I see a lot of posters on here acting like speed is somehow a more innate talent than endurance and as if it cannot be improved through training. If that were true there would be no reason for sprinters to train and distance runners have even more room to improve b/c they have never worked on speed.
I think there is a lot to be gained by properly developing your speed for most runners. Where does this attitude come from? Is there an actual rational?
Anaerobic speed is a much lower component of a distance race than aerobic endurance. Sure you can improve your speed, but if you're running a race against a 1430 guy and you're a 15 minute guy, running the last lap fastest isn't going to help, its the other 11.5 that matter. You might say - oh those are speed too - but here is an experiment for you - go out and see how far you can run at a dead sprint on the track and actually time it. If you're very fit you can sprint 500-600 meters. After that, if you took steps to utilize your endurance, ie pace yourself, you'd end up running faster.
Uh, no. Clearly you don’t know very much about training theory. Read a book. You will not sound so ignorant when you come on Letsrun to correct someone else.
Because they can't break 60 with cheater flys on. So they make up excuses about why they shouldn't lift or do sprint drills.
sprint sensation wrote:
Because they can't break 60 with cheater flys on. So they make up excuses about why they shouldn't lift or do sprint drills.
well this is probably the most accurate response so far, even if you did post it in jest.
Speed is much more genetic than endurance. For most Distance runners it can be a waste of time to improve their speed at the cost of endurance. A runner like Alan Webb would work on his speed/power with lifting, plyometrics and accelerations/sprint, but not to the point of where it impacted his ability to run intervals, tempos or mileage. Most runners have a lot more to gain from training endurance. However, the idea that you can not train speed is absurd.
Being world class at sprinting is more genetic than being world class at long distances because the margins are much smaller in sprints. If you are a medallist on the world stage in a sprint distance event you have put in the work to be fractions of a second faster. In a distance race the variables factor far more. There is no drafting in sprinting, the temperature is a factor, wind direction, peaking may be done improperly. Even what you ate the night before may be a huge factor if you're in a country where it's not easy to eat what you are used to before a competition. If you can't be close to national class in a sprint event off of talent in high school it's pretty much game over. Move up. It's like Lydiard said if you have 22 second speed you have the speed to be a factor in middle distance on the world stage. Many people just stay at national class because that's easy for them.
Excellent Tinman post on this topic on his forums:
"To a degree speed development training has merit. Note, however, that speed improvement is very limited. Mostly, speed is created by genetic endowment. You can fine-tune what you have and improve speed by about 10%. Compare that to strength and endurance: 300% and 2000%.
Regarding application:
In my view, the conventional method of phasic training has a huge drawback: If you stop using a training tool because you are in a new phase, you'll soon lose the qualities of performance related to the training tool. It's like endurance: If you spend 3 months working on mileage development and long runs to develop endurance, then go to a reduced mileage and hard interval phase, in a couple of weeks you'll notice that your endurance is beginning to erode. After 3-4 weeks, you'll lack endurance and have trouble holding your speed in races. The same thing goes for speed training: If you use it for a few weeks, developing it fully, and then stop using it: Soon you will lose the skill of running very fast/sprinting. Speed is a skill, just like hitting a baseball or shooting free throws. If you use it regularly, speed-skill because more fluid and ingrained; if you ignore it, speed becomes "rusty." However, speed, because it's mostly a skill, can be retained for many weeeks by simply doing a bit of it every 7-10 days.
Even 4-5 x 200m at 1500-800m pace once a week probably improves and/or retains your speed-skill at 95%. That last 5% can be improved through speed drills and short sprints, and it takes only about 6-12 sessions to get to the 99% level. A person who has a lot of Type I (slow twitch) fibers will realize max results in about 6 training sessons, after which further gains in speed are neglible. A person who has a lot of Type II a, and especially Type IIx, fibers (fast oxidative and fast explosive) can accumulates gains in speed though about 12 workouts, thereafter flattening out results, I posit."
------------
This is true. Bolt wouldn't be a 12.0 sec guy without training, he would still be in the mid 10s. That's how much the difference from 10.6 to 9.6 is. For people with many ST fibers, sprinting all-out has high injury-risk. Lots of pro mid-d and distance runners don't have all-out sprints in their schedule. It's always a risk/reward and cost/benefit ratio. Some think sprints are necessary for a kick, but truth is a kick is still 80% aerobic, ST-monsters like Farah and Geb have shown this time and time again that by not being tired at the end of a fast 5k or 10k they can close incredibly fast despite not having great natural, basic speed.
An athlete who improves from 12 seconds to 11.88 seconds in the 100m has improved by 1%. An athlete who has improved his or her 16:00 5k by 1% improves to 15:50.4. People who run distance can contextualize a 10 second improvement and find meaning in that. A distance runner is likely to not recognize the improvement of .12 seconds and give it the same credit.
Ozzie wrote:
An athlete who improves from 12 seconds to 11.88 seconds in the 100m has improved by 1%. An athlete who has improved his or her 16:00 5k by 1% improves to 15:50.4. People who run distance can contextualize a 10 second improvement and find meaning in that. A distance runner is likely to not recognize the improvement of .12 seconds and give it the same credit.
That's not the point. I give myself as example:
When I started running in my early 20s after being many years completely sedentary as computer gamer (left house once a week for grocery shopping, rest was sitting), I wasn't able to run longer than a mile. After some training I time-trialed a 5k in 35 minutes.
Then, built my endurance with swimming and cycling (body couldn't handle running despite being low BMI) and got to a 20:30 5k. Then after being able to start run training, dropped it to 16:15 2 years later.
Meanwhile, my speed untrained was around 26s 200m, the same time I couldn't run a mile. Now it's a bit faster, 25s, maybe 24 with spikes and some tune-up sessions but that's a minimal difference. My endurance went from unable to run 2 miles without stopping at 12 min/mile pace to running 90 mpw at an average of 7 min mile. THAT'S what LRC and elite coaches like Tinman mean by speed=genetic, limited improvements and endurance can be trained incredibly well.
Please get out of your head that you can improve sprint speed by 50% or something like you can your 10k time. BOLT WOULD NOT BE A 14-15s 100m GUY UNTRAINED, HE WOULD STILL BE CRAZY FAST!!!
Kvothe wrote:
Anaerobic speed is a much lower component of a distance race than aerobic endurance. Sure you can improve your speed, but if you're running a race against a 1430 guy and you're a 15 minute guy, running the last lap fastest isn't going to help, its the other 11.5 that matter. You might say - oh those are speed too - but here is an experiment for you - go out and see how far you can run at a dead sprint on the track and actually time it. If you're very fit you can sprint 500-600 meters. After that, if you took steps to utilize your endurance, ie pace yourself, you'd end up running faster.
You obviously never ran track, otherwise you would know that no one can sprint 500-600 meters. It doesn't matter who it is, if someone sprints the first 200 meters of a 400, they will crash and burn.
Jgt11 wrote:
Speed is much more genetic than endurance.
I'm not sure I completely buy this claim otherwise, like OP said, there would be no reason for sprinters to train. Sprinters see improving from high school, to college, to pro times. It just requires a lot more time to reach your genetic potential for your endurance. The argument OP is making isn't 'you can turn distance runners into sprinters' it's 'distance runners can (and probably should) improve upon their sprint times.'
I'm not an physiology expert, but I would think the genetic potential of a distance runner is just going to be reached sooner due to less FTF.
big brain guy wrote:
Jgt11 wrote:
Speed is much more genetic than endurance.
I'm not sure I completely buy this claim otherwise, like OP said, there would be no reason for sprinters to train. Sprinters see improving from high school, to college, to pro times. It just requires a lot more time to reach your genetic potential for your endurance. The argument OP is making isn't 'you can turn distance runners into sprinters' it's 'distance runners can (and probably should) improve upon their sprint times.'
I'm not an physiology expert, but I would think the genetic potential of a distance runner is just going to be reached sooner due to less FTF.
Sprinters do extensive heavy weight lifting. I don't know if bulking up slow-twitch muscles will make some sprint faster, but for sure it will hinder their distance running.
big brain guy wrote:
Jgt11 wrote:
Speed is much more genetic than endurance.
I'm not sure I completely buy this claim otherwise, like OP said, there would be no reason for sprinters to train. Sprinters see improving from high school, to college, to pro times. It just requires a lot more time to reach your genetic potential for your endurance. The argument OP is making isn't 'you can turn distance runners into sprinters' it's 'distance runners can (and probably should) improve upon their sprint times.'
I'm not an physiology expert, but I would think the genetic potential of a distance runner is just going to be reached sooner due to less FTF.
But that's the thing, distance runners sprinting all-out is probably not a great training stimulus. Tinman said repeatedly that even elite milers, don't close a mile faster than with 400m speed. So Lewandowski for example is a 47s 400m speed guy, he will never close a fast mile race faster than roughly 24s. So why should he do taxing, all-out flying 60s with high injury risk if he doesn't need it? He could probably get all the benefits he needs for his racing at 90-95% effort during 100m sprint reps (which would be around 400m speed).
Now think about a HS kid with very few fast-twitch muscle fibers and/or bad sprinting form (both common). Sprinting for them won't be fun, and they probably "push" through it and force a pace which is not great sprinting. Look at Usain Bolt or van Niekerk for example, they look pretty relaxed when sprinting all out. Too many distance runners start forcing speed, form breaks down and it's a total mess. I'd rather have them stay safe at 90% effort or with strides.
Teaching the body to cover a 40 dash as fast as possible probably has zero relevance to a mile or 5k time. But teaching the body how to smoothly run at 400m pace (miler) or mile pace (5k guy) is essential. Fast, relaxed running is good, all-out sprinting is dangerous and not as much correlated to middle and distance races.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Kvothe wrote:
Anaerobic speed is a much lower component of a distance race than aerobic endurance. Sure you can improve your speed, but if you're running a race against a 1430 guy and you're a 15 minute guy, running the last lap fastest isn't going to help, its the other 11.5 that matter. You might say - oh those are speed too - but here is an experiment for you - go out and see how far you can run at a dead sprint on the track and actually time it. If you're very fit you can sprint 500-600 meters. After that, if you took steps to utilize your endurance, ie pace yourself, you'd end up running faster.
You obviously never ran track, otherwise you would know that no one can sprint 500-600 meters. It doesn't matter who it is, if someone sprints the first 200 meters of a 400, they will crash and burn.
500-600 dead out feels fast to a 10k guy :) . At the very highest level short distances require more speed than for those who run the distances slower. For instance, the 800 wr was positive split and many top 800 guys have positive split prs. When you have to neg split a distance, its when endurance comes into play.
[quote]LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Excellent Tinman post on this topic on his forums:
"You can fine-tune what you have and improve speed by about 10%. Compare that to strength and endurance: 300% and 2000%.[\quote]
This makes no sense to me. If true, it would mean that Usain Bolt was a 10.5 in the 100m before ever having a track practice, or would have been if he’d decided to run a gas station in Jamaica instead of running. Yet that is clearly not true.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
big brain guy wrote:
I'm not sure I completely buy this claim otherwise, like OP said, there would be no reason for sprinters to train. Sprinters see improving from high school, to college, to pro times. It just requires a lot more time to reach your genetic potential for your endurance. The argument OP is making isn't 'you can turn distance runners into sprinters' it's 'distance runners can (and probably should) improve upon their sprint times.'
I'm not an physiology expert, but I would think the genetic potential of a distance runner is just going to be reached sooner due to less FTF.
But that's the thing, distance runners sprinting all-out is probably not a great training stimulus. Tinman said repeatedly that even elite milers, don't close a mile faster than with 400m speed. So Lewandowski for example is a 47s 400m speed guy, he will never close a fast mile race faster than roughly 24s. So why should he do taxing, all-out flying 60s with high injury risk if he doesn't need it? He could probably get all the benefits he needs for his racing at 90-95% effort during 100m sprint reps (which would be around 400m speed).
Now think about a HS kid with very few fast-twitch muscle fibers and/or bad sprinting form (both common). Sprinting for them won't be fun, and they probably "push" through it and force a pace which is not great sprinting. Look at Usain Bolt or van Niekerk for example, they look pretty relaxed when sprinting all out. Too many distance runners start forcing speed, form breaks down and it's a total mess. I'd rather have them stay safe at 90% effort or with strides.
Teaching the body to cover a 40 dash as fast as possible probably has zero relevance to a mile or 5k time. But teaching the body how to smoothly run at 400m pace (miler) or mile pace (5k guy) is essential. Fast, relaxed running is good, all-out sprinting is dangerous and not as much correlated to middle and distance races.
Lol, this is a funny thread. Lot of interesting takes but I have to agree with OP's sentiment.
Sure, all-out sprinting carries an injury risk. But so does running higher mileage, or doing plyos, or lifting, or all-out hill reps, or long runs with big blocks of MP or tempo work. Funny how distance runners won't hesitate to throw in a big month of training, or go plow hills, or do plyos before they've sniffed a barbell or even a resistance band, but come to a screeching halt when it comes to anything that looks like sprint training besides strides. If you're a competitive distance runner you NEED to at LEAST have pure 400 speed. And yes, this idea of "speed" comes in different shapes and forms. For marathon running, it's pretty much unnecessary as strides, sprint drills, and the like will suffice. For most 5K-10K runners who are still developing, same thing. Probably 400-800 speed at most is what you'll need and most coaches prescribe that already.
I don't know why middle distance is still this measure of "talent" vs "work," where people thing it's some mysterious formula. Yeah it's a different beast, but it's a different beast in the same way the marathon is. You just have to put yourself in it to understand why people do the things they do. We figured out the formula long ago, and it includes max effort sprints at a relaxed top-end speed with good form and mechanics, and lots of rest. You do it once a week at most.
The newer portion of the formula that's come along in the last 10 years is that you place a heavy emphasis on reinforcing that with structured strength and conditioning that includes year-round foundational hips and core, sprint mechanics, strides, dynamic flexibility; strength work under heavier weight, a period of more "power" lifting, a period of plyometrics, then your championship peak. For the most part it's thanks to one group under a coach that shall not be named, but this kind of work reduces the amount of sprint work you need to do while simultaneously giving you the athleticism to not make it so dangerous. Do you really think Donavan Brazier is afraid of doing "taxing" 60m flys? Absolutely not. What about Craig Engels doing a 200/150/100/50/etc. cutdown at max? Nope.
I just think the place where most middle distance runners go wrong is thinking that sprint work is extremely dangerous to anyone who is not a sprinter. It's extremely dangerous when you're not also developing athleticism which I talked about before. Find me one good sprinter who you wouldn't classify as athletic. You probably can't find many. Now find me someone who considers themselves a middle-distance runner, who might have great PRs by the way, who you would consider unathletic. You can probably find a lot! But as Nick Willis puts it, mile training is "the CrossFit" of distance running -- you need to train every component you can think of as being beneficial to be good. It pays to be a generalist. Will your 5K-13.1 ability suffer a little? Probably a bit, but you'll be solid. How about your open 400? You'll be solid there too, but again, not competitive. But will you succeed at 800-1500 and maybe 3K? Yes.
Mikeh33 wrote:
[quote]LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Excellent Tinman post on this topic on his forums:
"You can fine-tune what you have and improve speed by about 10%. Compare that to strength and endurance: 300% and 2000%.[\quote]
This makes no sense to me. If true, it would mean that Usain Bolt was a 10.5 in the 100m before ever having a track practice, or would have been if he’d decided to run a gas station in Jamaica instead of running. Yet that is clearly not true.
That's what he could do tho, roughly.
2001 21.73 +0.6 Debrecen (HUN) 14 JUL 2001
He ran that as 15-year old kid. That's his oldest, official race time. Growing alone would make him faster than when he was 15. If he just started at 19, he could probably run 10.50 without training. His progression (he was a 200m runner long before a 100m runner):
2016 19.78 -0.3 Estádio Olímpico, Rio de Janeiro (BRA) 17 AUG 2016
2015 19.55 -0.1 National Stadium, Beijing (CHN) 27 AUG 2015
2013 19.66 0.0 Luzhniki, Moskva (RUS) 17 AUG 2013
2012 19.32 +0.4 Olympic Stadium, London (GBR) 09 AUG 2012
2011 19.40 +0.8 DS, Daegu (KOR) 03 SEP 2011
2010 19.56 -0.8 Kingston (JAM) 01 MAY 2010
2009 19.19 -0.3 Olympiastadion, Berlin (GER) 20 AUG 2009
2008 19.30 -0.9 National Stadium, Beijing (CHN) 20 AUG 2008
2007 19.75 +0.2 Kingston (JAM) 24 JUN 2007
2006 19.88 +0.4 Pontaise, Lausanne (SUI) 11 JUL 2006
2005 19.99 +1.8 Crystal Palace, London (GBR) 22 JUL 2005
2004 19.93 +1.4 Hamilton (BER) 11 APR 2004
2003 20.13 0.0 Bridgetown (BAR) 20 JUL 2003
2002 20.58 +1.4 National Stadium, Kingston (JAM) 18 JUL 2002
2001 21.73 +0.6 Debrecen (HUN) 14 JUL 2001
Sounds like roughly 10% to me? Now I can show you some distance runners, and some might start with 23, 24 min 5k's and get down to the 13 min range (for example, Reed Fischer Tinman Elite). A 10% improvement would have only made them 21 min 5k guys.
You can ask some of the few real sprinters here on LRC, and they will all let you know how fast they were innately without any training. Not many people have a lot of % of fast-twitch fibers AND good neuromuscular coordination and a fluid, fast stride. There is a lot of natural talent in sprinting, and it can't be improved much in absolute/relative time gains.
If a distance runner considers adding a lot of sprinting at the cost of tempo runs or CV workouts, to get his 100m fly speed to 12.0 instead of 12.5 he might be wasting his time if he is only running say a 17 or 18 min 5k and could easily be a few minutes faster still.
Typical letsrun crap about speed. The prevailing thought on this board is just do some strides after a Tinman Tempo and everything will be good.
My freshman year my 200m PR was 30.1, and my 100 was 14.6
By the end of this years Senior Indoor season my 200 is 23.9 and my 800 is 1:58.7.
Increasing my raw speed was essential for me to be successful in my event. I hate when people get on here and say "your 800/1600 potential cap comes down to how fast your 200/400 is" like you cant change your speed. 4 flat pace used to be an all out sprint for me and now it feels like a hard run with really fast turnover.
Case closed?