I see some people in their responses say they can go the distance but lack the speed? Speed as in what? Most people can hit a 4:20 or lower mile pace even if its only for a few seconds and most people would probably agrer that is speedy right? So doesn't that qualify as having speed? Should one not just work on the endurance to sustain that speed? Or is my entire conception wrong. Serious question because I see it brought up frequently.
I say I don't have speed.
High School PRs:
400: 66
800: 2:20
1600: 4:51
3200: 10:30ish
HM: 1:22
If you see things that people say, a possible explanation is that you are on acid.
No one can sustain their absolute maximum speed for a very long time. I haven't really studied this stuff, but just attaining those speeds and sustaining them for short bursts requires (chemically) different energy systems than does sustaining a speed for a longer period. Given human biology it's pretty much impossible to sustain the maximum speed you can attain for, say, 4 minutes. Part of that is an anaerobic vs. aerobic systems thing, but there other systems at play I believe.
If you increase your raw, maximum speed, so reasoning would easily flow, then it should be easier to sustain a given speed lower than your new maximum speed, maybe closer to your old maximum speed, provided the same level of endurance.
If someone can run at 4:20/mi pace, but only for a few seconds, it wouldn't be considered "speedy" compared to someone who can run at 2:55 min/mi pace for 11 seconds (roughly 100m). People are referring to their speeds at varying distances, and a "fast" pace for a mile is wildly different that a "fast" pace for a short sprint.
I think this addressed your concern but I'm not sure of how clear it came out.
Or he's reading words. You know, on a screen, on LetsRun.
speedless wrote:
I say I don't have speed.
High School PRs:
400: 66
800: 2:20
1600: 4:51
3200: 10:30ish
HM: 1:22
My high school PRs were similar. My senior year I ran 10:27 for 3200 and that was decent in the area where I lived. My best 400 was 67 or 68 and there were freshman girls I couldn't outsprint (at least one of them was a distance runner).
one possibility wrote:
If you see things that people say, a possible explanation is that you are on acid.
not a moran
synesthesia
nice!
Need a little help here wrote:
I see some people in their responses say they can go the distance but lack the speed? Speed as in what? Most people can hit a 4:20 or lower mile pace even if its only for a few seconds and most people would probably agrer that is speedy right? So doesn't that qualify as having speed? Should one not just work on the endurance to sustain that speed? Or is my entire conception wrong. Serious question because I see it brought up frequently.
moran
In addition to what has been said, it's important to recognize that sprinting speed is highly correlated with running economy. This makes sense when you think about it, because good mechanics will lead to less tiring. So if two athletes have a similar VO2max but one can sprint faster (better economy), then it's far more likely that this athlete will have better mile and 5K times.
This is why strides are so important in all phases of training: they don't destroy your body, but they do help maximize your efficiency and potential.
When people say they don't have the speed, it simply means that you may lose to people who normally are slower than you at long distances, at shorter events. Scientists say this is because of the amount of fast twitch vs. slow twitch muscles a person has. Fast twitch muscles make a person faster for shorter distances because they use more energy and therefore get tired faster. Slow twitch muscles are the opposite.
conceptioniswrong? wrote:
Or he's reading words. You know, on a screen, on LetsRun.
Those words were typed, not said. You know, on a screen, on LetsRun.
Yeah its just them not having the endurance for running fast, strangely enough. I also highly doubt they couldn't hit any of the same paces for a few seconds, they just can't last long enough and they can blame their genes for that like everything else running. Sprint distances of course are a different animal. The other part is just psychological, it makes them feel better to play up how slow they are at shorter distances.
Put simply, speed is relative. For example, if you want to run a sub-2:00 800m you need to first be able to run a 55 400m (at the slowest, unless you have God like speed endurance). If you can't run the 400m in 55 or under holding sub-60 pace for two laps will be almost impossible.
I would say a world class marathon runner needs to have ~27:00 10k "speed" or they won't be able to hold -4:50 pace for 26.2 because it is too close to their "speed" for 10k.
I hope I'm making sense.
much of speed has to do not only with fiber type predominance, but also latent cns wiring patterns. i would caution against an 'i'm not capable of high speed' mentality, however, that has been ingrained by track and field coaches and experts. we are finding that a lot of our physiology is much more changeable than initially thought, though different people have different starting points. of course few have sub 46 400 capacity, but i'd argue that more have sub 60 and even sub 50 capacity than there actually are due to improper coaching and premature de-emphasis on speed. it is like seeing some 'hard' math problems as a child and saying 'i'm not good at math' for the rest of one's life, instead of changing the approach and effort.
fast twitch vs slow twitch accounting for speed is a stale baloney sandwich.
remember those wire desk toys that used to be popular, where one perfectly balanced thing is set in motion and then oscillates seemingly endlessly? That is how the human body works when running fast efficiently. What matters isn't muscle type but nervous (not conscious!) control. That's why sprint coaches constantly tell their athletes to relax so they can flow properly.
Thanks for the responses. I think I have a better understanding of what people are referring to about speed.