Sprintgeezer: Sprint training advice

And I'll add I don't believe it just become someone on a forum said so. It has to make sense.

Agreeing with Karma Police. This (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KJMIwlQB-28) was not a serious competition. I mean, a world class rower running 19.37 all out? No way. And the Brownlees running 4' mile pace out of blocks?

A 19.37 could be ran by an elderly woman, right?

coach d: i'd like to see a sample of your training and hear some of your insights.

joel przybilla wrote:

coach d: i'd like to see a sample of your training and hear some of your insights.

Agreed! Please give us some samples! And update us with your race preparations and results!

Karma Police wrote:

I have to say maths is a strong point for me, and I somehow worked out that double 11 is 26.

Go figure.

I still say Farah could go well under 13.00FAT for 100 though. And I don't believe that 11.3 is the fastest he could go fresh for a flying 100.

If you think that:

- 11.3 is his fastest for a flying 100,

- 22.6 is therefore the fastest he could run for a flying 200

- using blocks adds 2 seconds onto his time,

then you're saying he couldn't run faster than 24.6 for 200 out of blocks, fresh. That's twaddle.

My overall point is that Farah would be a faster sprinter than you and sprintgeezer are giving him credit for.

I think sprintgeezer understands sprinting for distance runners a lot better than you do.

You obviously don't understand distance running. We distance runners can close a distance race faster than our best 100m race times, for reasons explained of which you are in denial.

The local high school track seems to be open to the public

Today's workout:

500,400,200 with 3-5 minutes rest (1:37, 1:17, :34)

Not fast of course but hopefully I will build my strength up. Shins still feel bleh and it it was about 95 out but for such short distances that doesn't matter. Finished up with a few high jump approaches and walking over hurdles

Close a distance race at a faster pace than you can run fresh? Did you actually read what I just wrote?

How can anyone argue against such absurdity?

The only issue is Sprintgeezer underestimates how fast distance runners are. Some of you then follow that opinion blindly. Example - Coe could keep up with 10.80 100 runners, doing full recovery 60s.

That equation for Farah running 200 in 24.6 at best - go and tell me what part of it is wrong, based on the logic you and others have given me here. Then tell me if you think 24.6 is the fastest Farah could run for 200 from blocks. Or do you really think that is the fastest Farah could run for 200 from blocks?

Lifted weights this evening.

I only have this old set and they don't go up very high (not that I'm very strong anyway) so I did high reps at relatively low weight (Im partially estimating the weight since the bar isn't the standard 45lbs)

Deadlift:

2x20@70-80lbs

3x10@90-100lbs

(Max: 225 for 2-3 reps)

Bench:

1x20@90-100lbs

3x10@90-100lbs

Then did some sit ups and random ancillary exercises

Karma Police wrote:

That equation for Farah running 200 in 24.6 at best - go and tell me what part of it is wrong, based on the logic you and others have given me here. Then tell me if you think 24.6 is the fastest Farah could run for 200 from blocks. Or do you really think that is the fastest Farah could run for 200 from blocks?

Yes of course we all believe that, for the thousandth time.

HIs 13.0+ from blocks in a race + his 11.3 all-out flying 100 + some extra time because you can't hold top speed for 200 meters, that would be something in the high 24's, wouldn't it?

This is not based on Sprint Geezer's estimates (although I respect his opinion), this is based on two different results that actually occurred. If you are so certain Mo Farah can run so much faster than that, then YOU should be explaining why his results do not support that.

If you aren't 100% certain that Farah can run well under 12 seconds for 100m from a dead start you're simply an idiot. I don't care about some made for tv gimmick race that he probably put zero effort into. He ran faster than 13 second pace for the entire last lap of a 10K. There is zero chance that anyone who can't break 12 for 100m can run 3:27. ZERO CHANCE no matter how much endurance he has.

These rolling-start, hand-timed runs in practice aren't precise enough to mean anything.

I bet if you FAT timed Farah and offered him $1000 for every hundredth under 12.00 he runs, you'd be treated to something in the neighborhood of 11-flat.

marijuologist wrote:

If you aren't 100% certain that Farah can run well under 12 seconds for 100m from a dead start you're simply an idiot. I don't care about some made for tv gimmick race that he probably put zero effort into. He ran faster than 13 second pace for the entire last lap of a 10K.

Distance runners, please. This is totally incorrect and this is why. Never underestimate the strength and muscle mass it takes to overcome the inertia of a dead still start. Farah ran faster than 13 second pace for the entire last lap of the race. The guy is very fast for a distance runner, no argument there. However he does not have the explosiveness to overcome the inertia of a dead still start to get up to 11 to 11.5 second speed for a 100m race. The difference between a rolling start and a dead start is tremendous for a distance runner. The world record for the mens 4x100 is 36.84 seconds. That means 4 guys averaged 9.21 seconds for each 100m leg. 3 out of those 4 had rolling starts. The world record for the 100m is 9.58. Each leg averaged .37 UNDER the world record. Let that sink in. It's the result of 3 out of the 4 not having to overcome the inertia of the dead start. These guys were elite sprinters who had blistering fast block starts and they still cut off .37 seconds from the world record time due to running at top speed.

A distance runner who doesn't have the explosiveness and strength of a sprinter will have a differential of at least a second, probably more. And THAT is why Farah cannot run faster than the high 12's from a standing start in the 100m sprint.

marijuologist wrote:

These rolling-start, hand-timed runs in practice aren't precise enough to mean anything.

I bet if you FAT timed Farah and offered him $1000 for every hundredth under 12.00 he runs, you'd be treated to something in the neighborhood of 11-flat.

I don't know about 11 flat, but certainly in the 11s. If Coe was capable of sub 11 FAT over 100, then Farah has to be sub-12, maybe low-11s.

You'd think people wouldn't be gullible enough to believe what someone supposedly ran in training. They think Farah can close the last lap of a 10km faster than 4 times his 100 time?

All evidence to the contrary.

Blah blah blah. How could Coe have been sub-11 if Farah is 13.0? There's 18m difference over 100 between the two? Not bloody likely.

Yes Farah will have a bigger differential between his flying and standing start 100m times than a sprinter. But you are seriously underestimating how fast the guy is. You seem to think he could run faster for 400 than 4 times his 100m time.

As I said earlier, my 14yo kid, an 800 runenr, can run sub-12. It is unbelieveable that he could beat Farah over 100.

Work it out for yourself. As I said above - if you think Farah can't run faster than 11.3 for a flying 100, and his standing start differential is 2 seconds, then you believe he can't run faster than 24.6 for 200. That's what you're saying, and it's preposterous.

Me in workouts (HT; ~95% effort):

12.9 rolling on a good day; 14.9 from static.

bump

Karma Police wrote:

Blah blah blah. How could Coe have been sub-11 if Farah is 13.0? There's 18m difference over 100 between the two? Not bloody likely.

Work it out for yourself. As I said above - if you think Farah can't run faster than 11.3 for a flying 100, and his standing start differential is 2 seconds, then you believe he can't run faster than 24.6 for 200. That's what you're saying, and it's preposterous.

IF, IF, IF. Comparing Coe and Farah in a sprint? They're not sprinters! Just because Coe can run a sub 11 100m does that mean the Farah can do the same?? Not bloody likely, mate. Coe has much better acceleration. Once Farah gets going he's plenty quick. It just takes him time to get to 100% sprint speed. But he's a distance runner, so this isn't an issue. He has lots of talent...but at distance, not sprinting. Don't make the mistake of thinking one translates to the other. Sprinting is a radically different beast.

And thanks, but I don't have to work it out by myself. The FACT remains that he ran 12.98 in 100m, from a dead start. Until he runs faster, you're just blowing hot air.

I am not knowledgeable about distance running, but I DO know sprinting. You wouldn't believe the number of distance runners who think they can accelerate like a sprinter can. It's always very humbling for them to have their doors blown off in a sprint race. It's usually over by the 30m mark.

Cheers!

Karma Police wrote:

Work it out for yourself. As I said above - if you think Farah can't run faster than 11.3 for a flying 100, and his standing start differential is 2 seconds, then you believe he can't run faster than 24.6 for 200. That's what you're saying, and it's preposterous.

Tell me, what is preposterous about it? Several of us have agreed that Mo would be 24.xx for a 200 from blocks.

You're wrong, everyone with any knowledge of sprint training disagrees with you, give it up already. Please.

Karma Police wrote:

Blah blah blah. How could Coe have been sub-11 if Farah is 13.0? There's 18m difference over 100 between the two? Not bloody likely.

Because Coe was a country mile faster than Farah at 400 and 800, so the gap gets even wider as you go down in distance.

Move up to 3k, 10k, marathon... and the gap between Farah and Coe grows exponentially wider in the other direction.

In reading over your replies, it sounds like the whole concept of event-specific fitness is just over your head, in general.