[quote]Airtruth wrote:
You’re just proving me and Milks’s point. Both Canada and England follow the american creed of choosing the black track athletes, and the majority of sprinters they produced in the past came here to train(Environment). Then your using the 3 runners of the 400 as proof? Luguelin Santos isn’t of West African decent he just grew up so poor he knew not to give in to stereotypes like that.
[/quote]
The American creed of “choosing” the black track athlete? What does that even mean? A sprinter EARNS his spot on the team via performance. If athletes were chosen based on skin color then how did Jeremy Wariner ever make it?
I brought up the 400 runners not to make a connection to West Africa (I don’t know how you got that) but to refute the idea that only Jamaica and the US produce sprinters. BTW, the Canadian and British sprinters are usually born in Jamaica or are the children of Jamaican immigrants which leads us back to the genetic argument. Even Sonia Richards was born in Jamaica.
Here’s a little bio on Donovan Bailey, the Canadian sprinter:
Born in Manchester, Jamaica in 1967, Bailey emigrated to Canada at age 13, and played basketball before his graduation at Queen Elizabeth Park High School in Oakville, Ontario. He began competing as a 100 m sprinter part-time in 1991, but he did not take up the sport seriously until 1994. At that time, he was also a stockbroker. He was coached by Loren Seagrave.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
And, I lived in Portland Oregon for about 7 months. It rains for 10 months out of the year, 22 hours a day. It is cold and damp most of the time. But, basketball is huge up there. There were quite a few dudes that could play. They understood the game and could play ball. With that, I saw very few dudes that I’d consider athletic. Basketball is obviously an indoor sport, and as such one of the few you can play year round indoors. Why aren’t there more athletic dudes up there? Climate DEFINITELY has something to do with physical development.[/quote]
I prefer the environment argument better. Basketball has some anaerobic aspects but is not nearly as anaerobic as a sprint, or football. You must’ve hung around more basketball people. Oregon’s track environment has fairly large amount of athletes considering it’s population. So much so that there is a hall of fame track up there as popular or more than the pen relays - Prefontaine classic. As far as basketball athletes you have Nate Robinson, Jason Terry, and quite of few others.
When comparing the speed of upcoming athletes, I agree Florida dominates. But I say they even dominate the other warm air environments. I’ve stayed in several areas in the south and I can say way more people hang out at the track in Florida. All Racing and running sprints for fun. So much so I miss it, the girls were gorgeous. Back here in Jersey and NY your lucky if there’s one other person on the track, and if it is they are running for their first time all year. Tennessee, GA, there are more college campus’s you’ll see more general track athletes working out but not random people. Florida kids also play way more football, although that’s starting to change. [/quote]
The guys you mentioned are from Seattle, though the climate is identical. There are anomlies in any sample. And, Oregon’s track culture is more geared towards distance events, not sprinting. That’s not to say there aren’t athletic dudes out there 'cause obviosuly there are, I’m just saying as a whole there seems to be way more athletic people in warmer climates, regardless of sport. Genetics is still king though.
America dominates due to genetically predisposition of certain participants, not 'cause of starting kids early. In most other countries children are picked at an early age and put into “academies” where they’re taught a specific sport [basketball, soccer, olympic lifting] and continue this throughout their formative years. They play year round and don’t take breaks. America has NOTHING like that, yet we still dominate the more athletic sports. Strange, isn’t it?
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
America dominates due to genetically predisposition of certain participants, not 'cause of starting kids early. [/quote] America dominates because of the resources we can throw at all the sports. West Africans aren’t winning sprints, never have. Again we have a culture geered towards sports, a prime environment. [quote]In most other countries children are picked at an early age and put into “academies” where they’re taught a specific sport [basketball, soccer, olympic lifting] and continue this throughout their formative years. They play year round and don’t take breaks. America has NOTHING like that, yet we still dominate the more athletic sports. Strange, isn’t it?[/quote]
Yes those kids don’t always end up the best among their peers, which further disproves any genetic argument. America does have academies where people are taught their perspective sport, we just don’t hand pick all the kids based on genetics. How do you think we do so well in Gymnastics? As apposed to Russians and Chinese our kids retire at 18 and 19 because the demands from their training gyms are too intense to live a normal life. Their gyms are equal to “Academies” The only difference is the name and the taboo placed on the “Academies” to gain ratings for shows like 60 minutes.
Don’t get it twisted the majority of coaches are like you and Zecarlo and when it comes to working with athletes put more energy into black athletes for high speed sports.
This is an interesting discussion, but I think we’ve gotten a little off point. We started talking about whether a person with average, or maybe even “decent” but not “elite” genetics (whatever that even means) could, with hard work, perseverance and intelligent training have a shot at running 400m/800m at a D1 school. It wasn’t even about whether that person could dominate or even win. It was about whether he could get out there and compete. That’s what sport is about.
We have since moved on to whether you need to be descended from people from a specific region in Africa to win Olympic gold in the 100m. In other words we’ve gone from a discussion that is potentially relevant to a lot of people to one that is relevant to almost no one. I firmly believe that speed CAN be taught, but I don’t necessarily believe that Olympic gold speed can be taught. But who cares?! None of us are likely going to the Olympics anyway and plenty of kids running collegiate track aren’t going either. Almost all of them in fact.
Our cultural obsession with all things “elite” is stupid and it sucks a lot of the joy out of sports for the overwhelming majority of people and it often prevents them from ever approaching their own potential, whatever that may be.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Keep in mind that Christophe Lemaitre is a white sprinter that ran under 10 sec. If he would’ve did this in the Olympics before Carl Lewis would he have been traced back to West Africa? West Africans run in the other islands in the carribean, canada, and across latin america. How come it’s always America and Jamaica in it? Maybe that’s what the culture has them do from an early age. Did everyone not see the special every time Bolt ran that showed how in Jamaica kids start sprinting races like we play Tag. Jamaicans have ruled the sprints from the last 2 olympics. Are they genetically superior than American West Africans?
[/quote]
Canada hasn’t exactly sucked at sprinting. They’ve won gold in the 100m before (Donovan Bailey), in the 4x100 relay and would have had bronze this year in the relay had their sprinter not steped out of his lane.
Could somone please answer:
Why don’t we see/saw Soviet Union or Chinese sprinters win gold?
Surely the cultural argument is completely nullified since they coach/coached little talents very early on in special academies.
It’s an enormous pool of potential high class athletes, driven mercilessly by an ideological force.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Keep in mind that Christophe Lemaitre is a white sprinter that ran under 10 sec. If he would’ve did this in the Olympics before Carl Lewis would he have been traced back to West Africa? West Africans run in the other islands in the carribean, canada, and across latin america. How come it’s always America and Jamaica in it? Maybe that’s what the culture has them do from an early age. Did everyone not see the special every time Bolt ran that showed how in Jamaica kids start sprinting races like we play Tag. Jamaicans have ruled the sprints from the last 2 olympics. Are they genetically superior than American West Africans?
[/quote]
Canada hasn’t exactly sucked at sprinting. They’ve won gold in the 100m before (Donovan Bailey), in the 4x100 relay and would have had bronze this year in the relay had their sprinter not steped out of his lane.[/quote]
And Bailey was born in Jamaica which only proves the point that it is genetic and not cultural or environmental. Linford Christie was born in Jamaica but grew up in England and, he didn’t start training seriously until he was 19. Take the Jamaican out of Jamaica and he still performs better than most.
Also, to say that Jamaicans (who run for Jamaica) have a “cultural” advantage over US athletes of a similar ethnic/racial background which accounts for their success over US athletes discounts the performance of American female sprinters who were superior to Jamaican women at this last Olympics. So in reality Jamaican sprinters as a group are not superior to US sprinters.
Just to weigh in on the non-genetic stuff… I am untrained in all aspects of running and I tried giving the 400 a go for the first time ever:
I decided to be modest in my first attempt, and shot for about 90 seconds. I ended at about 85 seconds, and didn’t feel all that bad after. I rested about 4.5 minutes, or about 1:4 work to rest (first time, I weigh 250 lbs), and I attempted another 90 second 400. However, I totally ran out of gas at about 200.
That being said, what’s the best way to approach this? Should I start w/ smaller distances and work my way up, just keep trying the 400, increase my rest, improve my endurance (I probably run around an 8 minute mile on a good day)… I have no idea.
Here is a recent discussion more geared toward starting out with 400’s
In my opinion you would need to improve both your aerobic and anaerobic capacity and almost certainly your technique if you want to progress. It really depends what your ultimate goal is and how much time effort you are willing to commit to the endeavour.
At 250, you are going to need to learn to run well and build up slowly and intelligently or you will probably wreck yourself.
[quote]1 Man Island wrote:
Just to weigh in on the non-genetic stuff… I am untrained in all aspects of running and I tried giving the 400 a go for the first time ever:
I decided to be modest in my first attempt, and shot for about 90 seconds. I ended at about 85 seconds, and didn’t feel all that bad after. I rested about 4.5 minutes, or about 1:4 work to rest (first time, I weigh 250 lbs), and I attempted another 90 second 400. However, I totally ran out of gas at about 200.
That being said, what’s the best way to approach this? Should I start w/ smaller distances and work my way up, just keep trying the 400, increase my rest, improve my endurance (I probably run around an 8 minute mile on a good day)… I have no idea.
Cheers[/quote]
The first question is why do you want to improve your 400 time? The next thing is understanding what the 400 actually is. The 400 is a sprint. You are supposed to be running at close to full speed for 400 meters. This is something that not everyone will be able to do, even with training. The reason being that you will be limited by what your top speed is. The slower you are, the longer it will take and the longer it takes the even slower you will run as you cannot maintain top speed, or something close to it, for too long. The best 400 runners maintain a high speed for around 45 seconds. In other words: if you want to mimic the fitness of a 400 runner you should be shooting for time instead of distance. If you can run at close to full speed for 45 seconds then you are demonstrating the same type of fitness that a 400 runner has. The reason why a 400m runner can cover that distance in the time he does is because he has sprinter’s speed. Time yourself in a shorter sprint to get an idea of how fast you are then you can figure out what a potential 400 time could be. The bottom line is that there is a difference between running 400 meters and sprinting 400 meters. If it takes you 60 seconds or more then you are not sprinting because the human body is limited when it comes to how long it can work at max capacity. The reason why this is important is because you need to know if you are doing an aerobic or anaerobic workout.
Zecarlo, we may disagree about on whole “speed can’t be taught” debate, but I tend to believe that you know much more about the specifics of track training than I do as I assume you actually ran track at one time. I pretty much agree with everything you’re saying above, especially the part about why the OP wants a faster 400, but I’m curious about a couple of things. As I understand it, the 400 is primarily but not purely anaerobic in nature.
Significant stress is placed on the aerobic system as well. If the OP is 250 and running 8:00 miles, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that his aerobic fitness may also be limiting him? Especially when it comes to recovering for repeated max efforts in training? I would think that most track athletes, especially in their early development build up a pretty respectable aerobic base that helps them meet the demands that more intense speed work places upon their bodies.
Assuming the OP wants a faster 400 for the sake of having a faster 400, and being generally “fitter”, I would think one day doing speed/time intervals at the track, one day doing 30-40 minutes of tempo running near lactate threshold (80-90% max HR) and one day doing a long, slow distance run with 2 extra days mixed aerobic/anaerobic crosstraining on a rower or a stationary bike wouldn’t be a bad plan until he built up the fitness base to tolerate more frequent and intense speed-based workouts. What do you think?
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Keep in mind that Christophe Lemaitre is a white sprinter that ran under 10 sec. If he would’ve did this in the Olympics before Carl Lewis would he have been traced back to West Africa? West Africans run in the other islands in the carribean, canada, and across latin america. How come it’s always America and Jamaica in it? Maybe that’s what the culture has them do from an early age. Did everyone not see the special every time Bolt ran that showed how in Jamaica kids start sprinting races like we play Tag. Jamaicans have ruled the sprints from the last 2 olympics. Are they genetically superior than American West Africans?
[/quote]
Canada hasn’t exactly sucked at sprinting. They’ve won gold in the 100m before (Donovan Bailey), in the 4x100 relay and would have had bronze this year in the relay had their sprinter not steped out of his lane.[/quote]
And Bailey was born in Jamaica which only proves the point that it is genetic and not cultural or environmental. Linford Christie was born in Jamaica but grew up in England and, he didn’t start training seriously until he was 19. Take the Jamaican out of Jamaica and he still performs better than most.
Also, to say that Jamaicans (who run for Jamaica) have a “cultural” advantage over US athletes of a similar ethnic/racial background which accounts for their success over US athletes discounts the performance of American female sprinters who were superior to Jamaican women at this last Olympics. So in reality Jamaican sprinters as a group are not superior to US sprinters. [/quote]
You stay proving my point. Donovan Bailey moved from Jamaica to Canada at THIRTEEN, and was already faster than the Canadians. That means he was faster than all the Canadians of Jamaican Descent(they have a large population) when he got there. So did all their genetics change when their parents birthed them in Canada?? No, he spent heavy developmental years in Jamaica running, they didn’t.
Are you trying to say that Jamaicans have the best genetics for running? More than Americans, Canadians, and English black population? Sorry I disagree with that, it’s more then a coincidence that the 2 people who train together won gold and silver.
Women… THEY DON’T PLAY FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL. The best option for a black American female seeking athletic success is track. Not until recently did salaries for WNBA began approach track, in generations to come it’s likely our best female athletes will start playing basketball. If that happens all of a sudden the genetics of Americans will change and we won’t be able to win the track and feel sprints either.
[quote]1 Man Island wrote:
Just to weigh in on the non-genetic stuff… I am untrained in all aspects of running and I tried giving the 400 a go for the first time ever:
I decided to be modest in my first attempt, and shot for about 90 seconds. I ended at about 85 seconds, and didn’t feel all that bad after. I rested about 4.5 minutes, or about 1:4 work to rest (first time, I weigh 250 lbs), and I attempted another 90 second 400. However, I totally ran out of gas at about 200.
That being said, what’s the best way to approach this? Should I start w/ smaller distances and work my way up, just keep trying the 400, increase my rest, improve my endurance (I probably run around an 8 minute mile on a good day)… I have no idea.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Keep in mind that Christophe Lemaitre is a white sprinter that ran under 10 sec. If he would’ve did this in the Olympics before Carl Lewis would he have been traced back to West Africa? West Africans run in the other islands in the carribean, canada, and across latin america. How come it’s always America and Jamaica in it? Maybe that’s what the culture has them do from an early age. Did everyone not see the special every time Bolt ran that showed how in Jamaica kids start sprinting races like we play Tag. Jamaicans have ruled the sprints from the last 2 olympics. Are they genetically superior than American West Africans?
[/quote]
Canada hasn’t exactly sucked at sprinting. They’ve won gold in the 100m before (Donovan Bailey), in the 4x100 relay and would have had bronze this year in the relay had their sprinter not steped out of his lane.[/quote]
And Bailey was born in Jamaica which only proves the point that it is genetic and not cultural or environmental. Linford Christie was born in Jamaica but grew up in England and, he didn’t start training seriously until he was 19. Take the Jamaican out of Jamaica and he still performs better than most.
Also, to say that Jamaicans (who run for Jamaica) have a “cultural” advantage over US athletes of a similar ethnic/racial background which accounts for their success over US athletes discounts the performance of American female sprinters who were superior to Jamaican women at this last Olympics. So in reality Jamaican sprinters as a group are not superior to US sprinters. [/quote]
I think you missed my point. I wasn’t arguing culture vs genetic (both have a factor IMO). Rather I was arguing simply that Canada is a pretty good country when it comes to sprinting.
I read the discussion in the other thread, and there were two lines of advice:
1 - Focus on longer distances so you don’t get winded
2 - Focus on 200s and it’ll transfer over
Batman’s advice seems to be leaning more toward line 1… though I wouldn’t be focusing that much time on running, so as not to mess w/ my lifting (at this point in time, anyway).
I definitely never felt like I was sprinting, but just maintaining a decent pace run. I was sucking air hard at the end, but my legs didn’t feel tired until about halfway through the second go, then they were like, “BAM! We’re done.”
I’m not OP, but…
Goal in the 400: Just general fitness, I guess. 70 seconds seems good? Like I said, I’ve never run the 400 before, so I would expect to make large gains in the beginning and then I can focus on the 400 as a general conditioning tool.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Donovan Bailey moved from Jamaica to Canada at THIRTEEN, and was already faster than the Canadians. That means he was faster than all the Canadians of Jamaican Descent(they have a large population) when he got there. So did all their genetics change when their parents birthed them in Canada?? No, he spent heavy developmental years in Jamaica running, they didn’t.
Are you trying to say that Jamaicans have the best genetics for running? More than Americans, Canadians, and English black population? Sorry I disagree with that, it’s more then a coincidence that the 2 people who train together won gold and silver.
[/quote]
Why ignore Linford Christie? He moved to England at a very young age and didn’t start running until he had been living there for years. And sorry, Bailey didn’t start training as a sprinter before he moved to Canada and he played basketball in high school. He started training for the 100m when he was in his 20s. Then you have Bruny Surin who moved to Canada from Haiti when he was 8. Though he isn’t Jamaican he shows that Canadian coaches can train an athlete for success without them already having been trained somewhere else first.
And I’m not saying black Jamaicans have better genetics than blacks of a similar ancestry but that genes are more important than culture. Jamaican “sprint culture” does not give an advantage over other nations. The US, Canada and many European nations all have excellent coaches and track programs in place that can help any gifted athlete reach his or her potential. If being in Jamaica were so important then how did Jamaican born athletes who trained in foreign nations have success?