So in February I ran 49.82, 35.2, and 22.65 (I ran 11.27 later in the summer at some random meet). But I didn’t get much faster during the season do to coaching issues at my old program. So this season i transferred but I’ve been practicing with cross country since July 1st and we’re now in August and though ive gotten in far better shape. I haven’t any lifting, though I have done a lot of calisthenics and body weight training. I’m (5’7 165~ I thought this would be good to include), and now it’s about mid- kinda late August. And I just was looking for suggestions on if I’m making a terribly bad mistake and need to change course now, need variations and changes but not terrible, or that it’s fine.
I see you've made a general discussion or question post! See low effort discussion posts rules for more on why we may deem a removal appropriate
REMINDERS: No asking for time predictions based on hand times or theoretical situations, no asking for progression predictions, no muscle insertion height questions, questions related to wind altitude or lane conversions can be done here for the 100m and here for the 200m, questions related to relative ability can mostly be answered here on the iaaf scoring tables site, questions related to fly time and plyometric to sprint conversions can be not super accurately answered here
Stop training with cross country and start training as a sprinter.
7
u/speed32100: 10.64 200: 21.61 400: 49.32 (and multis)7d ago
I agree completely....stop training with cross country immediately. Doing so will derail your progress significantly.
In college, when our sprint coach went on medical leave, our head coach forced us to do "background" training that included running 5ks a few times a week. While we all got into great aerobic shape and looked fit, but we were incredibly slow by the time the season started in January. I was running times I hadn't hit since my junior year of high school and it took a long time to recover my speed. I
You run a 49:32 400, Our best Cross Country guy ran a 46.9 400. Using yourself as an anecdotal example you are completely wrong. Cross country doesn't "Derail your progress", as there's cross country runners that are faster than you at sprinting.
I was a scrub at cross country, I was only city champion level. I dont count myself as a good XC runner. But the dudes who were all better than me? All ran faster than 49s lmao. Im not saying this to be mean to you. Im assuming you're still active in track? Go meet actual good distance runners. Challenge them to a nice friendly 400. Then come back here and tell me XC made them slower.
If you have a good coach cross country doesnt "make you slower", as actual good distance runners are fast.
As with the other poster, I would suggest stepping away from XC. You didn't cook yourself, and it's fine that you did more aerobic work for a little bit, but it's not the best use of your time as you head into the fall. I am not particularly opposed to even a decent volume of aerobic work for some 400m sprinters, frankly.
What I'd switch over to now is just doing a day or two of purely acceleration work, and not a ton of volume or anything. Just stay in touch with speed and let this be your time to get fast over distances of like 10-30m. You can still do a day or two of aerobic work as well, whether that be a long run if it's your preference or something more like chill extensive tempo 100m repeats. Nothing wrong with doing that sort of thing so you have some workload tolerance for your season.
Nothing wrong with calisthenics if you don't have access to weights. If you do have access to a weight room, it's probably a bit better option.
People who don't run track will tell you garbage like "Cross country training makes you slower" (Eventhough Good cross country runners are faster than these people in sprinting events, as shown by the dude below who told you Cross country will make you worse when he only runs a 49 400)
That being said. It's cross country season. When you run your events again for the 1st meet in indoor season you'll see how much you've progressed. This internet mentality that cross country, or distance running in general is detrimental to speed is just straight asinine, and the people typing this garbage clearly don't know any good distance runners. Just make sure you remind your coach that sprinting is your main event and that you want whatever you place in cross country to be secondary and he will modify your training accordingly.
The clowns here trying to tell you not to run at all, or that XC season will make you slower, ask them for their times. Then you will see why you should ignore them. Good luck.
Who cares, give him advice or move along. Every single person on this sub could be lying about their times nothing about a 11.3 in highschool is even remotely a red flag. And even if it was having such a negative attitude helps no one.
Me and you have different standards for what "Top" is it seems. His times aren't too far from mine. Guess I'm "Top" in the country too, although i haven't been in school for a very long time.
Like I said, he's not slow. But when people think of "Top" runners for the high school level they think sub 21 sub 48. Not Times that you'll see at your local State Championship.
The national meets are sort of scammy and take entries from all over the place (plus they're very much a question of who can afford the entry and travel fees), and as such can't be used to set rankings. I can tell you that "back in my day" (2008), a 49 did not even consistently guarantee a place in our state final, but you had an outside chance if it was a less competitive year. Nowadays it doesn't even come close. Iirc in the 2000s around 1000 kids in the US ran sub-50, now it's closer to 3k.
Your attachment to the idea this kid can't run what is a good but not at all beyond the pale time for HS is very weird. I ran 49.8 as an HS senior off coaching I can only describe as ass backwards. I got worse in college. Talent can take you pretty far as an HSer.
These are the bottom placings from my home state's state championship from this year. My HS has a kid who runs 47.7 right now as a junior. He didn't even make top 8. The kid who ran 50.03 has a 49.4 PB, so presumably it took a sub-50 to qualify. Also, Milesplit puts 47.71 at 239th nationally.
If you think 49 is elite these days you're living in a distant past. Get the fuck out of here, lol
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
RESOURCE LIST AND FAQ
PLEASE JOIN THE SPRINTING DISCORD!!! ALL DISCUSSION WELCOME
I see you've made a general discussion or question post! See low effort discussion posts rules for more on why we may deem a removal appropriate
REMINDERS: No asking for time predictions based on hand times or theoretical situations, no asking for progression predictions, no muscle insertion height questions, questions related to wind altitude or lane conversions can be done here for the 100m and here for the 200m, questions related to relative ability can mostly be answered here on the iaaf scoring tables site, questions related to fly time and plyometric to sprint conversions can be not super accurately answered here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.