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

Coach JW wrote:

If it's a sincere question and you want a real dialogue I'd be happy to respond, but your question is a little too vague for me to answer specifically.

To be sure, you saw that it's merely for general populations, not specific individuals, and ultimately is just a quick reference sheet for me, right?

Again, happy to get back to you, just not sure where to start.

I don't understand what is vague about my question. I was specific. How can you consider Europeans to be a general population? I didn't say anything about individuals.

Xfg= troll

Throws stones with nothing to offer.

this should be a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

coach jw wrote:

this should be a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

Great, now you are just being obnoxious. I asked an honest question. Vikings, Irish, Germans, and Hungarians for example all look completely different. In some ways, as different as the difference between them and Africans. Considering them all to be a general population makes no sense at all.

But good job on being obnoxious and stupid Ventolin.

hellishot wrote:

Xfg= troll

Throws stones with nothing to offer.

I see you are posting under yet another name Ventolin. I'm not throwing stones. I asked a fair question. I don't need to offer anything if I'm asking a question. Great dumb logic as always.

xfg wrote:

coach jw wrote:

this should be a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

Great, now you are just being obnoxious. I asked an honest question. Vikings, Irish, Germans, and Hungarians for example all look completely different. In some ways, as different as the difference between them and Africans. Considering them all to be a general population makes no sense at all.

But good job on being obnoxious and stupid Ventolin.

I understand your question is "honest", but it's still extremely vague. Ultimately, I group Europeans in the same way you did, by using an adjective so as to make it more simple for our brains to grasp. People's of certain descent, in this case West African, East African and European, TEND to have certain characteristics. West Africans TEND to have more fast twitch muscle fibers than those of European descent who in turn TEND to have more fast twitch muscle fibers than those of East African descent.

I could rename the categories "type IIX dominant", "type IIa dominant" and "type I dominant", but of course you could pick that apart as well. It's just a reference tool for me that I thought a few people might be interested in.

If I were Ventolin I would have just called you an imbecile or pea brain or some stupid rhetoric like that.

My question is NOT extremely vague. It's not even remotely vague. Do you not know what vague means?? I was specific. I said how can you group all Europeans together. Explain how that is vague. I mentioned a specific action and a specific subject.

Your insistence on my question being vague is what is actually vague. What exactly are you having trouble with understanding about it? You have not mentioned anything specific about your difficulty understanding it. You just keep repeating "it is extremely vague".

No, you did not group them in the same way I did. The adjectives that I used actually exist. Yours do not. There is no "general European". Europeans do not tend to have any type of fiber distribution.

xfg, we obviously aren't able to effectively communicate with one another, so I'll just leave it be and apologize for irritating you. my intent was to offer a quick reference chart in regards to the OP's initial question, but it seems to be of little help to anyone but me. If I could delete my posts, I would, they are obviously obnoxious if I'm being compared to ventolin^3.

coach jw wrote:

xfg, we obviously aren't able to effectively communicate with one another, so I'll just leave it be and apologize for irritating you. my intent was to offer a quick reference chart in regards to the OP's initial question, but it seems to be of little help to anyone but me. If I could delete my posts, I would, they are obviously obnoxious if I'm being compared to ventolin^3.

No. I'm communicating just fine. You aren't. Your posts are not obnoxious. Your post was obnoxious. You really don't see how posting a link to an anthropology wiki is obnoxious? (Assuming that you were the one who posted that. I don't feel like scrolling back).

Xfg why don't you offer something? You are a typical troll. Being rude, picking a fight, and never admit someone has something to offer good job.

200 / 400 ratios really don't mean a lot

they just indicate if you have weaknesses in your 200 if you're a 400 guy & need to run your 200s more efficiently

i have constructed some mathematical equivalents for 200 / 400

45.00 = 20.25

44.50 = 20.00

44.25 = 19.875

44.00 = 19.75

43.75 = 19.625

43.50 = 19.50

43.29 = 19.395

43.18 = 19.34

43.00 = 19.25

quite frankly, if you have a 44-flat guy & he is running 20.1/20.2, then he has some issues with efficient running at higher-speeds for the 1/2 lap ( + obviously he may lack a touch of speed )

a 44-flat guy shoud be running 20-flat at worst off just pure 400 training even if his speed is not elite

running more 200s may improve his form & help his 400 overall with no change in training

a guy like kirani with 43.74pb, shoud be running 19.7/19.8 off just his 400 training if he ran a few 200s in his pb shape

"Now I ask you how many great sprinters go on road runs?"

Tommie Smith and Lee Evans (I'm not sure about other 'Speed City " guys) used to run 5-10 miles in off season ... per Bud Winter overall coaching regimen.

I'm pretty sure (90% or closer to 100%) that Lee ran a 1:52-53 half mile). I'm not sure if others, in other programs, duplicated that or even approximated it. Those guys did pretty well :>) I suppose there are exceptions to every .....

very cool stuff. I down have bud winter's book. However, I will make the statement how much faster would they have been under a Vince Anderson that does zero of this type of work. Again a lot of these people mentioned on this Thread are people who raced over twenty years. In this case 40 years ago. Add to the fact how much faster people are running to get into the top 50 world wide. Additionally, the best development athletes have more to choose it can certainly narrow down the types of training certain events and types of athletes should be doing in practice.

ventolin^3 wrote:

200 / 400 ratios really don't mean a lot

they just indicate if you have weaknesses in your 200 if you're a 400 guy & need to run your 200s more efficiently

i have constructed some mathematical equivalents for 200 / 400

45.00 = 20.25

44.50 = 20.00

44.25 = 19.875

44.00 = 19.75

43.75 = 19.625

43.50 = 19.50

43.29 = 19.395

43.18 = 19.34

43.00 = 19.25

quite frankly, if you have a 44-flat guy & he is running 20.1/20.2, then he has some issues with efficient running at higher-speeds for the 1/2 lap ( + obviously he may lack a touch of speed )

a 44-flat guy shoud be running 20-flat at worst off just pure 400 training even if his speed is not elite

running more 200s may improve his form & help his 400 overall with no change in training

a guy like kirani with 43.74pb, shoud be running 19.7/19.8 off just his 400 training if he ran a few 200s in his pb shape

Ventolin, the question was about the difference in 200/400 ratios between sprinters and distance runners. Do you think an elite distance runner could run 50-second 400m with only 24-second 200m ability?

rashos22 wrote:Do you think an elite distance runner could run 50-second 400m with only 24-second 200m ability?

no easy answer

for sprinters :

50.00 = 22.75

my guess for the best distance guys, they woud need at worst an intrinsic

~ 23-high

i don't think it's possible to run 50-flat off 24.0 let alone 24+