basic speed

My view on the basic speed. I think that pure flat out speed over say 60m (creatine phosphate system dominant), while not a bad asset for maybe kicking, is not essential for anything much over 400m. Hence the under 10second hills are normally for sprinters. However, thats not to say that aren't useful in improving power(which will effect contact time) and efficiency. So they can be a good tool. Usually used as an alternative of lifting for distance runners.

However, I think by 'speed' the OP ment more in terms speed endurance or the work of the lactate system and lactic tolerance. Basically 400/1500m pace. Hence asking about an equivalent 400m time. It will correrelate. You improve you 400m time then you have improved a system. This system (an exception is the creatine phosphate) will also be involved when running the 5k. Simply to a lesser extent. Improve your 400m by 1second due to bettering the systems used mainly for the 400m will make you quicker. but as the distances get further away, the overlap in systems mainly used become less and less, thus the 5k wont improve to the same % proportion.

If you were to become weaker in another system due to missing 5kspecific workouts for a more speed based workouts then yes, you will likely not improve. If however all the other systems stay the same but you improve one of them, you will get quicker. I couldn't say by how much though. It may be an unnoticable second, it may be a reasonable 10s.

Having said this, the level your daugther is at now, the training plan I wrote would be fine. Even the short hills on there are still focussing on system used primarily for events way over 400m making them much more 5k specific than 400m specific. The 400m time will improve though, since they are more related to 400m primary systems than the mass aerobic work you have been doing.

Only when you are looking for the last few seconds would you need to start looking as far down as 400m specific work. Or if 400m time truly does become a limiting factor. I read about Horwills (forgive me for spelling. The late english BMC founder?) 4/5 second rule. Take 400m time. add 5seconds to the pace per lap each event you go up. 800, 1500, 3k, 5k. This is the best time you can achieve with the given 400m speed which becomes limiting at this point. If the best time is quicker than the PB, then the PB can still be improved without improving the 400m time, although it gets harder to improve with edurance as you get closer to the limit.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/frankhorwill.htm

Plugging in 70s for 400m gives a best 5k of 18 45.

66/67s gives low 18s which would make 18 30 much easier.

I've always found this a reliable rule. Few men go much under this 4s, few women go under 5s.

Looking at this evidence, I'd conclude that 400m time will eventually have an effect. The hills and partly VO2 will improve this. If you really hit the barrier, 15s hills, 150m-200m reps with long recovery may need to be factored in. I'd suggest not this year though. That 4 will come down.

To add, this 4seconds for men, 5 for women essentially shows maximum efficiency. You cant run 1second off you 400m pb for two laps let alone 12.5. Its simply not humanly possible. Effectively summing up the argument. Pure speed may not be a very big factor. But 400m speed is. So if pure speed effects 400m speed, it may have a little effect on everything.

Hope this made sense.

TopCat wrote:

Effectively summing up the argument. Pure speed may not be a very big factor. But 400m speed is.

Except it isn't.

Otherwise Ritz wouldn't have been running sub 13 5ks and a helluva lot more hs kids would be.

You cannot even begin to correlate 400m speed with 5k speed. It's just fundamentally WRONG.

Okay maybe the word correlate was silly. My argument was, improving 400m without loss from any other system will lead to an improvement (however large or small) in 5k time. Unless the system improved is creatine phosphate which is unlikely for distance runners.

The second point was that 400m time does become important. It DOES limit 5k time. To break 19 you'd have to run 70-71 as per the rule (for females). There is no way round it. Very few people people break this execption. and when they do its usually still between 3.5-4.0.

Thus your argument that 400m speed has nothing to do with it is faulty. You couldn't break 19 with a PR of 80s.

thanks for the circuit info. You're right - there's so much data out there about strength training that it's difficult to wade through it.

I like the idea of circuit training + some sprint training. Gonna give that a go.

I think it makes perfect sense that someone with an 80 sec 400 PR would never break 19 in a 5k. That's what I meant when I started this thread - the idea that it may be easier & more effective to work on basic speed 1 day/week or so & get your 200/400 PR down - in regard to running the fastest 5k possible - rather than continuing to try to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a runner who lacks basic speed..

I agree with that.

Perhaps shifting the focus from under 10 second sprint efforts to 150m (straight or with a float) or 15s hills. He is right in that pure short term speed system (0-8s) will do little or nothing for long stuff.

I think the sprinting mixes well with plyo and drills. All focussing on a similar area. As long as it isn't too long or strenuous.

I still believe the shorter hill session of around 20 - 25s would be sufficient for now. Its of course your decision. No point in adding something half heartedly. Think about it all and commit to something for the year.

Perhaps if you put all your ideas together sometime and repost an outline for a training plan. Fitting it all into a two week cycle possibly as to not over crowd? I'd be more than happy to look at it. Training plans will always have to be tweaked around a bit throughtout the year anyway as you learn more. I am by no means an expert though.

TopCat,

How often should she race?

I'd say once every 4 weeks. Base perhaps longer. Possibly 1 - 2 times every two cycles of two weeks (4weeks overall). 1 every 4 weeks allows 1 1/2 cycles before ease down (2hard weeks, 1medium and an ease down). I think this allows enough hard training for adaptions to be forced. If however the athlete is less well conditioned I'd go for every 3 weeks. 1hard, 1 medium and 1 ease down.

Clearly sometimes racing back to back is unavoidable. This is not to worry. It'll have little effect as long as you get a good 3 - 4 weeks after.

Ease down doesnt have to be too easy for less important races but I see little point testing yourself without backing off a little.

I feel that until you reach a certain level that all this is less important. Obviously if you can't get some back to back training you wont get an optimum response, but young and improving athletes will still improve with a little more racing, as long as you do get a 3-4 week block in every now and then. Along with the fact that they may not be able to string weeks together anyway. Either way, I disagree racing every single week.

To add, the ease down will help to allow the adaptations to take place with the rest.

Going 8 weeks without a race in the base/early prep isnt a problem them. Probably more ideal in terms of optimum improvement at that time. As long as the easy week every 4 weeks is in there somewhere.

I like racing though. Never really wanted to go much longer than that.

I always feel training works best on a 2 hard, 1 medium, 1 easy repeat cycle even through base for athletes below a highly conditioned level. This mean any generic training week or cycle has to be switched round a little.

TopCat wrote:

Okay maybe the word correlate was silly. My argument was, improving 400m without loss from any other system will lead to an improvement (however large or small) in 5k time. Unless the system improved is creatine phosphate which is unlikely for distance runners.

The second point was that 400m time does become important. It DOES limit 5k time. To break 19 you'd have to run 70-71 as per the rule (for females). There is no way round it. Very few people people break this execption. and when they do its usually still between 3.5-4.0.

Thus your argument that 400m speed has nothing to do with it is faulty. You couldn't break 19 with a PR of 80s.

No, again, you're misplacing the logic.

You don't have to be able to run sub 70 to break 19. You have to be able to break 19 to break 19.

Will you be able to break 70? Probably. But it is NOT because you break 70 that you break 19.

You don't seem to understand anything about physiology or the energy systems necessary for each event.

My argument is that basic speed has nothing to do with 5k because it is NEVER a limiting factor.

400 speed is more of an extension to that than the argument itself. Point being that you should NOT focus on 400 speed for a 5k because it's an entirely different system.

Also pointing out how your 400m speed analogy has nothing to do with 5k speed by showcasing how ANY top 400m runner could run nowhere NEAR a top 5k.

You keep saying basic speed is not a limiting factor, going so far as to emphasize "EVER".

I would agree that for people running HS type times, that's almost certainly true.

The question I would like you to address though, and I think you must to make this point, is of the hypothetical slow athlete. Let's take a male capable of at best 15s for 100m, and 64 seconds for 400m.

Obviously, if those are his abilities it isn't possible for him to run under 4:18 for the mile, let alone something like a 13:30 5k. If you go with the "speed never limits" then what will happen during the course of his training to enable him to be able to run fast enough to achieve a time of say 4:10 or 4:00?

op ed wrote:

You don't have to be able to run sub 70 to break 19. You have to be able to break 19 to break 19.

Do you have to run sub 55 to break 13? Because pretty much everyone who has broken 13 can.

A runner who can break 19 but not 70 will break 18 once they can break 70.

LM wrote:

You keep saying basic speed is not a limiting factor, going so far as to emphasize "EVER".

I would agree that for people running HS type times, that's almost certainly true.

The question I would like you to address though, and I think you must to make this point, is of the hypothetical slow athlete. Let's take a male capable of at best 15s for 100m, and 64 seconds for 400m.

Obviously, if those are his abilities it isn't possible for him to run under 4:18 for the mile, let alone something like a 13:30 5k. If you go with the "speed never limits" then what will happen during the course of his training to enable him to be able to run fast enough to achieve a time of say 4:10 or 4:00?

Not just for people running hs times, people running ANY times.

I don't quite follow your example, here.

He won't ever get to 4:10 or 4:18. He lacks the strength and aerobic conditioning. Again, not the speed. The speed is irrelevant for those mile and 5k times.

If his training sucked, however, and he starts training appropriately and his 5k times (or mile) start falling, then maybe his 400m time will too. But he's going to be doing SPECIFIC 1 mile-5k (and over) work to drop that time.

Having him go out and start doing a sprint training program isn't going to do jack for his mile or 5k. In fact, it'll probably make it worse.

Again, why is this so hard for you folks to grasp? What does a basic speed training program do? Improve basic speed. Great for sprinters who, you know, use that. But for distance runners? They'll never approach top 'basic' speed nor likely be within a dozen seconds of it in a time trial type pr attempt (sub 19, 17, 15, whatever).

This stuff about running a faster 100, 200, 400 whatever making you more efficient at running 5k pace is ridiculous and has no practical bearing at all. You get more efficient at 5k pace by running at ~5% over/under 5k pace as your training the physiological parameters relevant to that pace. Same for any pace.

But even that is partly irrelevant if the aerobic foundation is so weak that such a pace can't be maintained at the end of an event. So strength/aerobic condition has to be that cornerstone.

I'll see if I can be a little more clear.

Point I'm trying to make is if we have a distance runner that physically cannot move fast enough to run at some arbitrary pace he eventually wants to run. We could say he wants to run sub 4 mile, but his max speed he can move is 15s for 100m.

In theory, even if this runner developed perfect, flawless endurance (realistically not possible) he would still only be able to manage about 4:02 for the mile.

Or, if we extended this out (almost ad absurdum) we could envision a runner who can physically not move faster than 22s per 100m. This runner could obviously improve endurance and get into the 20s, 19s, or even 18s (though that kind of endurance has never been remotely approached in real world).

At some point, if this athlete wants to run say...low 17s, his "speed" MUST improve. If you cannot move faster than 22s every 100m then one cant run any faster than 88s quarters.

What I'm trying to get from you is, in your opinion, how does this hypothetical runner become capable of running low 17s, given that he physically isn't capable of moving that fast initially?

No one will EVER run a distance event at close to their max speed. That max or basic speed will NEVER be a limiting factor for a distance race. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

If someone can't run faster than 15s in a flying 100m, then they will NEVER run a 60s 400m, nor will they run ANY distance longer than 100 or so meters at a pace equal to 15s per 100m. They will get slower.

Now what does that have to do with a mile or 5k? Nothing! If they can't even maintain that basic speed, how is it limiting their one mile or 5k time when such times are dependent upon a completely different energy system?

I mean, at this point I'm almost laughing out loud while typing this. Is this really over your head? How many more ways can I put it?

Sorry you had to type up your "example" two times but I've already clearly explained that multiple times throughout this thread.

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. Until you're positing a question in which your "example" is running a mile at the same pace that they run a flying 100m (which is ridiculous) your question regarding basic speed limiting any sort of distance event is pointless.

Bad Wigins wrote:

op ed wrote:

You don't have to be able to run sub 70 to break 19. You have to be able to break 19 to break 19.

Do you have to run sub 55 to break 13? Because pretty much everyone who has broken 13 can.

A runner who can break 19 but not 70 will break 18 once they can break 70.

You've got that backwards and are posting nonsense, per your usual.

You take a runner and focus their training on breaking 70 in a 400m and not only will they not break 18 in a 5k, they probably won't break 20.

You take a runner and focus their training on breaking 18 and not only will they break 18, they'll more than likely break 70s.

Think for once before you post.

op ed wrote:

[quote]Bad Wigins wrote:

You've got that backwards and are posting nonsense, per your usual.

You take a runner and focus their training on breaking 70 in a 400m and not only will they not break 18 in a 5k, they probably won't break 20.

You take a runner and focus their training on breaking 18 and not only will they break 18, they'll more than likely break 70s.

Think for once before you post.

I rarely just straight up call someone an idiot, but you are a raving, slobbering idiot.

After what you posted about a maximum 15-per-100 pace not being a limiting factor for mile pace, your idiocy is so self-evident there's nothing left to say. Nothing left to do but laugh at you.

I'd think you were trolling, but you really seem to believe yourself. So obviously you're just stupid, and probably a 10k runner with lame mid-distance PR's, since you're so invested in your nonsense.

So my advice to you is learn to sprint. You'll be wiser for it.

I'm not sure if I disagree op ed but I have one question.

Give someone Bekele's aerobic system. I.E. Give two runners the aerobic system of Bekele, but two totally different speeds of movement. One is capable of moving at 50s per 400m max speed, the other at only 75s per 400.

Obviously the first athlete, a.k.a. Bekele, is going to run about 3:32 or so for the 1500m. The other athlete however, is at best going to run maybe 4:50-5:00 1500m.

We established that these two are equal aerobically, so what is explaining the difference in how fast they run. Or do you feel it is impossible for these two to be equal aerobically and that this situation cannot exist?

I guess what I'm not clear on is what makes the difference between these two athletes. I'm NOT saying it's speed, but I'm not sure exactly what it would be which is why I am asking you.

Thanks in advance!

Bad Wigins wrote:

I rarely just straight up call someone an idiot, but you are a raving, slobbering idiot.

After what you posted about a maximum 15-per-100 pace not being a limiting factor for mile pace, your idiocy is so self-evident there's nothing left to say. Nothing left to do but laugh at you.

I'd think you were trolling, but you really seem to believe yourself. So obviously you're just stupid, and probably a 10k runner with lame mid-distance PR's, since you're so invested in your nonsense.

So my advice to you is learn to sprint. You'll be wiser for it.

You can't refute a single thing I say so you do what most do when faced with such an unassailable opponent; resort to one fallacy after another.

Well bud, your fallacies are just that. And you know what your employment of said fallacies equates to? Losing.

So my advice to you is to either learn a thing or two about issues you want to debate, or refrain from posting at all. Otherwise I'll just keep pointing out your continual losses.