Very well written , thank you. My wish is that we could get you hired to advise or lead clinics for some of the US coaches.
Bottom line for readers who may not understand Canova's excellent explanation , you have to do the work to be in the hunt on the last lap.
malmo wrote:
Kiwi Smack wrote:Most of the top 10,000 runners, best 400 times are 48 seconds are faster. There best 200m, 400m or 600 meters times, are almost never report.
You know absolutely NOTHING about about world class distance running. I can think of any top 10k runners who could break 48s for 400, and you could probably count the number under 50s on one hand.
Juha Vaatainen, ran the 400 in 48 seconds. Maybe you can't count.
Renato Canova wrote:
Also about the training we use, we NEVER use max speed (apart short sprints uphill). Never...
The key is the SPEED ENDURANCE, connected with the AEROBIC POWER, not with the lactic system.
Renato, why don't you use pure speed for distance runners?
This doesn't make sense. What are you afraid of? Why would you use hill sprints and not flat sprints? Do you really think that Gebreselassie and Bekele didn't practice their 25 second 200 finish?
For a distance runner, pure speed doesn't need a long recovery and doesn't have negative influence on the endurance training. In fact it is beneficial.
Maybe you will never admit that you are wrong about this, but your athletes should be winning races with very fast finishes just like the Ethiopians.
Euro runner wrote:
I can see your argument. But do you not think that there exceptions to this rule? For example I am sure that you remember Juha Vaatainen who was a sprinter; 10.8 secs for 100m and 48 secs for 400m before moving up in distance. While he was not Usain Bolt, he did manage to eventually win the European champs for 10000m in 1971 beating Bedford and others.
I don't believe that story about Juha Väätäinen's 10.8 100m speed. Think about it, if it was true he would have run under 1.40 for 800m etc.
If you believe what Canova has said, you will understand why no distance runner, no matter how great, and not even any 800m runner, no matter how great, could ever be world-competitive at the 100m.
Thank-you, Canova, for laboriously pointing out what is completely obvious, to those who do not really understand.
About Vaatainen, though--where did you get a 10.8 100m from?
I'm pretty sure you're confusing a date on his Finnish wikipedia page, with a time:
10 000 m – 27.52,78 (10.8.1971 Helsinki)
His 200m pr of 22.1 (hand, no doubt) is OK, though, it's maybe a 22.4 FAT...
Anyway, back to Canova. His use of Powell is not an appropriate basis for comparison. Why not use a 400m runner instead, like Wariner for instance? 400m runners ARE different from 100m runners, even though they both have a high percentage of fast-twich fibers. In that same scenario, Wariner would win--but it is because of the assumptions that Canova has built into his hypothetical. He assumes that the shorter-distance-runner could run the 3000m without using up his creatine phosphate, which is an unsupportable assumption.
If you want to stick with Powell, and assume that he could run 3k in 10 mins without using up his creatine phosphate (not a chance), and the race were left to the last 100m, Powell would win--his victory is built into the assumption that he has the speed endurance to run 3k in 10 mins without dying, an assumption made by Canova himself.
Of course that assumption is unsupportable, and Canova's example fails because of this, but his essential point is correct. He is not speaking about the ACTUAL Powell, but about a THEORETICAL Powell.
Similarly, 800m runners, no matter how great, will not run under 11 secs in the 100m from the blocks, with very few exceptions, and only with lots of specific sprint training, and would have difficulty breaking 12 seconds from the blocks while in the middle of training for 800's.
Notice that Canova's chosen cutoff for fast-twitch fibers is the 400m, NOT the 800m:
"IF YOU ARE ABLE RUNNING FAST 400 m IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF FAST FIBERS."
Like I said before in the Rudisha thread, 400m runners are much, much closer to 100m runners than are 800m runners. It is a fact, and that's why Canova chose the 400m cutoff.
"IF YOU HAVE A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF [SLOW] FIBERS, NEVER YOU CAN HAVE A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF [FAST] FIBERS, SO NEVER YOU CAN BE TALENTED FOR [SPRINTING SHORT] DISTANCES."
All that being said, Jeilan's kick in the last 400m of the 10,000m was the closest thing I have ever seen to an actual "sprint" from any distance runner in a competitive race, ever. Look at his form on the back straight, and near the end of the turn--nice! ALMOST sprinting! If you look very closely, you can see him have short bursts of actual, serious speed--in this youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ShIWjs8FTo
it happens at around 15-second intervals, at around :15, :30, and :45--his torso leans just a bit further forward, his head comes forward and down just a bit, his stride rate quickens, and he has a burst of speed--but wisely backs off each time, as if he had tried to keep it up from 300m out, he probably wouldn't have made it, as he is not a sprinter. He DID, to his credit, keep MOST of it up after his last burst at :45, which had to last for around only 40 or 50m, which took him only a very few seconds to complete. Excellent, that is the limit of the time he could actually sprint at the end of a race like this.
EXCELLENT! Freeze the frame at :50, and you will see a form that I haven't seen from any other distance runner, ever (admittedly I haven't seen every single race ever run). It is VERY close to that of a 100m sprinter. The way he finished this race, no other distance runner that I have ever seen could have kept pace with him over that last 50m, maybe even 100m. If anybody else were even with him with 50m to go, he would win the race.
Look at that back straight. He is as close to sprinting as a 10,000m racer could ever get without actually sprinting!
Hats off to the guy, good job. He ran PERFECTLY controlled, he was right on that line where he could have the optimum blend of speed and efficiency from 9600-9950m (he went over the line twice, only for an instant, caught himself immediately, and backed off at around :15 and :30, and then finally let himself essentially go at around :45, when he knew all he needed was a couple of seconds and a couple of strides.
Perfect racing of the last 400m, IMHO. He used his individual capacity to its absolute fullest.
GREAT race. I felt with 100% certainty already with 300m to go that he would win. Yes!
J.O. wrote:
I don't believe that story about Juha Väätäinen's 10.8 100m speed. Think about it, if it was true he would have run under 1.40 for 800m etc.
For good reason -- the guy made it up.
malmo wrote:
[quote]Kiwi Smack wrote:
Most of the top 10,000 runners, best 400 times are 48 seconds are faster. There best 200m, 400m or 600 meters times, are almost never report.
malmo wrote:
You know absolutely NOTHING about about world class distance running. I can think of any top 10k runners who could break 48s for 400, and you could probably count the number under 50s on one hand.
College RUNNERSSSSS__ wrote:
Juha Vaatainen, ran the 400 in 48 seconds. Maybe you can't count.
Reading isn't one of your strong suits.
Vaatainen's PR was 48.9, which is NOT sub 48. Even if it had been, you could still count the number of sub-48 10k runners on one hand, perhaps even one finger.
Sprint Geezer wrote:Tome on the level of Hurricane Hysteria media reporting
Easy there Sprint coach.
The difference between Jeilan and Farah wasn't in something that Jeilan did, it was what Farah did - he ran out of gas and died in the final 100m. Jeilan maintained.
If the reports of 52.8 and 53.5 last laps were true, here are the 100m incremental splits.
Jeilan 52.8, 39.1, 26.1, 13.1
13.7
~13.0
~13.0
13.1
Farah 53.8, 40.0, 26.9, 13.9
13.5
~13.0
~13.1
13.9
Sprint Geezer wrote:
If you believe what Canova has said, you will understand why no distance runner, no matter how great, and not even any 800m runner, no matter how great, could ever be world-competitive at the 100m.
That's because --- it was a 10,000 meter race.
No 100m sprinter could ever be world competitive at 10,000 meters. Sprinters are not runners.
So it is very stupid thinking to train a 10,000 meter runner like a 100m sprinter.
If you take a world class 5000m, 10000m or marathoner and have them race every olympic distance against a world class 100m or 200m sprinter, and add up the times, low score wins, the distance runners will win EVERY time.
When I speak about MAX SPEED, it means 60m / 80m / 100m at max intensity. This type of workouts is very dangerous for athletes that don't train their muscles to work with max stretching. The reason because I prefer to use uphill sprint is that a) the athletes can develop more strength, b) the athletes can improve their ability in recruiting fast fibers, c) the athletes don't risk any injury.
But, of course, I use sometimes fast 200m (for example, 10x200m between 25" and 26", with some case under 25"). This doesn't mean the athletes can run 400m under 50". Normally, long distance runners able running 25" at 95% of their max speed (probably able to run in an hypothetical competition about 24"2/24"4), can run 400m between 51" and 52", not faster.
Of course, we can have some ecception. It's true Juha Vaatainen was the Junior Record Holder in Finland of 100m with 10.8, and had 22.1 in 200m. This times are like 11.04 and 22.34 with electric time, and his PB in 400m (that he ran several times) was 48.9 (so over 49.0 with electric time).
Juha had a perfect running technique, and was perfect under biomechanical point of view. Probably, he was a typical example of athlete with 30% of Fast fibers, 40% of Slow fibers and 30% of Fast fibers type II (that can work as slow fibers if trained in that direction). For that reason, when he was young he worked like a sprinter, and we can suppose he could reach a level of 60% Fast (Fast plus Fast type II) and 40% slow. But only when he started to work as a specialist of long distance, he could change the percentage of slow fibers, orienting the type II in direction of endurance, so at the end he could have 70% of slow fibers and 30% of Fast.
I can assure that, when he ran in Helsinki (it was 10 years after his best time in 100m / 200m), his max speed in 400m was far from his PB, so not under 50" (he finished last lap in 52"8).
The fact is that, as sprinter, also an exception like Vaatainen WAS NOT IN TOP 1000 IN THE WORLD, and for winning needed to move to ENDURANCE TRAINING.
So, at the end what young coaches of middle distance have to understand is :
a) You need to start from your basic speed, and try to extend the ability in maintaining for longer time
b) You can become faster CONTINUING TO USE (for the first years of preparation) TRAINING FOR INCREASING THE VOLUME OF AEROBIC POWER, that can support more volume of SPEED ENDURANCE
c) You never can reach results near your potentiality in middle distances if you don't run consistant mileage, at SPECIFIC INTENSITY
d) You need to maintain the Aerobic Ability also when you move in lactic direction
e) In training, NEVER YOU MUST LOSE WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE (so, you lose speed when you don't train speed, and you lose endurance when you don't train endurance ; but stop thinking that, if you run high mileage, you lose speed, this is a total stupidity !)
f) Use the most part of time in your training working for increasing the qualities that have in percentage more influence on the performance (I call it "the main dish"), that ALWAYS is the SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE (so, don't waste time in a lot of exercises that can enhance the level of the performance of 0,01%, disregarding the type of training that can enhance the level of the performance of 30%, that is the Specific Endurance supported by Special Endurance and Basic Aerobic Power).
About the final speed, you must work for increasing the ability of the athlete to recruit the higher percentage of fast fibers in condition of lactic saturation (so, nothing to do with the personal max speed).
For example, when in 2009 we prepared James Kwalia for the last lap in 5000m (he won bronze medal in Berlin), one of the training in St. Moritz was one lap of the lake (4270m) at 2'55" pace followed by 5 times 200m uphill very fast in order to move from an aerobic effort to a stimulation of the lactic system, repeating 3 times this type of training. In Berlin, Kwalia (not able running faster than 51" in 400m) was the fastest athlete in the last lap (52"8, faster than Bekele and Bernard Lagat), and didn't win a better medal only because was still in 7th position at the bell, well behind Kenenisa and Bernie.
Nope it's 48.9 not 49 flat.
1+1= 2 not 2.1 wrote:
Nope it's 48.9 not 49 flat.
Handtimed 48.9 is not 48.9
The article does not say hand time. You just making S**** up.
Renato Canova wrote:
It's true Juha Vaatainen was the Junior Record Holder in Finland of 100m with 10.8, and had 22.1 in 200m. This times are like 11.04 and 22.34 with electric time, and his PB in 400m (that he ran several times) was 48.9 (so over 49.0 with electric time).
Renato, I'm not sure where this 10.8 time is coming from? Its known that Vaatainen was a junior 400IM champion, but I've never before heard that he was a 10.8Finnish jr recordholder. Could you provide me your sources?
M* cruz wrote:
The article does not say hand time. You just making S**** up.
You're sure about that?
No one ran anything but handtimed races in the 60s.
Unbelievably, I think I agree with everything Renato just said!
And 11.04 100m and 22.34 100m for a 49.x 400 runner is totally believable, as he was apparently training for sprinting rather than distance.
Nice training specificity, Renato.
Malmo--
The difference between Jeilan and Farah resulted from what they BOTH did.
There would have been no difference had they BOTH ran out of gas, for instance. As you said, Jeilan maintained while Farah died.
IMHO, Jeilan not only maintained, but maintained at the highest possible level. He extracted absolutely all the speed he could produce, at the perfect time. I think that this was his perfect last lap!
Refer to this source for PR's of Vaatainen and other Finnish runners of the 70's:
http://www.amazon.com/Finnish-running-secrets-Runners-Booklet/dp/B0006W4O9K