McDougal, why no kick?

bump

Really that workout has no bearing on his speed. Anyone sub-15 in the 5K has at least 55 speed, so this workout doesn't show off his speed, rather it shows his anerobic endurance.

For instance, he might be able to run 12x400 in an average of 59, but not 6x400 in 55-6.

There's a difference between "kick" and "speed". Speed is what a runner can run for a very short time (50m/100m/200m...). Kick is what a runner can run at the end of a race and is mostly determined by STRENGTH not SPEED. If you have two runners, one runs a 12.0 100m and 4:30 mile the other runs a 14.0 100m and a 4:30 mile. The first runner does 40-50 a week and 3-4 days of speed work a week all short speed work(200s-800s). The second runner does 70-80 a week 2 days of speed work (long and short, 200s-2000s) plus a tempo run. Guess which runner will have a better "kick" at the end of the race, yep the second runner. You can run fast 400s until you are blue in the face but if you have no strength then you have no kick. No Dice.

V6 wrote:

Anyone sub-15 in the 5K has at least 55 speed, so this workout doesn't show off his speed, rather it shows his anerobic endurance.

Wrong.

1337hax0r wrote:

V6 wrote:

Anyone sub-15 in the 5K has at least 55 speed, so this workout doesn't show off his speed, rather it shows his anerobic endurance.

Wrong.

If you can't run one lap in 55 seconds, you cannot run 12.5 of them in 71.99 each or faster.

It's simple mathematics.

Salazar used to talk about having issues with breaking 60, much less 55... and we all know he ran much faster than 15 minutes.

Yes, you (I) can. It's simple reality.

Since you probably doubt my abilities, here's possibly a more credible source. I'm not sure where mathematics fit in, by the way.

"John Kellogg is a full-time, professional running coach. It is his passion in life and career of choice. John has logged over 70,000 miles in 28 years of running, with a highest week of 156 miles. He has experimented with as many combinations of training procedures as is possible in the course of a human running career while still devoting enough time to each mixture of techniques to ascertain their effectiveness. While he never reached the elite level himself, he was able to train himself effectively enough to run 14:22 for 5,000 meters while possessing a best time of only 57 seconds for 400 meters. John also has a Cross-Country 10,000 meters best of 30:46, and was nationally-ranked in the marathon as a Junior (under age 20)."

http://www.letsrun.com/2004/jkguide.php

yeah, i can break 15 pretty easily and i think 55 would be red lining for me (read: i cant do it). Id be willing to bet that there are pure strength guys who can go significantly faster than sub 15 - maybe 1420ish - and still have a hard time running that for a quarter.

I've run 14:50, and couldn't break 60 in a 400 to save my life!

yes I did wrote:

I've run 14:50, and couldn't break 60 in a 400 to save my life!

Full of crap.

400- 60

800- 2:07 (63.5 per 400) if you are super strong

1600- 4:30 (67.5 per 400) again if you are an aerobic animal

5K- usually about 6 seconds per lap slower than mile pace, in this case, around 74 per 400 or 15:20.

Even Kennedy was not as strong as you claim to be, and he was an aerobic MONSTER.

read some of Adam Fitzgeralds logs on run-insight. he is a sub 15 guy (and 830 guy and XC All American) and often talks about difficulty breaking 60. all of your pretty formulas and everything are nice, but they dont work for everyone. to run 1435, you need to be able to run 70s, not 55s. you can be slow as shit, but just be strong and tolerate that pace well. take it easy.

Okay, although I personally believe anyone who can break 15 but can't break 55 just needs to race it and is full of crap, I "stand corrected".

My new statement:

The vast majority of people who run sub-15, and particularly people who run sub-14 like McDougal, could easily break 55.

14:20 but having trouble breaking 60? Please. Even the elites can't run a 5k at that high a percentage of their max! You can't just run a 400 TT and run it hard in 60 and say, oh I can't break 60 but I can run 14:20. You didn't run it right; you have the ability to run much faster. If the elites can't run that high a percentage of their max, then non-elites especially can't. Just read, the info is out there. Most runners in the 5k, to convert to 10k, have to add a % of time to get a 10k performance. Thousands of results are obtained. The elites add on a lower % than non-elites. Blah blah blah, but the bottom line is you cannot run a race at a higher % than the elite field does.

V6 wrote:

My new statement:

The vast majority of people who run sub-15, and particularly people who run sub-14 like McDougal, could easily break 55.

That is totally false.

Buddy Edelen did a 55 second 400, at his fastest, and ran 28:00 for 6 miles and a WR of 2:14 for the marathon.

According to your statement, those running 12:37 for the 5k would need to run the 400 meters under 46.3 seconds!

i think the problem is: 1) distance runners rarely run a serious, all out 400m. i mean, why the hell would you? and 2) many distance runners that do or did probably do not know how to do so and are not particularly familiar with the slightly different sort of pain associated with sprinting. i do not believe for a second that anyone who can run under 15:00 is not CAPABLE of running a 55 or close to it.

chuck d wrote:

i think the problem is: 1) distance runners rarely run a serious, all out 400m. i mean, why the hell would you? and 2) many distance runners that do or did probably do not know how to do so and are not particularly familiar with the slightly different sort of pain associated with sprinting. i do not believe for a second that anyone who can run under 15:00 is not CAPABLE of running a 55 or close to it.

I should have waited on your post! That is exactly what I was getting at.

Also, the relationship is not linear either. A 12:37 guy has sort of a different race on his hands than a 15 minute guy. I think it is a % max effort, which would be nonlinear.

some pretty good points all around. i second the statement "why the hell would you?" Also, i know that when I'm running 110 a week and training for a fast 10k, my legs arent exactly fresh and geared up to blast a quarter. It probably goes the other way too. Have all sub 50 quarter miler specialists out there run under 5 minutes for the mile at some point? Nope. Could they, over time, with proper training? Probably.

'elites' ??

anyone else think the word is being used improperly?

'elite', note 'elites'?

deer, not deers