Work on strengths or weaknesses? (Read 933 times)

I have two questions/topics based on working on strengths vs. weaknesses: 1) Let's say you naturally have lots of speed (enough to challenge sprinters in the 400, but not the 100), but not as much natural endurance. Which do you concentrate on improving? Where you naturally have gifts, or where you naturally have weaknesses. 2) Let's say you have one PR that is "weaker" than others. Do you concentrate on improving the "weak" time, or do you continue working on the races where you have stronger PRs?

I'm a college freshman, and I ran XC for the school team, but have since decided to make my own way. I had kind of decided that I wanted to try to work on the 10k, but then noticed that my 5k time was weak with regards to a lot of my other times.

Some of the best marathoners are also good at the shorter distances, too.

You clearly have a lot of natural speed (52 sec for 400m, 1:59 for 800m). You have a big drop-off at 1500m in 4:30. (I only say this because my 1500 times when I was your age were in the mid 4:20s, but I couldn't touch you with a 10 foot pole (literally) in the 400 or 800). Given that speed, the only thing holding you back in longer distances is aerobic base. Races 1500m and above are almost purely aerobic, so if you run more miles, lots of easy miles, you'll see big improvements in those distances as well. For comparison's sake, here's your VO2max (using the site calculator) for your PR's 1500 and up (not applicable to <1500m). higher number is better. 1500: 61.3 5k: 58.8 8k: 59.8 10k: 54.5 so your 10k pr is clearly the weakest, and the other ones are fairly comparable, though as you know, you clearly have speed, as reflected in your 1500m time. have you considered trying out for your school's track team as an 800m/1500m specialist? you clearly have some natural speed, and these are your strongest distances (52 for 400m is very fast, but probably not fast enough to compete collegiately). your 10k time will definitely improve with more mileage. slow down your easy runs, build up more mileage, and work in some tempo runs and your 10k time will drop. you have a lot of potential. higher="" number="" is="" better.="" 1500:="" 61.3="" 5k:="" 58.8="" 8k:="" 59.8="" 10k:="" 54.5="" so="" your="" 10k="" pr="" is="" clearly="" the="" weakest,="" and="" the="" other="" ones="" are="" fairly="" comparable,="" though="" as="" you="" know,="" you="" clearly="" have="" speed,="" as="" reflected="" in="" your="" 1500m="" time.="" have="" you="" considered="" trying="" out="" for="" your="" school's="" track="" team="" as="" an="" 800m/1500m="" specialist?="" you="" clearly="" have="" some="" natural="" speed,="" and="" these="" are="" your="" strongest="" distances="" (52="" for="" 400m="" is="" very="" fast,="" but="" probably="" not="" fast="" enough="" to="" compete="" collegiately).="" your="" 10k="" time="" will="" definitely="" improve="" with="" more="" mileage.="" slow="" down="" your="" easy="" runs,="" build="" up="" more="" mileage,="" and="" work="" in="" some="" tempo="" runs="" and="" your="" 10k="" time="" will="" drop.="" you="" have="" a="" lot="" of=""></1500m). higher number is better. 1500: 61.3 5k: 58.8 8k: 59.8 10k: 54.5 so your 10k pr is clearly the weakest, and the other ones are fairly comparable, though as you know, you clearly have speed, as reflected in your 1500m time. have you considered trying out for your school's track team as an 800m/1500m specialist? you clearly have some natural speed, and these are your strongest distances (52 for 400m is very fast, but probably not fast enough to compete collegiately). your 10k time will definitely improve with more mileage. slow down your easy runs, build up more mileage, and work in some tempo runs and your 10k time will drop. you have a lot of potential.>

I don't know if I fully understand your question... Particularly Q2; let's say you go out and outrun most of your team members in the mile race (your strength) but yet, you get beaten by others in an 8k race (your weakness)...why do you want to work on your 8k race when you are already a good runner for the mile? Okay, I'm being a bit tricky. But the point is; first of all, what do you want to achieve in running? If you're an aspiring Olympic runner and, because you don't quite posess good leg-speed, you get beaten in the shorter races like 800 or 1500; I'd say the hell with it and work on those events for now for your future "speed" for 5 and 10. But if your goal in life is to place high in the next year's regionals; why waste your time working on your weak event? You're already doing well in the mile (sorry, I haven't checked your personal records so I don't know which way around...). In short; you'll need to work on BOTH your strengths and weaknesses. Should you do long runs or speed training? Well, if you want to become a good runner, you need to work on both; you need to consider EVERYTHING. If, for whatever the reason, you'd absolutely have to pick ONE; like you are training for a marathon in June and because of your demanding work (or school) schedule, you can only train 4 times a week; throw out speed training and concentrate on endurance! That's pretty much what Roger Bannister did--he was a medical student, as we all know, and he didn't have a lot of time (an hour a day during his lunch time). He wanted to break 4-minute for the mile so he trained accordingly. Naturally, he didn't do much of stamina work I'm sure. He went into the Olympics and he just couldn't survive heats and semi and the final. But he did break 4-minutes for the mile and his name is forever remember as the first man to go under 4. Naturally, his weakness was stamina. Should he worked on stamina within his demanding work (study) schedule, had he been as great of a runner? Well... If you're a 10.5 runner (for 100), maybe with lots of correct work, you could get down to 10.2. Could you break 10? Maybe... The US dominates 400m and that's simply because all those 10.2 runners, knowing they couldn't beat guys who could run 9.9, move up. All those 47~48 guys (for 400) COULD move up to 800 and the US does have many great 800m runners who would come out and blast through early season races around the country. They go to WC or Olympics and they seem to get slower and slower as the round goes by... They rely too much on their speed and perhaps they didn't do their homework of their stamina building??? You can make slow runner fastER; but basically slow runner most likely cannot become a sprinting champion. But most anybody CAN develop their stamina much more easily. It would be so much more difficult to make slow runner fast; but you can turn someone who couldn't run 3km at first and build his/her stamina to run 20+ miles within months. So that's something you should consider. A lot of fast running is technique and nerve thing (apart from muscle structures you're born with). If you can produce a decent 400m time but your form is all over the place; there's a good chance you can improve upon that time quite a bit. Many people think they don't have speed and pretty much give that up when they haven't done anything to sharpen and just jump in sprinting event and get disappointed. You cannot coordinate something you haven't developed. Yet so many would go out and "check" their basic speed without fully developing their speed. Interestingly, this reminds me of Tiffany McWilliams. I saw her in that Boston Indoor just last weekend. She was running the mile (I think). I knew she was going to sprint to the front about 400 to go. She did. She's fast enough to get to the front. And I also knew she was going to fade badly. She did. Obviously, I could see her strength and her weakness. But she doesn't seem to work on her weakness and yet she continues to run exactly the same way and get beat the same way. On the other hand, in men's 800, KD ran a very smart race to get the sting out of what's his name, Simmons? Simmons is very quick at the end and I heard that KD wasn't as sharp. It seems that everybody was saying that Simmons would come past him in the final straight. But instead, KD turned it into a long sprint at the end. Viren did the same thing at 76 Montreal 5000. You've got to work on BOTH your strengths and weaknesses. But sometimes there's only so much you can do for your weaknesses. But by understanding your own strengths and weaknesses, as well as your oponents' strengths and weaknesses, you can strategize the race to capitalize your own strength.

I would let my natural abilities influence (along with personal interests) which events I targetted, and that would in turn control how I trained. In your case that would mean targetting the 400 and 800. If you do this you're starting from a position of strength and you'll probably have more success in the long run. You'll have weaknesses within those events, and you can address your training to address those specific weaknesses. (For example, you don't need to be able to run twenty miles at one time to be a good 400 man, so marathon training will do only so much to improve your performance at that distance.) The same thing holds pretty much for your second question. If you're interested in the "weak" events then go ahead and run in them and have fun. If you try to specialize in them, though, you probably won't reach the same level as someone who's more naturally suited for that event, and you risk not reaching your potential for the event where you show greater promise.

Your times are very similar to mine when I was your age. I don't know if that means we have the same temperament, but I can tell you that then I was much more focused on running hard intervals in my training than I was on working on my aerobic base. I was so interested in running hard intervals that I tried to approximate the feelings of speed that I got in those intervals on my "easy" runs, most of which tended to dip under 6:00 pace at some point during the run. Ifs and buts are like candy and nuts, but I can say that if I knew then what I know now about the benefits of easy running, I feel like I would have run faster (how much? who knows?) by training smarter. What do I mean by "smarter?" Basically, I mean really considering the simple idea that each run has a particular function, and that function is not necessarily to prove how fast you are or to test the outer limits of yourself or to prove to yourself that finally you are in better shape. The tendency for someone who has got some speed is to use it too often. After all, running fast is fun. So, even though I don't know anything about you and feel more like I'm talking to an imagined incarnation of my former self than to someone out there in the real world, I'll say the following: work on your weaknesses. Not because they are your weaknesses, but because your weakness is your aerobic base. Working on that takes more attention and focus because for a runner that's got some wheels, that's not the sexy, fun part of training. It's the part that's about slowly wearing the rubber off the bottom of yet another pair of shoes.

I've decided to make my own way based on not wanting to run with the team for a while (maybe never again... hard to say...). That severly limits my opportunity to run the shorter track races. I was just wondering what the consensus was on whether people liked to improve all of their PR's or just their PR in their favorite/best race. My PR's straight up are difficult to compare to each other; I've run only the one 10k, and didn't run the 1500 at all in my senior year, when I ran both the 52 400m and the 1:59 800m. I'm also somewhat wary of "easy" distance. Running 7:00-7:45 is good for me on most of my runs, but I don't know if that would be considered "easy". I feel like I'm pushing somewhat, and if I run any slower than that, it feels like my legs are taking more of a beating because it feels much less smooth. I also found that by changing my training from 50 mpw at 7:00-7:45 made me infinitely better prepared for a season of XC than 45 mwp at 8:00-8:30, which was much easier. I don't know how much of a difference 5 mpw makes, but I think in my case that the decrease in pace helped me out a lot. Finally, I wasn't asking for advice (but I do appreciate it!), really, just wondering how other people would answer that question. Thanks for your input though