Distance runners with sub-50 400m speed?

wellnow wrote:

The fastest I have seen Bekele run is 8 meters per second during the Paris World Championship 10000m 8M/sec is 50 second 400 pace, he held that for a few seconds, i.e. 240 2 meter long strides per minute, and he looked like he was flat out.

so? He was running a 10000. And what does "he looked like he was flat out" mean? What are you, some sort of expert on Bekele's form? How do you know if that's his max speed.

What could Bolt run in a 10000?

Bolt "acquired" the power to get out of the blocks and reach top speed a bit faster. That was his problem. If the race was 125-150m he would win...at 100m he just never had the power at the start.

As far as distance runners sprinting or whatnot it all depends on fiber type and training adaptations. While as a noob in high school you may be able to go say :57 off of your fiber type because you may be more iib dominant. Well over the course of distance training you may lose that top end ability (50-100m) but still be able to run :57 due to increased endurance (iib to iic). I bet everyone hear runs a 400m much different today than when they were 16 even though the end result may be the same.

If you are a sub 50 guy IN HIGH SCHOOL it is very likely you are very fast twitch (iia) dominant. While in high school you are more or less running on talent/fiber type due to lack of training time. While there is some training adaptation that occurs (iib to iia or iic.....or maybe iic to i) you will find it very difficult to persuade me that a iia dominant athlete will be able to convert over to a distance runner. These are the guys that end up in NFL backfields, catching balls in the endzone, dunking over 7 footers, or sprinting and laying out to catch a hard hit ball to left.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that 99 out of 100 sub 50 guys in high school just don't have the potential to do anything in the distance events. You can only change your muscle fiber type so much.

Alan

browski wrote:

wellnow wrote:

The fastest I have seen Bekele run is 8 meters per second during the Paris World Championship 10000m 8M/sec is 50 second 400 pace, he held that for a few seconds, i.e. 240 2 meter long strides per minute, and he looked like he was flat out.

so? He was running a 10000. And what does "he looked like he was flat out" mean? What are you, some sort of expert on Bekele's form? How do you know if that's his max speed.

*******************************************

I agree with others, he can't run sub 50

Someone with sub 50 400 speed might be well suited to 1500/5000 just like El Gerrouj or Lagat.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that 99 out of 100 sub 50 guys in high school just don't have the potential to do anything in the distance events. You can only change your muscle fiber type so much.

And the reason 99 out of 100 don't do anything in distance events is because 99 out of 100 of them NEVER DO THE TRAINING. That is what I am getting at! If you could get 10 of those guys to train 70, 80, 90 miles per week for even a few years (six to eight would be better), then we would KNOW. My point is nobody knows, because it's never HAPPENED in a "Western society". Too many distractions, no interest, no heroes, etc. You can go on and on about how not bloody likely it is, but it needs to be TRIED to PROVE that it doesn't work. And I contend that it is being tried in places like Ethiopia and Kenya, and it is WORKING.

I understand that if 100 natural sub-50 400m runners train properly, less than 1% may turn out world class times after five years of training for distance running. Right now, we are only getting 1% of those naturally speedy runners to try distance running. Increasing the number of athletes will increase the possiblity, if not the frequency, of athletes who are naturally fast and able to put down world class times for 5000m and 10000m.

I'm just sayin...

Holy f***. Nice citations. Thank you.

The last 100m WAS NOT 10.9! Anyone who knows anything about the sport knows this is impossible! You have used the 80m from home mark! His last 80m was 10.9, last 90m 12.1. The 100m from home mark looks to be in different places on different tracks; this has a shorter straight than others. The 100m mark isn't actually shown on the inside lane of this track.

You have to look at his time as he goes through the 110m mark (26:02.8) and 90m (26:05.5) and split the difference. This gives 26:04.2, give or take a tenth; giving him a last 100m of 13.3. Still excellent at the end of a 10,000m, but 10.9! Lol!

I bet I can find a lot of fast guys who trained "properly" yet produced squat in distance running...they were on my xc team...:)

We had a lot of our long hurdlers/400m types run XC...typically around 40-50 miles a week...and the best of them ran mid 17s while the majority ran 19s.

All the training in the world doesn't matter if you simply don't have at least some talent (genetics/fiber type).

If you trained 1000 Kenyans on a powerlifting program and 1000 Russians the Russians would be far stronger. Likewise, if I gave you 1000 regular slow distance runners (:60 400m) and 1000 fast runners (sub :50 400m) and trained them with the perfect distance running program the Kenyans would be faster.

We all do not adapt the same to the same training program. This is where genetic potential comes into play, this is where fiber type comes into play. You can increase the size of various fibers and change characteristics of various fibers but the degree of change is not the same in all muscles nor is it the same in all people.

Paul Tergat would never squat 500 pounds. Bolt would never break 4:00 in the mile.

Alan

First of all I think 200m or shorter is a better indication of speed. 400m is too long.

Alan, have you ever met any athletes who improve both short sprinting and endurance at the same time? If you train both they will both improve, right? I mean if you train only one or the other the untrained system will get weaker but can both be improved at once? Or at least maintain one and improve the other?

Also, is it possible for someone to be over 50% slow twitch and run a decent quarter? If someone is all fast twitch and runs a good quarter that is expected but if they are mostly slow twitch and run a good quarter...then they are the ones that could be world class distance guys, right?

Even if 99/100 high school sub 50 guys are not suited to distance, to be a world class miler you pretty much need sub 50 speed, so won't all of them come from that 1% that do break 50 and are suited for the longer distances?

Distance running in general is a muscle wasting activity. Distance running impairs your ability to generate speed and power. You can't have a 9.0 100m guy run a 4:00 mile.

Muscles matter.

Most of your best distance runners are more along the lines of iic or iib dominant. These are intermediate fibers. A study was done not too long ago that compared the fiber type of elite marathon runners 30 years ago with those today. The 30 yr old data showed mostly type i dominated while the current data showed mostly type iic dominated.

Remember, I said 800m/milers don't count as they are in a world of their own. You will rarely see a drug free top level miler go up to the 5k/10k/marathon. I said RARELY...there are a few examples but of course we don't know 'how' they got that increased endurance.

Alan

Hi!

Please excuse my ignorance, but would you mind just explaining the list on your post!

800 Coe 1 second/mile slower

1500 Cacho 3 seconds slower

mile Cram 3 seconds slower

3000 Vicosia 4.5 seconds/mile slower

5000 Baumann 6 seconds/mile slower

10000 Barrios 8 seconds/mile slower

1/2 mar Dos Santos 4.5 seconds/mile slower

marathon daCosta 4.5 seconds/mile slower

[quote]fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

I take it you mean that over 800m Coe is half a second slower than the best East African, meaning that he would be 1 second slower per mile!?

If that is what you mean, then surely this is a little misleading, as only 1 African has ever been this fast. Likewise for Cacho and Cram, there have been but a handful of runners from East Africa that have run faster than 3:46 in the Mile, and there have been advances in equipment, tracks, sports science from when Coe & Cram ran those times in the early 80's compared to the current records set in the late 90's. I've read in several places that the mondo tracks of that period (late '90's) are approx 0.3 secs faster per lap than the old synthetic tracks!

How many Africans in the past 7 years have run below 3:46.3 for the Mile or under 1:42 for 800m? None I believe.

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but surely there are always exceptions to that.

middle distance wrote:

I take it you mean that over 800m Coe is half a second slower than the best East African, meaning that he would be 1 second slower per mile!?

If that is what you mean, then surely this is a little misleading, as only 1 African has ever been this fast. Likewise for Cacho and Cram

.

The best way to do it would be to take the best times of the top 10 Europeans and top 10 Africans and compare them. For the 800 at least, Kipketer throws things way off-because of how fast he was and how consistant he was. Overall though, the 800 has a good mix of athletes from different backgrounds. Cruz from South America, Coe/Cram/Ovett from England, Bucher, Rodal and Borz from Europe and then Bungei and Kipketer from Kenya.

But then in the 1500 it takes until about the 30th performance of all time for a European to show up. 2 performances total in the top 50.

Then in the 5000 no non Africans in the top 70.

For the 10000 only Africans in the top 100.

But then in the half marathon 3 non africans in the top 60 and in the marathon 3 in the top 30...

So the pattern is definitely there.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

So the pattern is definitely there.

and what pattern is that?

Runningart2004 wrote:

Distance running in general is a muscle wasting activity. Distance running impairs your ability to generate speed and power. You can't have a 9.0 100m guy run a 4:00 mile.

Muscles matter.

Most of your best distance runners are more along the lines of iic or iib dominant. These are intermediate fibers. A study was done not too long ago that compared the fiber type of elite marathon runners 30 years ago with those today. The 30 yr old data showed mostly type i dominated while the current data showed mostly type iic dominated.

Remember, I said 800m/milers don't count as they are in a world of their own. You will rarely see a drug free top level miler go up to the 5k/10k/marathon. I said RARELY...there are a few examples but of course we don't know 'how' they got that increased endurance.

Alan

Do you have any sources to any of the bullshit coming out of your mind?

Non-Kenyans/Ethiopians/Moroccans etc competitive in the 800, less so in the 1500, even less so in the 5000 and not competitive in the 10000, but then somewhat competitive in the marathon.

If it was a question of speed they would be beating us just as badly in the 800m and 1500m as they do in the 5000m and 10000m, but they don't. If it was a question of endurance then they would be dominating the marathon as much as the 10000m, but they don't. There is some reason that they are just much better at the 5000m and 10000m distances.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

Non-Kenyans/Ethiopians/Moroccans etc competitive in the 800, less so in the 1500, even less so in the 5000 and not competitive in the 10000, but then somewhat competitive in the marathon.

If it was a question of speed they would be beating us just as badly in the 800m and 1500m as they do in the 5000m and 10000m, but they don't. If it was a question of endurance then they would be dominating the marathon as much as the 10000m, but they don't. There is some reason that they are just much better at the 5000m and 10000m distances.

They dominate at the marathon close to as much as the 10000m. I'd say the only reason there isn't total domination is that there is much more room for error in a marathon. But even so, the number of African marathoners is waaaaaaaay greater than the number of non-African marathoners.

They are not as dominate in the races less than 5000m because those shorter distances are not as affected by endurance training as the 5k & longer are. And their endurance training is from their lifestyle. Why would they focus on distances shorter than 5k, when they've practically been preparing for longer events for their whole lives? Thats just a waste of time. Particularly, if youre trying to get out of poverty or even make money period as soon as possible.

It's a similar case in the U.S.. Why would you focus on longer distances when you've been playing football and basketball or leading a non-pedestrian lifestyle for years. (all of which happen to prepare most for distances in the 100m-800m range)?

It's just common sense.

look at me more wrote:

[quote]fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

And their endurance training is from their lifestyle. Why would they focus on distances shorter than 5k, when they've practically been preparing for longer events for their whole lives?

It's a similar case in the U.S.. Why would you focus on longer distances when you've been playing football and basketball or leading a non-pedestrian lifestyle for years. (all of which happen to prepare most for distances in the 100m-800m range)?

It's just common sense.

So, in the United States, 100 kids with the muscle fiber mix to run a natural 50 second 400m at age 17 are born, and they spend their childhoods playing power based sports at low volumes and a lot of Playstation 3. Those 100 kids are then put through a distance training program for five years.

At the same time, in Kenya, 100 kids with the muscle fiber mix to run a natural 50 second 400m at age 17 are born, and they spend their childhoods running moderate distances at moderate volumes. Those 100 kids are then put through a distance training program for five years.

Who ends up with the better distance runners? Who ends up with more depth? The U.S. kids probably maintained or improved their speed, but they started from no base, and their muscle fiber composition adapted to suit the work they were doing. The Kenyans spent their entire lives building a base and modifying their muscle fiber composition to suit the work they were doing.

I like this better than "they're just genetically better distance runners".