I'm finding that to be the case.
You can get away with bad form in 5k, but you can't in 5 miles or 10k.
Or at least that's my story.
I'm finding that to be the case.
You can get away with bad form in 5k, but you can't in 5 miles or 10k.
Or at least that's my story.
I think you're on to something. My 5k time is far better than its longer distance "equivalent" times.
*ahem* Paula Radcliffe *ahem*
t94bell wrote:
*ahem* Paula Radcliffe *ahem*
Truth. I think you see more elites 10k and up with wonky form than 5k and lower. you don't see elite 800 meter runners who look anything other than smooth
It might depend on the type of inefficiency.
Meaning it's not enough to say form is "good" or "bad" there are certain characteristics that hurt more in different distances.
Nobody here or anywhere else has any idea what an "efficient style" is for any given runner. All that the form clowns are really saying when they talk about efficient style is that which is aesthetically pleasing.
I don't see too many men with poor form these days on the track. Some are due to leg length vs height but nothing too bad.
Women on the other hard look was less smooth, probably due to body composition throwing off the arm swings of female distance runners. You often see arms really high, with an interior angle nowhere close to 90 degrees.
Above 5k I still see not many issues with men, but plenty with women. I guess the best form isn't feasible for most women.
Also, their uterus would fall out. had to get that in there
I've seen 100-mile runners heelstriking. The insanity.
Kim Smith (NZ)?
14:39 5000m
1:07 half
2:25 full
You don't "get away" with an inefficient style in the 5k any more than any other race. Can someone tell me what the f**k OP is talking about?
5k is a short enough race that you can do some things wrong form wise, but still be competitive. The finish line comes before you really hit the wall.
In a 5 mile or 10k race, you'll hit the wall before the finish.