> Perhaps our 10k guys (and 5k guys) go about training too much like they > would for a marathon and don't focus enough on speed. Geb constantly talks > about improving his speed. How many of our 10k guys can run 24.5 flat out > let alone at the end of a 10k?
Jeez, I'm sure at least 8 of our top 10 10K guys could run 24.5 all out, if not all of them. They may never actually have done so, but I bet nearly all of them could. Having watched Culpepper accelerate in distance races, I am 100% sure that he could run well under 24. Personally, though, I don't consider differences in all out speed to be a big factor in differentiating people in the 10K. Sure, if one guy can run 22 and another guy can run 25, that will mean something, but Lydiard had it right - the problem with distances is not to get more speed but to get the stamina to hold the speed for longer (both through LFD and targeted speedwork). Think how many people can run 53 secs for a 400m (thousands in the U.S. for certain) and how few can hold it for 800m and make nationals. The problem is not speed. For years we gave Americans a hard time for not doing enough miles like the Africans. Now we're wondering if they aren't doing enough speed. The fact is that you have to do high mileage AND speedwork. Some Americans do and some don't. But we're not getting beaten because the top Americans aren't training well. We're getting beaten for a whole myriad of reasons, some of which we have control over and some of which we don't. It's a tough competitive world out there, and there are no easy answers such as adding more speed. - Ed Parrot
