People dont understand how energy systems work: anaerobic vs aerobic systems.
Remember how that thread last year went.
"Athing Mu could run a US record in the 1500m right now. She solo's a 1:55.1. A rabbit through 800 in 2:06 would be a jog and she could just kick it in."
Then Millrose happened.
I agree with everything you wrote, except the formation of "solo's" about which I have no effing idea.
I think you missed my last post -I too mention Wariner… But I don’t think a Kerley type can cruise a 50 and then a 69 (69 can be unobtainable even for a Cheptegei or a Ingebrigtsen under the right -meaning wrong- circumstances in the 5000m (if meltdown)… I think you have to be a Wariner type..
3-5 sec slower 100m pr than Kerley and no chanche to break 2..? (According to you). Well, I ran 1,52 (pretty much solo at Bislett stad, Oslo) when my 100m pr was 12,54 (2,8 sek slower than Kerley -pretty close to yout 3 sek I would say!). But even worse: Filip Ingebrigtsen ran 1,46 out of a 100m pb 12,26! (He may be a little faster, but not much).
3-5 sec slower 100m? Well, 5.27 sec slower than Kerley (in the 100) will place you above 2min even if you pr’ed on all the 8 100meters, so maybe you made an overkill here…! Anyways -I think 3 sec slower sprint than Kerley will easily get you sub 2. And that bad 100m pr is better than a good one (if you go for sub 2) unless you are a Rudisha-contender…
I think 400m and 800m are two different ballparks. (See also what other posters write). But that doesn’t mean nobody can do both with merit. It’s maybe like high jump and pole vault -you can maybe become good in both, but not if you are a skinny high jumper with no arm strength….
Good point. I missed your later post, sorry. What i tried to convey in my post was that your comparison only works for extremely talented, well trained athletes.
I may have exaggerated that 3-5 sec difference, but the point was that your comparison only works if you have similar 400m times that are both very fast.
I agree that a bad 100m PR is better than a good one, but only if the athlete is aerobic developed, like you.
Once again i may have exaggerated the 50sec/69sec splits for Kerley's 800m, but the point is that he is so fast he can run himself into a huge oxygen debt, positive split the second lap by a lot, and still run a fairly good time.
It's also worth noting that Kerley's brother Mylik is slower than him over 100m and 400m: having a 44.85 400m PR. However, Mylik can run 1:48 for 800m, so Kerley likely has fairly good genetics for running the 800m
Good post! But I disagree strongly in what you write about genetics and brothers (see other posters about the science here)…
The 6 Ingebrigtsen brothers (+ the sister Ingrid): Henrik, Filip and Jakob may be “look alikes” in potential (pretty sure all three would have been sub 3.30 and sub 12.50 without injuries and illness), but even there you will find difference (f.ex Henrik being a far better kicker than his brothers, and also having a worse running style -had Henrik started his kick in the olympics (1500m) 2012, as a 21 years old, just tens of a second earlier, he may have caught the bronze medal (was fifth)…
Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen could never have broken 3,40 in the 1500m -I’m sure he wouldn’t even tried for a billion dollars, maybe not even sub 4. -That doesn’t mean he’s without talent, but his talent can be something else than his brothers got: As an overweight family man in his thirties he started to run half marathon; 1 hour 13 min pr so far…
Martin Ingebrigtsen: A good cross country skier as a child, but probably without genetics to excell in his siblings events. But Martin is the one in the family with the most impressive athletic body -I’m sure he could have been stellar in a lot of sports, but maybe not in athletics…
Ingrid and William Ingebrigtsen: Both have showed real talent for athletics (although Ingrid also has had some struggles).
Conclusion: The Ingebrigtsens are all alike, and all very different - as one would expect among siblings (who are not identical twins). I think Jakob is right: “It’s not the genes, it’s the training!” (Meaning: Despite differences in genes maybe all 7 could run sub 4 1500m..)
My answer is a liitle crude. So to your Fred and Mylik example I will specifically say this: I trained (a long time ago) with two brothers (not twins) who was mainly 400m runners. They both retired in their early twenties, without full filling their potential -I think they both could have ended in a similar 48,5 with proper training. Their prs (the youngest): 11,3 / 22,6 /50,0 The oldest: 23,4 / 49,6. I knew these two brothers quite well training wise, and although neither ran a 800m my estimates would be something like this: The oldest could maybe peak at 1,45 or 1,46 -us training together told me he was a huge middle distance talent, even possibly in the 1500m… But his younger brother ran a lot of 400m’s around 50 flat -always totally gassed out (despite training more seriously than his brother), there as the oldest barely breathed… Two brothers with quite similar 400m prs; one with strength, one relatively fast but totally without strength. And I’m quite sure: The latter couldn’t broken 2 in a million years, having a brother running 1,45 wouldn’t helped at all…
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.