Which is easier, getting a sprinter to become an OK distance runner, or getting a distance runner to become an OK sprinter?

SPRINTERS ARE BORN FAST but can train to be slow but not vice versa. End of discussion. /end

Most of the sprinters I know are quite lazy. I find it unlikely that they would be willing to run more than 400m much less 800m or 1600m, especially if they had to do it hard. Asking a distance kid to go run a 200 would be easy.

Mo Farah has run low 11 and Galen rupp under 11 in the 100. Go look it up. And if he run 12.98 all out 100 how does he close in 52-53 seconds or close a 10k in last 800 1:48 are you stupid?

Fast twitch muscles can be converted to slow twitch, but slow twitch cannot convert to fast twitch.

No elite distance runner needs to "train" to break 12.5. That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. Train to break 11, yes, but they can all easily run 12.5. You realize how incredible slow 12.5 is.

LIke really bro wrote:

No elite distance runner needs to "train" to break 12.5. That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. Train to break 11, yes, but they can all easily run 12.5. You realize how incredible slow 12.5 is.

Mo Farah ran 12.98 from blocks and was beaten handily by Antony Joshua and a high jumper.

He was just ahead of a swimmer and behind the swimmer was 14:00/29:xx running Brownlee brother.

The Mo Farah 12.98 seems to be the most controversial 100 meters ever run. He is almost certainly capable of something significantly faster, given his 400 meter capabilities. I propose two reasons for his 'underperformance':

1. He appeared to not exert himself that much at all

2. He has little experience with proper block use/acceleration

I agree with the above poster that Rupp is probably a tiny bit faster than he is, but Farah can easily run a much faster 100 from the blocks with minimal work.

LIke really bro wrote:

No elite distance runner needs to "train" to break 12.5. That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. Train to break 11, yes, but they can all easily run 12.5. You realize how incredible slow 12.5 is.

yes. what I said:

3hr-marathoner wrote:

... most distance guys can get stronger and get under 12.5 but 1) that's not very fast...

and by most I meant most, like even old guys who now run 3 hour marathons because, as I also said, that's not very fast.

like really bro wrote:

However, the question is more about who would do better in a different discipline. An elite distance runner could still probably be in the top 99% of sprinters on the planet. I have extreme doubts that the same could be said about a large, powerful, pure 100m specialist.

A typical 30 minute 10k runner could probably run about 52-53 for 400m, which is way better than 99% of the population. A typical 11.0 100m guy would probably run about 7 minutes for the mile, which is fine but nowhere near the level that a distance runner can sprint.

The 10k guy could probably put together a respectable 100m (say 13.0, same as his 400m pace so think it's conservative enough) for a local all-comer'a meet. Doubt the 100m guy would be as good over 10k.

There are tons of 30 min. 10k guys that can run sub 12.5 with minimal sprint training.

However, those guys are typically 1500/5k types. It's hard to find a pure 10k/marathon type who can run in the mid 12s for the 100 unless you're talking about an elite whose 10k time is well under 30.

lazy wrote:

Most of the sprinters I know are quite lazy. I find it unlikely that they would be willing to run more than 400m much less 800m or 1600m, especially if they had to do it hard. Asking a distance kid to go run a 200 would be easy.

Exactly. Been to many big invitational high school meets where there are 10 heats of the 100 with would-be sprinters who have no business in the race but won't move up to longer races because then they would have to train!

Odd one wrote:

There are tons of 30 min. 10k guys that can run sub 12.5 with minimal sprint training.

However, those guys are typically 1500/5k types. It's hard to find a pure 10k/marathon type who can run in the mid 12s for the 100 unless you're talking about an elite whose 10k time is well under 30.

It depends on if they are older or younger. I think at least 90% of college aged athletes that can run 30:XX for the 10k can run mid 12's for the 100 but that number probably drops of significantly the older the athlete is.

There was one guy on my team in college who ran 30 mid for the 10k and with no sprint training he could run a 51.x in the 4x4. I doubt he was an anomaly.

kartelite wrote:

A typical 30 minute 10k runner could probably run about 52-53 for 400m

Not even close unless they devoted a year to train specifically for the 400.

The top women elites are running in the 30 minute range, and I doubt that more than 20-30% of them could break 56 from a standing start off of pure 10k training.

Paula Radcliffe probably fits the OP's criterion the best (30 flat 10k PR and is a pure distance type). Her 1500 PR is only 4:05, which can be done off of 58" 400 speed.

100m wrote:

The Mo Farah 12.98 seems to be the most controversial 100 meters ever run. He is almost certainly capable of something significantly faster, given his 400 meter capabilities. I propose two reasons for his 'underperformance':

1. He appeared to not exert himself that much at all

2. He has little experience with proper block use/acceleration

1. If he didn't exert himself much, why did he dip at the finish line?

2. Proper block use will improve your time by 0.1-0.2 seconds. It won't turn a 12.98 guy into a 12.50 guy.

C'mon dude everyone knows it's easier to move up than down. Gimme a break. Heck even great runners that have great range like a Rod Dixon don't move down passed 800m.

Just not happening.

100m wrote:

The Mo Farah 12.98 seems to be the most controversial 100 meters ever run. He is almost certainly capable of something significantly faster, given his 400 meter capabilities. I propose two reasons for his 'underperformance':

1. He appeared to not exert himself that much at all

2. He has little experience with proper block use/acceleration

I agree with the above poster that Rupp is probably a tiny bit faster than he is, but Farah can easily run a much faster 100 from the blocks with minimal work.

What is his 400m capability? I suppose you will guess that based upon your opinions just as you are guessing his 100m rather than using the time he actually got.

Do you think the high jumper or boxer had experience using blocks?

Do you think many distance runners do?

The answer is no and this race plainly demonstrates the lack of power and acceleration a distance runner has, even a world beater.

And this plainly shows that running a 'slow' time of under 12.0 or 12.5 or whatever people claim here is actually extremely difficult for distance runners.

Horses for courses. The only thing that affected Farah's time that day was the weather, maybe half a second at the absolute most.

For those that haven't seen it. Please don't anyone try and say Farah wasn't trying. Total nonsense just watch the video

Define "OK"?

From a physiological perspective fast twitch fibers will "slow" and become more fatigue resistant with the training a marathon runner does. I do not think the evidence is there that slow twitch fibers are able to increase force production or the speed of production nearly as much.

what will happen wrote:

Sub 12.5 in the 100 is harder than sub 5 in the 1500.

The sprinter can succeed but won't try. The distance runner will try but won't succeed.

This is completely correct.