Fred Kerley was expecting 19.6 for 200 at Mt. SAC

Ihatethisforum wrote:

blue 7 wrote:

One of the problems I see with U.S. athletes is a tendency to want to run fast, run fast without a real plan. The goal last year, for example, was to peak at the Olympics. And many of our sprinters think it's just Jamaica and us. And then along comes Lamont Marcel Jacobs and runners be like, "where'd he come from?" If runners would stop getting caught up on duking it out in April maybe they'll be better off when the races really count.

Well, your view is complicated by the fact that the US Champs qualification process for the sprint team essentially requires you to peak, or something close to it, a month or two before the Olympics or Worlds.

If you don't show up to trials primed, or close to it, you'll get eaten up because we (United States) are the deepest team in the world and there's little or no room for error.

For example, if Bromell had run at the US Champs the way he ran at the Olympics, he wouldn't have even made the finals at his own trials, just like at the Olympics.

I don't necessarily critique the system. But the consequences of it are not always on the best interest of the athletes peaks.

For example, Bolt always knew he could train right through Jamaicas trials. One might say he is a bad example because Bolt was so far ahead of everyone he was usually going to win anyway. But maybe if he was American, he couldn't have pulled off Rio or the 2015 World's results because essentially peaking twice would have roasted him later on in his career.

It was almost certainly advantageous in one way or another to him that he didn't have to run his trials like it was Worlds or the Olympics, version 1.0. If Bolt had been an American, outside of 2008 through 2011 where he could have probably cruised through even the US trails to at least get third and qualify, the trials would have been serious business for him.

Ihatethisforum wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

but it's not just the amount of pain, but the amount of time you are under that pain. and it would seem that physiologically, the body would be better at handling near top speed for 45 seconds vs 60 seconds.

though i also realize the CNS is likely to take a bigger hit the faster you get. lifting heavy weights gives me that impression anyway.

Yeah, you're definitely coming at this question from what I believe to be a distance centric POV, and not considering the implications of different energy systems and their role/impact on the running "experience". In fact, in my *personal* experience, the first 150ish meters of a 400 qere practically euphoric because -as a sprinter- you're just "cruising"...or at least that's what it always felt like to me. But from 250 meters and onwards, the 400m dash was an escalation of hell that was practically WORSE AFTER all the running was done and I had to lay on the ground for 20 minutes and just wait for Satan or Jesus to take me away...didn't matter who, just wanted it to end. And it never seemed to matter what shape I was in, as being in better shape just gave me a cess to a new area of "pushing" to the explore (and resulting time reductions).

And I always loved the stupid coaches and trainer telling me to "get up and walk, it's better for you"...if I had the strength to get up while recovering after my 400$, I would have gladly WALKED over to them and punched them in their faces each time they told me that ish.

The resulting pain in those last 150 meters of the 400 for a sprinter has to be equal to what, plus the 20 minute recovery, has to be on par (and I suspect worse) with what a 60 second 400m run by a pikely XC guy feels.

*Also curious about this ackbar business.

LongTimer wrote:

Ihatethisforum wrote:

Yeah, you're definitely coming at this question from what I believe to be a distance centric POV, and not considering the implications of different energy systems and their role/impact on the running "experience". In fact, in my *personal* experience, the first 150ish meters of a 400 qere practically euphoric because -as a sprinter- you're just "cruising"...or at least that's what it always felt like to me. But from 250 meters and onwards, the 400m dash was an escalation of hell that was practically WORSE AFTER all the running was done and I had to lay on the ground for 20 minutes and just wait for Satan or Jesus to take me away...didn't matter who, just wanted it to end. And it never seemed to matter what shape I was in, as being in better shape just gave me a cess to a new area of "pushing" to the explore (and resulting time reductions).

And I always loved the stupid coaches and trainer telling me to "get up and walk, it's better for you"...if I had the strength to get up while recovering after my 400$, I would have gladly WALKED over to them and punched them in their faces each time they told me that ish.

The resulting pain in those last 150 meters of the 400 for a sprinter has to be equal to what, plus the 20 minute recovery, has to be on par (and I suspect worse) with what a 60 second 400m run by a pikely XC guy feels.

*Also curious about this ackbar business.

This guy is one of the few good posters on this forum.

Ihatethisforum wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

but it's not just the amount of pain, but the amount of time you are under that pain. and it would seem that physiologically, the body would be better at handling near top speed for 45 seconds vs 60 seconds.

though i also realize the CNS is likely to take a bigger hit the faster you get. lifting heavy weights gives me that impression anyway.

Yeah, you're definitely coming at this question from what I believe to be a distance centric POV, and not considering the implications of different energy systems and their role/impact on the running "experience". In fact, in my *personal* experience, the first 150ish meters of a 400 qere practically euphoric because -as a sprinter- you're just "cruising"...or at least that's what it always felt like to me. But from 250 meters and onwards, the 400m dash was an escalation of hell that was practically WORSE AFTER all the running was done and I had to lay on the ground for 20 minutes and just wait for Satan or Jesus to take me away...didn't matter who, just wanted it to end. And it never seemed to matter what shape I was in, as being in better shape just gave me a cess to a new area of "pushing" to the explore (and resulting time reductions).

And I always loved the stupid coaches and trainer telling me to "get up and walk, it's better for you"...if I had the strength to get up while recovering after my 400$, I would have gladly WALKED over to them and punched them in their faces each time they told me that ish.

The resulting pain in those last 150 meters of the 400 for a sprinter has to be equal to what, plus the 20 minute recovery, has to be on par (and I suspect worse) with what a 60 second 400m run by a pikely XC guy feels.

*Also curious about this ackbar business.