200\400 ratios for distance runners vs sprinters? ventolin, sprintgeezer, anyone?

Absolutely. We have eliminated the number of rounds we have now in the championships recently. To survive a large number of rounds SPECIFIC endurance is very important. You have to train to what you are going to experience. Having the base he had allowed him to perform consistently. In our sprint program we do tempo work at 85% max with very short recoveries. Additionally, we do speed endurance you can race what you don't train. I know Clyde Hart does a lot of speed endurance work with great results in the long sprints until recently.

fred wrote:

Edwin Moses:

"I trained totally differently from most athletes. Traditionally, the furthest you would run in practice for the 400-metre hurdles would be 300 metres, but I would run up to six miles up and down hills and across golf courses to build up stamina. I used to train with Henry Rono, the Kenyan long-distance runner, who broke four world records in 1978. He was my room-mate in California."

Thanks for that. I know that Moses gets a mention in Keith Livingstone's Lydiard-based book Healthy Intelligent Training. I suppose the hurdles build in a bigger stamina component. He did have longevity, that incredible win streak, Olympic Golds, and the World Record x4. Interesting.

fred wrote:

Edwin Moses:

"I trained totally differently from most athletes. Traditionally, the furthest you would run in practice for the 400-metre hurdles would be 300 metres, but I would run up to six miles up and down hills and across golf courses to build up stamina. I used to train with Henry Rono, the Kenyan long-distance runner, who broke four world records in 1978. He was my room-mate in California."

Awesome, I love hearing anecdotes like that.

The most likely reason for a DR having a lower 400/200 ratio than a sprinter is that DR's don't run competitive or all out 200's as much. It's not that they have more endurance, just lower top speed. And thus it is no accident that their 400's are much slower than sprinters despite being closer to their own 200's.

In other words, to get to sub 50, get well below 24, that's the intelligent way. Trying to run 24.x/25 off of 24 speed is the hard way, and likely impossible. Just because some have done it doesn't mean you will. Get to 23 and your odds are much better.

Ryry wrote:

Absolutely. We have eliminated the number of rounds we have now in the championships recently. To survive a large number of rounds SPECIFIC endurance is very important. You have to train to what you are going to experience. Having the base he had allowed him to perform consistently. In our sprint program we do tempo work at 85% max with very short recoveries. Additionally, we do speed endurance you can race what you don't train. I know Clyde Hart does a lot of speed endurance work with great results in the long sprints until recently.

What is the problem here? Why have you still not yet posted anything relevant in this thread?

Bad Wigins wrote:

The most likely reason for a DR having a lower 400/200 ratio than a sprinter is that DR's don't run competitive or all out 200's as much. It's not that they have more endurance, just lower top speed. And thus it is no accident that their 400's are much slower than sprinters despite being closer to their own 200's.

In other words, to get to sub 50, get well below 24, that's the intelligent way. Trying to run 24.x/25 off of 24 speed is the hard way, and likely impossible. Just because some have done it doesn't mean you will. Get to 23 and your odds are much better.

So would you say the main reason DRs have a lower 1500/200 ratio is because sprinters don't run competitive or all out 1500s as much, or do you suppose maybe the fiber type comes into play?

do you suppose maybe sprint training develops fast muscle, or are you one of those "genetic talent" cop-outs who thinks it's all fixed at birth?

And would you say your average 3:45 runner has a lower 1500/200 ratio than Juantorena because Juantorena didn't run the 1500 much, or because they run 24 for 200 and he ran 20.7? To have a lower ratio than them he'd have to run 3:13!

The 400 is a sprint. Improve by sprinting.

Sprinting improves more than fiber type. To the other guy who is asking about how does this relate? I am answering other questions being asked or brought up on the thread.

Fibers take on characteristics of what you are training. Research looks like a person can move fiber type about 7%

Ryry wrote:

Research looks like a person can move fiber type about 7%

How fast? And could there be outliers who could move fiber type more than

7%.

For max speed it has to be at 95% of there maximum velocity which changes over time as they improve. I would assume there are outliers in a number of aspects. Proper training protocol has been hashed out nicely by Gary Winckler in his work for USATF. Some people are responders and can adapt more readily then others. Again my theory these people are those who have quick twitch oxidative which has properties of slow twitch and quick twitch fibers

Ryry wrote:

Sprinting improves more than fiber type. To the other guy who is asking about how does this relate? I am answering other questions being asked or brought up on the thread.

Why won't you answer the OP's question?

Ryry wrote:

Sprinting improves more than fiber type. To the other guy who is asking about how does this relate? I am answering other questions being asked or brought up on the thread.

So once again... How does answering other peoples' questions relate to answering the original poster's question? It doesn't.

That question has been answered by others on this thread but to respond to why those ratios don't line up as well for sprinters is simple. A distance runner doesn't need a lot of convincing to run down and give a solid effort moving a sprinter up from the 400 to 800/1500 is a much more difficult proposition.

Ryry wrote:

For max speed it has to be at 95% of there maximum velocity which changes over time as they improve. I would assume there are outliers in a number of aspects. Proper training protocol has been hashed out nicely by Gary Winckler in his work for USATF. Some people are responders and can adapt more readily then others. Again my theory these people are those who have quick twitch oxidative which has properties of slow twitch and quick twitch fibers

When I said how fast I meant how fast can people switch their fibers.

Within your theory, quick twitch oxidative responds to a shift in training stimulus.

Edwin Moses did no speedwork while doing those 6 mile training runs, but who knows how hard they were with Rono.

Ryry wrote:

That question has been answered by others on this thread but to respond to why those ratios don't line up as well for sprinters is simple. A distance runner doesn't need a lot of convincing to run down and give a solid effort moving a sprinter up from the 400 to 800/1500 is a much more difficult proposition.

No. Only like 2 people answered and one of them was a sarcastic answer. Provide some ratios or shut up.

Wow tough crowd.

I have a high school freshman female athlete that has times in quality race conditioning that are the following 100 13.00fat 200 26.75fat 400 split 59.5 on the anchor leg 800? 1600 5:29.5 with rabbits after her xc season this fall 5000 19:54 on xc course.

Another that ran 200 25.5h 400 57.8h 800 2:18.9h 1600 5:50 5000 21:00

Another that ran 200 26.1 400 split 58.0 800 2:13 1600 5:21 5000 xc 18:57

It's not perfect because I made it for myself and as such understand it's limitations. It's especially difficult to explain the "required mass" part of it as I only have it up there as an average of the three general fiber-type-descents (west african, european and east african descent, which are just population approximations anyways, it doesn't limit any specific individual from that population) and use it for my own reference.

coach jw wrote:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqf0LPZ-uUKqdG14OTZRbDR0S2N3RVZKWWpyWXNHeVE&usp=sharing

It's not perfect because I made it for myself and as such understand it's limitations. It's especially difficult to explain the "required mass" part of it as I only have it up there as an average of the three general fiber-type-descents (west african, european and east african descent, which are just population approximations anyways, it doesn't limit any specific individual from that population) and use it for my own reference.

How can you lump all Europeans into one group???? That makes no sense