None Of This Farah Maneuvering Makes Sense

jsjw wrote:.

I understand that a race can make you tired. What I don't understand is why you think the 5000m would be any less tiring. Can you explain that?

I understand it takes some time to run a race. What I don't understand is why you think a 5000m would take any less time than a 10 000m race?

"It's just when you are going 26 laps against the world's best you want to be at the top of your game," said Jordan, who added Farah was still recovering from the virus.

Must be a new race. The 10,400m? New world record!

jsjw wrote:

I understand that a race can make you tired. What I don't understand is why you think the 5000m would be any less tiring. Can you explain that?

Let's try a simple thought experiment. Two identical twins with identical fitness each run an all-out race; one of them runs 800 meters, the other runs a marathon. The next day, they race each other over one mile. Who's most likely to win?

All races are tiring, but longer races produce more long-lasting fatigue and muscle damage than shorter ones. The 10,000, being twice as long and involving twice as many footstrikes, requires longer to recover from than the 5,000.

Other interesting facts you may not have encountered:

- The earth revolves around the sun.

- Heavy and light objects of the same shape fall at the same rate.

- Salmon return to the EXACT SAME river where they were born in order to spawn.

Does Mo get to keep his "I finished the Nike IAAF Diamond League Eugene Prefontaine Classic 10K Race for the Cure against Ethiopians" t-shirt?

hold the phone wrote:

jsjw wrote:

I understand that a race can make you tired. What I don't understand is why you think the 5000m would be any less tiring. Can you explain that?

Let's try a simple thought experiment. Two identical twins with identical fitness each run an all-out race; one of them runs 800 meters, the other runs a marathon. The next day, they race each other over one mile. Who's most likely to win?

All races are tiring, but longer races produce more long-lasting fatigue and muscle damage than shorter ones. The 10,000, being twice as long and involving twice as many footstrikes, requires longer to recover from than the 5,000.

I have no idea who is most likely to win. You have not explained why a 10,000 would be more tiring than a 5,000. You just repeated the idea using different words.

Why isn't a slightly shorter but faster race just as tiring as a slightly longer but slower race? Why do the differences not cancel out? Sure, a longer race has more foot strikes. But a faster pace exerts your muscles more.

The mile doesn't take as much out of your body compared to the 10k. The 5k was Farah's idea. As was explained in the Oregonian article, Mo felt he owed the organizers to run (whatever race). Don't forget, Farah's big breakthrough 2 years ago was in the Prefontaine 10k. Nobody expected him to win that race, yet the organizers let him in. You're probably right that if Farah's sole goal for the year was to do well at Moscow then he should skip the meet. But he made commitments to the London 10k and the Pre meet and feels he should honor them -- but not at expense of ruining his season which the 10k potentially could do. Don't forget the meat of the Diamond League season is right around the corner. Getting ill again by running an all-out 10k (even if he won) and then building fitness up again would ruin his season.

hold the phone wrote:

Other interesting facts you may not have encountered:

- The earth revolves around the sun.

- Heavy and light objects of the same shape fall at the same rate.

- Salmon return to the EXACT SAME river where they were born in order to spawn.

- You have no idea what you are talking about

jsjw wrote:.

I understand that a race can make you tired. What I don't understand is why you think the 5000m would be any less tiring. Can you explain that?

The longer distance depletes a runner's glycogen reserves far more. Glycogen is the primary source of energy for a runner in a long distance race. The longer the race, the more glycogen that gets used up.

After a 10k race, significantly more glycogen has been taken than during a 5k race, and so more time is need for the reserves to build up again.

The Master Troll wrote:

The longer distance depletes a runner's glycogen reserves far more. Glycogen is the primary source of energy for a runner in a long distance race. The longer the race, the more glycogen that gets used up.

After a 10k race, significantly more glycogen has been taken than during a 5k race, and so more time is need for the reserves to build up again.

Is this really an issue? It's a 10k not a 100-miler.

¿voiceofreason? wrote:

Have you ever ran a 10k in a track it takes a much larger toll on your body, we know this because most of us on here have experienced it.

This is true. A hard 10,000 on the track wipes you out mentally and physically for most at least a full week. A full week of nothing but recovering and no hard training.

You can be back to work after an all out 5000 in 4 days max.

jsjw wrote:

The Master Troll wrote:

The longer distance depletes a runner's glycogen reserves far more. Glycogen is the primary source of energy for a runner in a long distance race. The longer the race, the more glycogen that gets used up.

After a 10k race, significantly more glycogen has been taken than during a 5k race, and so more time is need for the reserves to build up again.

Is this really an issue? It's a 10k not a 100-miler.

Yes, it is an issue.

The Master Troll wrote:

jsjw wrote:

Is this really an issue? It's a 10k not a 100-miler.

Yes, it is an issue.

How is it an issue? A 10k doesn't use that many calories.

10K - use this info for your benefit.

a hard but not too hard 10k early in the season can contribute to your buildup for the season.

running a too hard 10k can put you in a hole, take the edge off in july, august.

in fact, milers and such should not max out running a 10k.

you can run till you are 3/4 dead - but till you are 100% dead, ok? as in cross, you can run hard with the pack till the last km but within yourself, then do what you can to place well for your team. this tact is optimal. you'll be able to build up this way, otherwise 100% guaranteed you will crash and burn.

in actual fact, the world beaters are so fit that it is tough for them to red line. it takes a number of super efforts to destroy them. but it can be done, is done.

And how long it takes to replenish glycogen reserves?

About as long as it takes to finish a grand slam at Denny's.

jsjw wrote:

How is it an issue? A 10k doesn't use that many calories.

It does. In fact it uses twice as many as a 5k race.

It depends on how fast you run.

Everyone not from the US (well not everyone competing) had a transatlantic flight so I don't see how his flight was any different from Bekele's.

Doesn't Farah need to hit a qualifying time anyway or does the 10k window extend longer? What is the UK qualifying process. Does he get an auto bid?

As for a long season, Bekele didn't back out because he has a long season. I bet if we looked at Olympic medalists over the years, those who had run the most races leading up the Games, are those who have the hardware.

Running a 5k in 13:15 is very difficult and is no less challenging than a 27:12. College guys double in the 10k/5k at conferences and come back shortly for regionals.

If this were a one time deal, there would be no suspicion, but Americans in general and Rupp for sure constantly back out of races because their finger hurts.