is similar, but for whatever reason when some guys try to sprint they just get drastically less out of their power than others. In cycling that can't really happen because you just push/pull on the cranks and pedals.

Bump for the 10.9 kid moving up.

Ovett could probably have run close to 11.0 from blocks when he was a teen running 47 sec for 400. By the late 70's he was spending a lot less time on pure speed work and doing a lot more distance. Although his 800 ability improved, that does not necessarily mean his basic 100 speed also improved.

Coe would certainly be capable of at least 11.0 flat between 79 and 81 when he was running 45 sec 400 relays and 21.7 in training for 200m.

Kiprop is so tall and gangly. And would take longer than a smaller athlete to get going from blocks. He could possible run a 47 high in top shape from blocks, but I doubt he goes any faster than 11.6.

A lot of the arguing on this thread is due to the lack of understanding of the use of blocks. I would imagine all sub 1:45 800m runners could run 11.0 with a rolling start, but for a stationary start from blocks, you need to add about 0.7 or more.

Give Farah a 10m rolling start in peak condition, and he probably runs 11.5. Put him in blocks and it would be more like 12.5. Give him a month focusing on using blocks and he probably goes 12 low. For 200 he could probably run 23 mid from blocks and for 400m about 49.5.

There would have been very few 1500 elites in history capable of running 11.0 or faster FAT from blocks. Probably under half the sub 1:45 800m specialists could break 11.00 , with most around 11 low.

Most elite 400/800 runners could break 11.0 secs.