Run-Down Forums

[Indeurr]

___My bias and contention is that from the perspective of physiology there is no well -- defined middle -- distance. Up to circa 1000 meters, the predominant source of energy for an athlete is anaerobic, and beyond that point it is aerobic.
___I would like one of you to define the middle distance based purely on physiology.

[Dan]

[Distance_Guru]

I'd have to agree with Dan on this one. There is great debate over the range of middle distance. Also I've seen charts that would indicate that athletes get a greater percentage of their energy from anaerobic metabolism in a 1500m race than in an 800m race. (800=45% aerobic, 55% anaerobic vs 35 aerobic, 65 anaerobic. Vigil, Run to The Top figure 5.2, page 67). If this is the case then it would seem unlikely that it is possible to have an accurate determination of what is distance vs mid distance. Also depending on your level of fittness, biomechanics, and VO2 max, these percentages would be different from one individual to the next.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[will]

I've got a book written by a mathematician and coach named Kevin Prendergrast who explores the velocities of these distances-sprint, middle, and, long. He mathematically demonstrates a distinct differentiation between the 200 and 400m, then, he shows how 1000m is the key middle distance. Everything above that starts leaning towards pure longer distance, until, above 3km, it pretty much all blends together....physiologically speaking.

[Conway]

What would the name of the book ??? Sounds rather interesting ...

Conway

[Dan]

Why would average velocity be more meaningful than internal energy systems for settling on what is truly mid-distance? One is a cause, the other is an effect...

Dan

[will]

I don't think the velocity was being used as the primary quality of interest. It merely provided a statistical means for determining which event related to which system.

My logic is that certain systems (alatic and CP) had a direct correlation with the body's ability to maintain highest possible (meaning, sprint) activity rates. That activity rate and the velocities had a relationship as well. Whereas there was a larger anaerobic and slightly smaller, but, still relevant aerobic component to the 400, the 100 and 200 were (energetically speaking) largely determined by the body's ability to renew it batteries, loosely speaking.

The fact that the primary muscle types acting in the sprints (100 and 200m runs) are FT IIb the internal energy system would be dominantly CP in origin. After 20-30s. (as most liberal estimates figure) the alactic and CP systems, even in highly trained elite athletes, begin to fail in their production rates. As a result, the FT IIa groups begin to become the dominant fiber type. Since the FT IIa contractility rates are slower than the FT IIb neural sets, the correlation between ATP re/synthesis and breakdown are pretty direct. After 30s. people can't run all out, that is, becuase they can't rely strictly on FT IIb fibers any longer. Their CP stores are depleted. As a result, average velocity drops when FT IIa and IIb fibers split the difference of the work load.

That is simply an example of the physiology I reason out, but, that is up for debate. Looking at slightly longer distances, the beginning of MD racing does have a relationship between the velocity one runs and the type and amount of energy used by the body when running at that speed.
If one were to have a terrific alactic energy system, but, no aerobic base, they could fly around the track....for a short time. After that time, there would be no guarantee. Flipping that coin over leaves an athlete with all endurance and no speed. To me, MD was always a question of finding the person who could perfectly blend speed with strength. That blend, to me, can be indicated, though not strictly identified, by external cues (such as speed) since they reveal things about the internal activities of the body.

As for the book, it can be found on http://www.oztrack.com It's called A Fundamental Approach to Middle Distance Running. Also, I talked with Kevin about his Funnel Program. He's very personable and open to talking about his work.

[will]

The breakdown (45/55) DG talks about was from A. V. Hill's work, almost 80 years ago. He's the foundation for modern exercise phys., but, there has been a lot of progress in the field since then.....like the application of creatine phosphate systems to running....and the large scale publicizied move by athletes to understand sports science as a part (mental) of the holistic approach to training.

From Hill's point of view, it almost seems that 1k is right in the middle.

[Indeurr]

I would like to repeat:
My bias and contention is that from the perspective of physiology there is no well -- defined middle -- distance. Up to circa 1000 meters, the predominant source of energy for an athlete is anaerobic, and beyond that point it is aerobic.
Thank you for support.
And yes: I agree that the question is somewhat flowed. There is no clear cut in spite of the fact that 1K happens to be 50./50.

[will]

okay, if the question is flawed, how would you define what a middle distance is? I'm curious, not, combative here. How can you go about finding that middle distance, whatever it is, if the 50/50 split doesn't act as a guide for determining it?

[RangerG]

Forgive me for putting in my two cents, but I am 47 and have just this year started running again since I got out of the Rangers in 77.

I ran 12 races this year, including 5, 10, 15, and 30k road and trail runs, and a 1/2 Marathon. My times are not what you folks probably run, but I am consistant and have lots of fun, and I tend to stay in the middle of the pack, regardless of distance or type run.

How would you define a middle distance in my case? My times, fitness, age, and experience would seem to conflict with some of the concepts I see here.

Ranger G.
_________________
If I could only run like John Capel...

[Dan]

I don't view the discipline cutoffs as varying by the nature of the athlete. Mid-distance is mid-distance, regardless of whether 400m is the longest you can run competitively or 10k is the shortest. It just means you have different strengths and weaknesses.

As for Will's question, I think the question is flawed because there is no way of really pegging an exact point that defines the beginning and end of mid-distance, and it's extremely unlikely it will coincide with a nice even event distance (1000m, mile, etc.). We know the 1500m is a mid-distance event. Isn't that good enough?

Dan

[will]

That's good for me. I thought we were approaching the question from a different angle. I agree, then; there is a general area of what the middle distance is, but, even within individuals, that transition point would change. So, yeah, I see the flaw now.

[RangerG]

Ok Dan, I see your point.

I was just wondering if middle distance was a point based on variables that would change with each individual, and not "set in stone" for a particular distance event.

Sorry, It's just the Engineer in me trying to figure out a whole new set of rules, variables and mathematical(?) equations.

I do not have the Track and Field experience that most of you had thru school and young adulthood. All this is new to me!

And here was I thinking that running was just going out every morning at 5:00 am for a 3 mile run Getting older has taught me how little I still know about the things I do....

Ranger G.
_________________
If I could only run like John Capel...

[Distance_Guru]

I see what you were trying to figure out and I basiclly have wondered the same thing. But what I finally decided was that middle distance is defined by what, to speak generally, breaks down to the 50/50 split aerobic to anaerobic for the top level runners not your average recreational runner. In other words interms of physical demands a middle distance race is very different for different people. But since it would be very confusing (not to mention impracticle) for everyone to have their own personal version of short, middle and long distance, I suppose it's best that we go by what is really middle distance for the best runners and not overthink things too much.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn