Distance runners are actually very fast sprinters.

No. There is a limit to trainiblity. Do you think the reverse could be true? A 45-46 sec. 400 sprinter could run a sub-13 5k with specific training?

easy loper wrote:

Pretty simple, actually wrote:

Simple - the average person just isn't very fast.

Your event chooses you. However if you are a top distance runner chances are you eventually run many miles and lots of them at high intensities. This makes you fast. In addition it is too any track guys advantage to have a high percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers.

I think the OP is saying that many people do not understand how fast you have to be to run a marathon in 2:10. I would think that all sub 2:10 marathoners would be able to quarter in under :51.5.

If you run 2:05 you are probably talking in sub 50. A 400 is still about 35% aerobic.

If you are a top distance runner and run miles and miles you get SLOWER.

So you can move up in distance. Like moving up to the 5k from the 1500m. You don't run miles and miles to then move down to the 400/800.

I can only relate to my own experience. In 1960 my HS marks on clay or cinders were 880 1:53.0, mile 4:12.8. However I was also asked to anchor the 880 relay because I had 220 speed of 22.4 out of the blocks. Occasionally I also anchored the mile relay and could turn 48-49. I think the reason for this was it took me 75 - 100 yards to get going but I was accelerating during the last part of the race because of my strength. I think that would probably be true of most middle distance runners today. They are just unbelievably strong.

On a slightly different note I had the privilege of running a 20 x 220 workout with a 220 jog in between with Peter Snell at Angell Field, Stanford. We started at 30 seconds and dropped the times to 27 after 10, 26 after 15 and the 18th was 24.5, the 19th was 23.5 and the last one was flat out (no time). I thought I had a chance to beat him because I was confident of my speed but he flew past me with 75 yards to go. I would say he was capable of running under 22.0 because he was so strong.

I can only relate to my own experience. In 1960 my HS marks on clay or cinders were 880 1:53.0, mile 4:12.8. However I was also asked to anchor the 880 relay because I had 220 speed of 22.4 out of the blocks. Occasionally I also anchored the mile relay and could turn 48-49. I think the reason for this was it took me 75 - 100 yards to get going but I was accelerating during the last part of the race because of my strength. I think that would probably be true of most middle distance runners today. They are just unbelievably strong.

On a slightly different note I had the privilege of running a 20 x 220 workout with a 220 jog in between with Peter Snell at Angell Field, Stanford. We started at 30 seconds and dropped the times to 27 after 10, 26 after 15 and the 18th was 24.5, the 19th was 23.5 and the last one was flat out (no time). I thought I had a chance to beat him because I was confident of my speed but he flew past me with 75 yards to go. I would say he was capable of running under 22.0 because he was so strong.

Having more "type 2" (and there's really no clear distinction between types) fibers doesn't make you sprint any faster. Everyone has enough of them to get fast if they develop properly.

What distance runners absolutely fail to get is what makes you fast is coordination and reflex. And a good sense of balance. Simply learning to start properly makes a world of difference in increasing top speed. Then your limbs naturally oscillate like a kinetic scuplture, which you can train to a high cadence. That's why sprinters do all those crazy drills which you don't.