Distance runners with sub-50 400m speed?

If a runner has sub 50 400m speed in high school they will run the 400m...maybe the 800m

I don't care if you are a Kenyan or a Russian...if you are sub 50 in high school you are running no longer than 800m

You can't turn a sprinter into a distance runner and vice versa.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

You can't turn a sprinter into a distance runner and vice versa.

Alan

You absolutely can.

A Webb, for one.

Do you seriously think that or was that a sarcastic joke?

Runningart2004 wrote:

If a runner has sub 50 400m speed in high school they will run the 400m...maybe the 800m

I agree with that, but any world class miler would also be sub-50, so why not try to develop that talent?

A sub-50 guy isn't going to be very competitive as a sprinter beyond the lower college ranks, but he could be one hell of a miler.

Runningart2004 wrote:

You can't turn a sprinter into a distance runner and vice versa.

Alan

Rick Wohlhuter ran the 100 and 220 in HS--and long jumped, IIRC.

We can quibble about whether a miler is a "distance runner," I guess, but Rick managed a few pretty good miles.

His was the classic American situation: at the beginning of track season, all the newcomers were lined up and ran a 100. The fastest guys in that trial became sprinters.

You have to compare performances. If a kid can run 22.5 and 49.x but only 5:00 for the mile, it doesn't make much sense to have him move up to the distances. He'd probably train and get down to 4:30s or 4:20s, which is no better than his 49.x. If a kid can run 49.x but only 23.0 and can also run 1:56 or so off little 800m training, he should probably be focusing on 400-1600m.

I know a guy who ran 50.x as a sophomore in HS but didn't do so well at the 100 and 200. We tried him out in the 800 and he ran 1:52 the next year, in addition to a 48.3. The distance work actually helped his 400m. I'm conviced he could run a great 1500 if he wanted to. However, I know another kid who ran 48.x and only ran 1:59. It would be kind of stupid to have him train for the mile.

Speed is definitely an advantage in distance running though, and pure speed is usually underemphasized in distance programs. Any <4:00 miler better count on <50.0 speed or they'll have a lot of trouble winnning races against anyone with a bit of speed. El G was a slow sprinter compared to other world class milers, and he could CLOSE in 51(probably 50 in a slow race).

================

There are many other factors involved in whether or not a 47 second 400m runner (for example) could become a world-class 5000m runner--I'm not saying sub-50 400m speed + distance training will always = world-class runner. I'm saying if 100 boys and 100 girls with 50/57 400m speed trained for distance for over a ten year period from age 15-25, we would see a significant improvement in our (U.S.A) performance versus their international peers, and versus the 'traditional model' distance runners who come to the sport by being 'too slow', with 54+/61+ second 400m speed.

Alan, don't rail against the premise. Think about the question, and open your mind a bit.

I knew a guy (early 80's)who was a 2-time state 5-a XC Champ in Tx and 3200m runner-up (9:11 guy) who ran a 47 second relay leg several times in the 4x4. Yes, it was a relay leg but a sub 50 open 400 seems very reasonable based off that.

You can train certain fast twitch fibers to behave more like slow twitch fibers, but you cannot change them from fast twitch to slow twitch. I challenge you to produce any research to the contrary.

Guppy, I agree. At the level of the individual, what you are saying is absolutely true.

My feeling is that the vast majority of our distance runners (5000m/10000m) lack basic speed because our society values shorter distance performances (i.e. 100 is better than 200>400>800>mile, etc) at all levels. As a developing runner in the United States, you will ALWAYS be encouraged to race the shortest distance that your natural speed will allow.

I want to see what the results will be if we flip that. On the individual level, there will be variation, like Guppy mentioned in the examples. However, on the aggregate, I suspect we will end up with a few athletes who are capable of world-class times, and also have world-class finishing speed, which is what we always seem to lack (I'm thinking Bob Kennedy and Shalane Flanagan are a couple of good examples).

Bekele and Gebrselassie have been said to have high-49 400m speed, and I suspect Dibaba, Defar, and Abeylegesse are capable of 56-57 type 400m times. In the United States development system, all of them would have been 800/1500 types at the peak of their careers. And, indeed, all of them have run world-class 1500m times (if not 800m times). Yet, even with the absolute top-level 1500m times, their best events are at distances three to six times as long, and they are the fastest runners in recorded history at those longer distances.

Webb ran 49.9 as a HS freshman. There are a lot of HS kids who run distance that can break 50. 50 isn't fast.

Try again wrote:

You can train certain fast twitch fibers to behave more like slow twitch fibers, but you cannot change them from fast twitch to slow twitch. I challenge you to produce any research to the contrary.

This is correct. I meant to type 'slow-twitch-like'. The fibers will continue to be Type II-A/B, but function more like Type I fibers.

I know... wrote:

Webb ran 49.9 as a HS freshman. There are a lot of HS kids who run distance that can break 50. 50 isn't fast.

And the vast majority of them never pursue running at any distance at the college level. And the vast majority of those who do, never pursue any distance above 1500m. Which leaves a very small group of people with very good speed who are putting in the aerobic work to become the best they can at longer distances.

If this group were larger, could we expect to see outliers like a Geb or Bekele at a greater frequency than we do now?

Runningart2004 wrote:

If a runner has sub 50 400m speed in high school they will run the 400m...maybe the 800m

I don't care if you are a Kenyan or a Russian...if you are sub 50 in high school you are running no longer than 800m

You can't turn a sprinter into a distance runner and vice versa.

Alan

What if you're a Brit named Steve Ovett?

I think you guys are making strict distinctions that aren't quiet applicable.

Ovett isn't really a sprinter. He's a very fast mid distance runner.

THere are different types of sprinters/distance runners. Just because you run the sprints doesn't mean you are sprinter and vice versa.

What alan is saying is that you aren't going to take a pure sprinter and magically make him into a 1500 runner. It doesn't work.

For some reason, people always think that you can add endurance to anyone. Endurance is thought of almost entirely as training related. It's not entirely.

If it was true, you'd see all sorts of 400m guys who would move up and dominate the 800m. You don't. Even guys who try get good, but not great. ala Adam Steele or Matt Sherer (I think that's who).

Plus, when you move a sprinter up, his speed is going to be hindered a bit.

Good post, its not just a matter of, if your sub 50 - you'll be a great dist runnner, their are other pointers you can use to get an idea.. sub 50 400 guys become sub 4 milers quite easily sometimes.

you could easily consider this issue from the other perspective:

Is distance running in the US too distance/endurance focused? Do high schoolers running distance stuff need to do more pure speed work?

A bit can be done that makes a huge difference without significantly impacting performance or other training.

Too many kids that start with decent 4/8 speed slow down because their coaches are distance crazy and don't continue to develop basic speed.

Can you site a race of even moderate pace in which El Guerrouj ran the last 400m in 51 seconds? El Guerrouj was known for his long, sustained drive over the final 600m, and I can't remember him ever running inside 53sec for the last 400m.