Wow. Japanese speakers, is it true that 2:08 marathoner Yuki Kawauchi can only run a 13.9 100 with a running start?

100m wrote:

I completely agree with velocibuddha. Natural speed is an absolute requirement for successful distance running. On the other hand, acceleration ability from 0 to max speed is not.

But acceleration is one part of natural speed....

George213 wrote:

Actually Kawauchi could only ruh 3:50 1500m, which is a far cry from a sub-4 mile.

He ran that 6 days after running a 2h 11 mins marathon victory in Sydney. The next day he ran a 13 mins 58 5000m. Bekele or Kipchoge probably could not manage that sequence of running performances.

Translated by my wife who speaks Japanese. She reads this as he tends to wear spikes, and not that he had a running start for the 100m sprints.

He happened to have a chance to record a time for the 100 meters, ran twice, and recorded 13.9 seconds. “I tend to wear spikes (seriously!) when running but…” Even though the male high school student average is thought to be about 14.5, for a track and field athlete as an ordinary time it was “pretty awful. Jumping power, explosive power, I had nothing. The opposite of the Kenyans,” he said self-deprecatingly.

That's correct, and it would increase the runner's VO2max per ml/kg/min tremendously.

There is a reason physiologists such as David Martin, PhD. and Owen Anderson, PhD. evaluate the speed of middle and long distance runners evaluating their 200m PB. Most long distance runners do not know proper sprinting technique for the first 15m of a sprint. I am sure in a 200m race, Kawauchi is faster than the average runner on LetsRun.

Sledge_hammer wrote:

100m wrote:

I completely agree with velocibuddha. Natural speed is an absolute requirement for successful distance running. On the other hand, acceleration ability from 0 to max speed is not.

But acceleration is one part of natural speed....

I completely agree with you, as acceleration and maximum velocity are correlated. However they are not always in line with one another. The fact that Farah can only run 12.98 (I personally think his best 100 is more along the lines of 12.00) while able to run a 50s last lap of a 5k speaks to this. I think that if distance runners took the time to learn proper starts and sprinting technique, they would mostly be able to break 11 for 100.

100m wrote:

I completely agree with velocibuddha. Natural speed is an absolute requirement for successful distance running. On the other hand, acceleration ability from 0 to max speed is not.

When considering the basic muscle fiber types fast sprinters can not be great endurance runners. FG fibers have little to no mitochondria. Just the way it is...

otter wrote:

When considering the basic muscle fiber types fast sprinters can not be great endurance runners. FG fibers have little to no mitochondria. Just the way it is...

The muscle biopsies are a snap shot. Athletes get muscle biopsies done in college by sport science department &/or while racing and training for shoe companies. Athletes bodies will adapt to training. We do not take muscle biopsies on infants. Obviously if one sprints early and often in their life, one will be a better sprinter. If a Marathoner or ultra runner decides to do a 10 x 100m workout once a year, the workout won't go too well. Sprinting well is a neuromuscular coordination activity like ballet or playing the violin. Start early!

100m wrote:

Sledge_hammer wrote:

But acceleration is one part of natural speed....

I completely agree with you, as acceleration and maximum velocity are correlated. However they are not always in line with one another. The fact that Farah can only run 12.98 (I personally think his best 100 is more along the lines of 12.00) while able to run a 50s last lap of a 5k speaks to this. I think that if distance runners took the time to learn proper starts and sprinting technique, they would mostly be able to break 11 for 100.

I agree, maybe 200-400m time would be more indicative

ironside wrote:

otter wrote:

When considering the basic muscle fiber types fast sprinters can not be great endurance runners. FG fibers have little to no mitochondria. Just the way it is...

The muscle biopsies are a snap shot. Athletes get muscle biopsies done in college by sport science department &/or while racing and training for shoe companies. Athletes bodies will adapt to training. We do not take muscle biopsies on infants. Obviously if one sprints early and often in their life, one will be a better sprinter. If a Marathoner or ultra runner decides to do a 10 x 100m workout once a year, the workout won't go too well. Sprinting well is a neuromuscular coordination activity like ballet or playing the violin. Start early!

Is not the way an athlete is put together biomecanically also very important (but also more difficult to understand)? A person could have all fast twtich muscle fibres but because of the way their limbs move when running, due to joint angles, and leverages exerted by their mimbs, they will find it difficult to be a top level sprinter.

Take your meds jono

name wrote:

Take your meds jono

I am not jono and I am not any medication although maybe something could help! I am just wondering if sprinting ability is not just about the type of muscle fibre you have but that there could be other anatomical characteristics such as skeletal structure which are just as important. For example if you can only sprint a 200m in say 30 seconds are you a very slow twitch person or just an untalented fastwitch person?

A slow twitcher

running thinker wrote:

name wrote:

Take your meds jono

I am not jono and I am not any medication although maybe something could help! I am just wondering if sprinting ability is not just about the type of muscle fibre you have but that there could be other anatomical characteristics such as skeletal structure which are just as important. For example if you can only sprint a 200m in say 30 seconds are you a very slow twitch person or just an untalented fastwitch person?

Hi, I am jono. I don't take any meds either. My stalker is a well known troll.

I agree speed is natural. 30 seconds is actually an ok time for a slow twitcher. Mo Farah would be about 25.5 for 200 and 50.5 for 400 even though he has finished a (slow for him) 5000 in 50.8

12.98 was a fairly representative time for him. Those top 5000/10000 guys with a good kick can hold top speed for 300 meters or more. This is something that fast twitchers just can't get their heads around.

100m wrote:

Sledge_hammer wrote:

But acceleration is one part of natural speed....

I completely agree with you, as acceleration and maximum velocity are correlated. However they are not always in line with one another. The fact that Farah can only run 12.98 (I personally think his best 100 is more along the lines of 12.00) while able to run a 50s last lap of a 5k speaks to this. I think that if distance runners took the time to learn proper starts and sprinting technique, they would mostly be able to break 11 for 100.

Absolute, total, unqualified, bullcarp.

Farah 12 seconds, ROTFLMAO. And a "distance runner" executing a "proper start and sprinting technique" is an absolute non-sequitur, but of course you don't know that.

You're incredibly ignorant. What do you not understand about mutually-exclusive requirements? No true "distance runner" has the physiologic equipment to execute either a "proper start" or "proper sprinting technique". I can't believe I even have to say this. Have you really never noticed that not one sprinter has the physiology of a distance runner? Really?

Not only could they not break 11, they could not break 12, FAT from blocks and a gun start. Only one in a million could break 13, and even then only just, as Farah did--and I have my questions even about that clocking. And Farah is one of the very best 5k/10k guys ever, which relies on a very fast last lap--and he is one of the very best ever at that last lap, if not the best ever. Only a handful of guys might go below 13, like maybe Jeilan--and even then, only just. And it is speculative.

Other than that, forget it.

I'll say what I said before: get in a FAT 100m race with some spikes, blocks, and a gun. Shut up and learn. Distance runners always talk big about things with which they have no experience at all. At least sprinters don't go out and say that with some time on the mill they are going to go out and run a 14:00 5k.

Your ignorance is pathetic, because it is entirely your fault.

What amazes me is how hard distance runners work to maintain their delusions.

I have gone and tried distance, and reported my times on here. I forget what they were, something like usually around 19:30 for a treadmill 5k, after having trained for quite a while. I remember going around 18:30 once after I got sick and lost a bit of weight. It was so long ago, I will look it up.

Not great, right? By sprinter standards, it is AMAZING. So is a distance runner going 13 seconds FAT from blocks.

But if you guys really are serious about this issue, then go to a local meet and run the 100. If not, then just STFU, because you're just blowing hot air.

We need a MD to address my statements on muscle biopsies and muscle twitch ratio. There is zero evidence people are born with certain twitch ratios. We train a certain way from birth to age twenty-something and THEN have a muscle biopsy. Sprinting fast is coordination and strength.

Let's just come to a consensus that distance runners are slow and untalented but hard working athletes. For goodness sake, mo farah ran a 13 s 100m and got beaten by a boxer. Without sprinting distance runners would all be broke, no one would watch the he championships.

Dang. Crazy if that's a running start.