Why do people think elite distance runners are slow?! Look at El G,Haile,KB,Mo,Galen. All of them could go 48-49 in a 400 in their prime. If they focused 100% towards sprinting, they would all run 45-46 in a 400. Why is there ignorance around this? I remember some guy on my team saying, "I could beat any elite marathoner in a 400." He ran a 53.xx. Not knowing true elites could crank out a 50.
Distance runners are actually very fast sprinters.
Training Advice/Discussion
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
You are right that most elite distance runners would crush the 53second guy but you are overestimating the ultimate trainability of distance guys in the sprints. At then end of the day the physiology that makes a good 5k+ runner precludes him from ever being a truly fast sprinter.
-
6 years as a 1500/800m runner. My 400m time? 50.5
Next year I was a 400m runner. My best time? 50.04.
Half a second from specializing in the 400m I disagree with your suggestion that those elites would improve by 2 to 3 seconds by switching to the 400m. -
Good troll. But I would be interested to see some of them run 60 and 100 - yes we've all seen and argued about mo celeb 100. On another note, Ryan hall has a "workout video" where he "teaches" us to do short (40m or so) sprints...it's basically him doing marathon pace for 40 meters. One wonders if some of these athletes are truly so lacking in explosive capabilities. It's as if they're not trying.
-
meh.. wrote:
You are right that most elite distance runners would crush the 53second guy but you are overestimating the ultimate trainability of distance guys in the sprints. At then end of the day the physiology that makes a good 5k+ runner precludes him from ever being a truly fast sprinter.
One thing I've never understood is how these elite long distance guys are supposedly slow twitch but so much faster than the average person over the sprint distances. -
ukathleticcoach wrote:
meh.. wrote:
You are right that most elite distance runners would crush the 53second guy but you are overestimating the ultimate trainability of distance guys in the sprints. At then end of the day the physiology that makes a good 5k+ runner precludes him from ever being a truly fast sprinter.
One thing I've never understood is how these elite long distance guys are supposedly slow twitch but so much faster than the average person over the sprint distances.
Simple - the average person just isn't very fast. -
A simple sprinter wrote:
Good troll. But I would be interested to see some of them run 60 and 100 - yes we've all seen and argued about mo celeb 100. On another note, Ryan hall has a "workout video" where he "teaches" us to do short (40m or so) sprints...it's basically him doing marathon pace for 40 meters. One wonders if some of these athletes are truly so lacking in explosive capabilities. It's as if they're not trying.
All about specificity. If you trained your body to be best at an event that is 80%+ aerobic, then you cannot just decide to turn it around and be great at events that are 60%+ anaerobic.
There is all sorts at play but I think muscle fibre type is the biggest one. Any good sprinter would have been born with 80%+ fast twitch muscles.
Turning them into a distance runner may be physically impossible. -
Muscle fiber type at birth is a silly myth. You were a tiny little baby, you think all those same muscle fibers just grew to adult size? Of course not. Muscle is broken down and rebuilt all the time, due to training. If you train explosively, you'll get explosive.
People that are "talented," i.e. already there soon enough to be good in competition, spent their developing years training explosively in ways that the coach can't figure out later and so ascribes to "talent," or sometimes "genetics," or even the "muscle fiber type" nonsense. -
Bad Wigins wrote:
Muscle fiber type at birth is a silly myth. You were a tiny little baby, you think all those same muscle fibers just grew to adult size? Of course not. Muscle is broken down and rebuilt all the time, due to training. If you train explosively, you'll get explosive.
People that are "talented," i.e. already there soon enough to be good in competition, spent their developing years training explosively in ways that the coach can't figure out later and so ascribes to "talent," or sometimes "genetics," or even the "muscle fiber type" nonsense.
I believe genes such as ACTN3 and ACTN2 determine muslce fibre type from birth. -
1) you claim is false. El G could go 48 or so, but from a standing start the others would be hard pressed to break 50.0. A moving start aids these runners a lot.
2) the 400m is not a pure sprint. If you look at a standing start 100m, anything involving acceleration, they look much slower.
3) highly doubtful any of them would improve their 400m times by even close to that much, Galen Rupp running a 46?? You're nuts.
4) These are mostly middle distance specialists some of whom moved up to the marathon later. A fair number of elite marathoner specialists would actually have trouble with a 53 standing start. -
Pretty simple, actually wrote:
ukathleticcoach wrote:
meh.. wrote:
You are right that most elite distance runners would crush the 53second guy but you are overestimating the ultimate trainability of distance guys in the sprints. At then end of the day the physiology that makes a good 5k+ runner precludes him from ever being a truly fast sprinter.
One thing I've never understood is how these elite long distance guys are supposedly slow twitch but so much faster than the average person over the sprint distances.
Simple - the average person just isn't very fast.
Right, comparing to the average person isn't really a useful metric. If you are talking about world class 5k+ guys running 49-50sec for the 400m, that really isn't very fast at the elite end of track and field. It's a good time for HS or a woman but it's 6 seconds off the men's world record--they'd barely be out of the final turn when an elite 400m runner hit the tape.
Distance runners are pretty fast because they have good economy, high strength to weight ratios and don't slow down much at all but they don't have enough fast twitch muscle to sprint explosively. That last reason is why they wouldn't be much faster even if they trained as sprinters. You can only train what you have and if your muscles are mostly slow twitch, distance training is going to suit you better than sprint training aimed at a very small fraction of your musculature. -
It really is largely genetics, I have a friend who is a national champion cyclist, he's fit as can be and yet I can still beat him is a sprint when we ride together. I haven't trained seriously as a cyclist since we raced together 5-6 years ago and he has been training hard the whole time, it's just that I'm built to sprint and he's built for endurance, yes he is a far superior sprinter than the average weekend warrior but he will always be limited by his genetics just as I will never have truly good endurance.
-
.... but it's 6 seconds off the men's world record--they'd barely be out of the final turn when an elite 400m runner hit the tape.
Big bends strictly your local track bro? -
Amount of muscle is more important than type of muscle. Sprinter has too much weight by his nature to train for and run a marathon well. Distance runners lack muscle to generate the power to get up to speed fast and pound fast and long strides. Both have running talent. Mid-D runners are in-between and this would be supported by putting them on a scale, with some outliers, as always but really not that many.
-
Omnivore wrote:
Amount of muscle is more important than type of muscle. Sprinter has too much weight by his nature to train for and run a marathon well. Distance runners lack muscle to generate the power to get up to speed fast and pound fast and long strides. Both have running talent. Mid-D runners are in-between and this would be supported by putting them on a scale, with some outliers, as always but really not that many.
I think this explains the riddle of why elite distance runners sprint as fast as they are: they have a lot of muscle for their weight. I don't agree, however, that the primary determinant of sprint talent is the quantity of muscle. Surely it helps but there's an explosiveness to fast twitch fiber that just isn't present in slow twitch. Surely you know this from personal experience because I'm assuming that you like most people here are distance runners. Haven't you done sprints next to a sprinter who isn't a lick more fit than you (maybe even out of shape and a little fat) and been shocked to finish 5 yards behind him when he didn't look like he was even trying and you were busting a gut? -
Pretty simple, actually wrote:
ukathleticcoach wrote:
meh.. wrote:
You are right that most elite distance runners would crush the 53second guy but you are overestimating the ultimate trainability of distance guys in the sprints. At then end of the day the physiology that makes a good 5k+ runner precludes him from ever being a truly fast sprinter.
One thing I've never understood is how these elite long distance guys are supposedly slow twitch but so much faster than the average person over the sprint distances.
Simple - the average person just isn't very fast.
I agree. Athletes are athletes. Even slow twitch distance runners (if they are talented) have a degree of agility and athleticism that is better than the average person. I remember on my high school track team, that the two fastest distance guys were faster at the sprints than all but a few of the "sprint" kids. Granted, that as you move to the college and pro level, this will not be the case. But there is something to be said for the fact that if you spend 10 hours a week running, you are going be a better runner (including sprinting) than 95% of the non-athletic population. In my own experience, when I've raced my brothers or friends in sprints, they are all ahead of me for the first 40 meters, but I have better top end speed (due to better running efficiency) and catch them after that. -
meh.. wrote:
Pretty simple, actually wrote:
ukathleticcoach wrote:
meh.. wrote:
You are right that most elite distance runners would crush the 53second guy but you are overestimating the ultimate trainability of distance guys in the sprints. At then end of the day the physiology that makes a good 5k+ runner precludes him from ever being a truly fast sprinter.
One thing I've never understood is how these elite long distance guys are supposedly slow twitch but so much faster than the average person over the sprint distances.
Simple - the average person just isn't very fast.
Right, comparing to the average person isn't really a useful metric. If you are talking about world class 5k+ guys running 49-50sec for the 400m, that really isn't very fast at the elite end of track and field. It's a good time for HS or a woman but it's 6 seconds off the men's world record--they'd barely be out of the final turn when an elite 400m runner hit the tape.
Distance runners are pretty fast because they have good economy, high strength to weight ratios and don't slow down much at all but they don't have enough fast twitch muscle to sprint explosively. That last reason is why they wouldn't be much faster even if they trained as sprinters. You can only train what you have and if your muscles are mostly slow twitch, distance training is going to suit you better than sprint training aimed at a very small fraction of your musculature.
All that still does not add up. Economy is not helping you much over 100m. Take me as an example at peak was147 pounds at 6 foot. I could not have broken 13 with a gun to my head
Long distance runners running 12 flat cannot have tge same amount of fast twitch as me. They must have more. I think elite runners are freaks if nature they are much faster at sprinting than the average person ev n someone considerably more muscular than them but have the heart and lungs of an endurance animal. A bit like a deer not quite as fast as a cheetah but with 20x the endurance.
Would be good to back up some science of how a skinny endurance runner can run 23/24 for 200m -
Short answer to why elites dist runners can't improve their 400m time much: They can really only improve their start time. Experts - how much does a faster start impact 400m?
Longer Answer:
The average person (50:50 fast/slow) can only recruit about 50% of their muscle motor units, but a well trained mid/long dist runner has an exceptionally efficient nervous system that can invoke a much higher percentage of motor units. The body is lazy, it only recruits the small slow twitch units first and the fast twitch last. The super efficient distance runner will not only recruit more motor units (90%+) their recruitment will dip into more fast twitch units than Mr weekend warrior or a muscle bound sprinter who is poorly trained.
[side note: This also explains why after 1 or 2 weeks of weight training you can lift significantly more weight: you haven't grown much, if any, new muscle, but your neural factors just more efficient at invoking more muscle motor units.]
About 40% of fiber type is due to environmental influences (training), 45% genetic. You can convert between Type IIB (glycolytic) and IIA (Aerobic), some say you can't convert between Type I and Type II, some say maybe 10% conversion. But many feel fiber type is mostly overrated except for elite pure sprinters. Here's the thing, all fiber types have the same force! Just that contractile time for IIA is twice as fast as TypeI, and IIB twice as fast as IIA. Of course the TypeII will help with your start, but once you get up to cruising speed in a 400, does the faster contractile time matter? I don't think so, you're no longer accelerating.
So, my guess is that a well trained dist runner trying to become a
400m runner won't improve much, because their neural factors are already optimized. Since all the fiber types have the same force, the only thing they can significantly improve is their start time, by biasing their training to Type IIB.So, how many seconds would you save in a 400m by optimizing your start time?
Refs:
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/muscletyping.html
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/fasttwitchmachine.html
https://www.outsideonline.com/1783586/it-possible-change-my-muscle-type
https://www.t-nation.com/training/secret-to-motor-unit-recruitment -
Early childhood activity actually defines a lot of your ceiling. A favorite analogy for this is a child who grows up in Florida will have trouble living in Minnesota winters because their blood vessels will be very exposed to the elements, and why shouldn't they be, they learned early on that warmth was easy to come by from the outside.
In the same way, someone who is active in their early childhood, recruiting a lot of fast-twitch fibers, will learn that they need more of those. What we do in training through adulthood is expanding those given fibers, but the number that we have is precluded in childhood. -
Muscle Madnes wrote:
Short answer to why elites dist runners can't improve their 400m time much: They can really only improve their start time. Experts - how much does a faster start impact 400m?
Longer Answer:
The average person (50:50 fast/slow) can only recruit about 50% of their muscle motor units, but a well trained mid/long dist runner has an exceptionally efficient nervous system that can invoke a much higher percentage of motor units. The body is lazy, it only recruits the small slow twitch units first and the fast twitch last. The super efficient distance runner will not only recruit more motor units (90%+) their recruitment will dip into more fast twitch units than Mr weekend warrior or a muscle bound sprinter who is poorly trained.
[side note: This also explains why after 1 or 2 weeks of weight training you can lift significantly more weight: you haven't grown much, if any, new muscle, but your neural factors just more efficient at invoking more muscle motor units.]
About 40% of fiber type is due to environmental influences (training), 45% genetic. You can convert between Type IIB (glycolytic) and IIA (Aerobic), some say you can't convert between Type I and Type II, some say maybe 10% conversion. But many feel fiber type is mostly overrated except for elite pure sprinters. Here's the thing, all fiber types have the same force! Just that contractile time for IIA is twice as fast as TypeI, and IIB twice as fast as IIA. Of course the TypeII will help with your start, but once you get up to cruising speed in a 400, does the faster contractile time matter? I don't think so, you're no longer accelerating.
So, my guess is that a well trained dist runner trying to become a
400m runner won't improve much, because their neural factors are already optimized. Since all the fiber types have the same force, the only thing they can significantly improve is their start time, by biasing their training to Type IIB.So, how many seconds would you save in a 400m by optimizing your start time?
Refs:
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/muscletyping.html
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/fasttwitchmachine.html
https://www.outsideonline.com/1783586/it-possible-change-my-muscle-type
https://www.t-nation.com/training/secret-to-motor-unit-recruitment
Good info thanks.
