Quality X

[Brice]

The composition is genetic and is not possible to change, but characteristics of fibers can chance with physical training. For example, endurance training will change type IIa fiber characteristics to type I. Type IIa fibers will become slower and start using more fat and have more endurance. In reality, quality X is achievable through training.

Is this to say that with a lot of distance (Slow twitch) training your body will naturally adapt to the longer distances making the characteristics of your fibers more type I ?

On a separate note, the elite runners, those with the Olympic qualifying times in the marathon, would you say they are significantly more of one type then the other, well balanced in all three areas, or is what they have the "quality X" we are talking about?  I think  I am just an optimist at heart and don't want to believe that I may be genetically unable to do something I want to do.  That being said, I know there is no way I would be able to slam dunk a basketball even if their were a check for a million bucks up there : )

Nice topic though

[James Winzenz]

My understanding is that you cannot change the composition of Type I or Type II fibers.  With training, you may be able to recruit more of the fibers for your specific activity.  With regards to the Type IIa fibers, Gokay's description of them as a hybrid fiber is a good visual - think of a hybrid vehicle, like the Toyota Prius.  It has both an economic electric engine as well as a small gasoline-powered engine.  At slow speeds and at stops, you only use the electric engine to achieve maximum efficiency.  At higher speeds and during acceleration, you use both the gasoline and electric engines to achieve maximum performance.  Now what Gokay is saying is that, unlike a hybrid vehicle, in which you cannot change the size of either of the engines, you may, through proper training, be able to cause your Type IIa fibers to act more like Type I fibers and be more efficient and aerobic in nature.  I would suspect that a physiological change would have to take place here - if you look at type I and type II fibers, the comparison would be dark meat and white meat.  The dark meat is the Type I, aerobic fibers, which are well oxygenated and have a good blood supply.  Type II fibers would be the white meat, not as well oxygenated (they work aerobically!).  The blood supply would probably be similar, since the Type II fibers still need nutrients, and still need glucose to convert to ATP - so perhaps there would be a converstion within the cells to allow them to take up oxygen.  Dunno - it's been a while since I had my exercise physiology classes, but that's my take on it.  Whether this is the only factor of "Quality X" remains debatable.

[Sasha Pachev]

Brice:

We know how one can bridge the gap between his 100 meter speed and marathon speed significantly through training. However, once you reach a certain limit of a percentage difference, which incidentally is the same for a 2:05 marathoner and a 3:05 marathoner, we do not know what to do to improve. The only thing that separates a properly trained 2:05 marathoner (incidentally no human has ever run 2:05 without proper training, nor a human not predisposed to distance) from a properly trained 3:05 marathoner (many humans include myself have run a 3:05 marathon off improper training, those do not count for this particular comparison) that is naturally predisposed to distance as much as the 2:05 marathoner (which disposition is not that rare), that difference is in 100 meter speed and you will find it in almost exact same proportion as their marathon time difference.

A lot of big deal is being made about fast-slow twitch ratio. That is a big deal if you want to be good in one particular distance, then you need to have the optimal ratio for that distance. But it is not a big deal if you just want to be a good runner. You just pick the distance that you have the ratio for. A much bigger deal is that most people do not naturally have what it takes to run any distance at a world class level regardless of their fast-slow twitch ratio. That something is what I call Quality X. So in our comparison the 2:05 marathoner and the 3:05 one would have the same fast-slow twitch ratio, they may even have the same weight and height. Their lung capacity would probably be the same, so would the rest of their cardiovascular system. But the 2:05 guy will leave the 3:05 guy in the dust proportionally by as much in 100 meters as he would in the marathon. Why!!!?

There is some magic Quality X that separates them, and unfortunately nobody really understands what it is or knows if and how it can be improved. And, frankly, not many care, except the ones that have maxed out what their Quality X would give them and still want to improve. There are not many of those. You need to run 100+ miles a week for a few years, get enough sleep, eat right, and  live a very disciplined life to start feeling the pain of not having enough Quality X to get faster.

At this point most people on the blog are not close to their Quality X limits (with the exception of a few ), but eventually everyone will get there and will need to solve that problem. Thus this discussion.

[Maria Imas]

To me, Quality X is the "natural ability" which is also sometimes called "talent". I don't like the term "talent", because there are many talents needed for success in running. One of the talents, for example, is being able to withstand very high mileage for many years without breaking down. But that is not what is meant by Quality X. I have no problem with term "natural ability" or "inherent ability" - to me, it describes the matter accurately, and it does not mean surrender. It is no secret that genetic ability is the prerequisite to success at the international level in any sport. There are very good insights about it in Daniel's "Running Formula". He says that we each are given a certain amount of natural ability and the top end is set for us. It is true, however, that most athletes don't ever realize their potential (for various reasons, inadequate training being one of them), and improvement is almost always possible.

Recognizing my lack of Quality X does not mean surrender to me, it means being realistic about my top end and trying to improve my results through proven and solid training, as far as it will take me - with understanding that I may never make the OT qualifying time, or whatever other standard. Striving for excellence with what I have been given is reward in its own right.

That said, Quality X consists of more than just muscle fiber composition. There are other physiological limits - how much air you can breathe in and out of your lungs, how much blood can reach your muscles, how much of the oxygen that your muscles get can actually be used to convert fuel to energy. No doubt, all of these characteristics can be improved greatly with training, but all of them are capped.

Regarding Sasha's comment that he has never seen anyone improve in 100m sprint by more than 1 second, I can say that I improved by 2 full seconds. My first 100m race I ran 15.2 sec, and eventually, after about 3 years of serious sprinter's training, I reached 13.2 sec., at which point I stopped improving no matter how hard or smart I trained. I was 14-17 at the time, and I consider myself fully grown at 14. All the while training side by side with girls who were running 12.4 - 12.0 on exactly the same training, under the same coach. I see exactly the same thing in my daughter's swimming now. She is the hardest worker in her squad, and sadly, one of the slowest for her age. It is hard for her to accept, but she lacks Quality X, just like I do (only makes sense genetically). The hardest thing to witness is someone who misses practice, hardly trains and then performs better anyway, while you are making great sacrifices year after year. It seems unfair, and it isn't, especially in sprints when it is possible to reach realtively high level on Quality X alone.

I don't think there is a magic recipe for Quality X, except to pick different set of parents. It is not easy to accept, but in sports, hard work alone is not enough to become an international level athlete.

[Sasha Pachev]

Maria:
What was the starting race of the girls who ran 12.0-12.4 and at what maturity level?
Also, even though you may stop growing vertically at 14 and may even be the same weight as you are at 17, there are probably still some changes going on internally that would affect your ability to sprint. At least intuitively I have a hard time imaging a 14 year old girl that would not get wrestled down by her equally athletic 17-year old sister even if the older sister appears to be the same size :-)

[Maria Imas]

Sasha,

the starting race for those girls was slowest 14 sec., some 13.8 - 13.6 - on totally no training! That's when the coaches knew they had some potential there to work with, as opposed to me. I did gain some muscle weight between 14-17, and got stronger, and therefore, faster, but I believe this strength gain was from training, not natural. Although this is of course impossible to prove now. After 17, I continued to improve a little over 200m and 400m, but my 100m speed was consistently yielding 13.2-13.4 in races. In 200m I got to 27.0 indoors which I consider my best result in all sprints. By the way, you cannot multiple your 100m speed by 2 and get equivalent 200m time - you'll always slow down in 200m compared to 100. If you can run 200m in double the time of your 100m, something is wrong with your 100m (start technique, headwind, sickness, etc.).

[Sasha Pachev]

Also, coaches and exercise physiologists rarely care about improving Quality X. Maria and I probably have experienced this in a more blunt manner than anybody else on the blog. We could right a long essay about the Russian word "бесперспективный", which literally means "without a future". That word was used by coaches to label kids that they thought lacked the natural ability to succeed in the sport they have chosen. Once in a while a бесперспективный kid would prove a coach wrong, usually in an endurance sport, but not often. He would usually give up, maybe try another sport or two, and then just plain quit.

In English we may not have a word like that, but we do have the concept. It is a lot easier to find a natural than to develop the same qualities in somebody who does not have them. This will skew the coaching practices and the science in a different direction. We just take the talent, water it a bit, if it does not grow, we throw it away, and try the same method of cultivation on a different form of talent. There is not much interest in understanding the nature of the talent, and how to nurture it properly. Which is something I hope to see changed.

I do believe, though, that Quality X is quite a bit more than genetic. Childhood development, and even what happens while the mother is pregnant, makes a big difference. All of our children that are old enough to where you can compare their top end speed have been somewhere in the top 5% among their peers. Sarah and I might make top 50% in that area, maybe.

[Paul Petersen]

By the way, you cannot multiple your 100m speed by 2 and get equivalent 200m time - you'll always slow down in 200m compared to 100. If you can run 200m in double the time of your 100m, something is wrong with your 100m (start technique, headwind, sickness, etc.).

"Always" is a strong word. "Sometimes" might be better.  Our best sprinter in college had a 100m PR of 10.77, and a 200m PR of 21.38. Another sprinter on our team has a 100 time of 10.89 and a 200m PR of 21.7. We also had a woman who ran 12.64 in the 100m and 24.72 in the 200m. Another nice example is Michael Johnson: 200m PR of 19.32. The guy was a "pure" 200m runner, and didn't hit top speed probably until 75m into the race. But his 100m PR was 10.09. Then there's myself. I don't think I could ever run a 13-second 100m, or even a 26-second 200m, but I managed to run a 52.4 400m once. For me, I was holding an all-out sprint for 400m, and received the benefit of a "running start" every 100m. Same with Michael Johnson and the other examples I mentioned in the 200m. He could hold his top speed for the entire distance, and thus negative split by not losing block time on the second 100m.

I think the distinction is that if you are a "pure" 200m runner, or a 400m specialist, or a distance runner with good anaerobic capability, you should be able to even or negative split a 200m sprint. A "pure" 100m specialist, or a very explosive runner, will likely slow down during a 200m.

[Jon Allen]

Sasha- I'm curious what data you have on comparing 2:05 and 3:05 marathoners versus their 100 m sprint times.  Have there been studies done?  Or just a few data points you have observed?

[Sasha Pachev]

Jon - I have observed a few data points. Granted, I have never observed a properly trained male 3:05 marathoner with a predisposition towards distance. I think he would have to be 70 years old or have severe neurological, muscular, or skeletal  defects. But I have observed a lot of somewhat properly trained 2:40 marathoners and estimated their predisposition towards distance and all out speed from their race performances and workouts.

[Chad]

It seems to me that the reason this "Quality X" seems so elusive is that it actually encompasses countless "qualities" of various kinds.  I'm not sure if others have mentioned it, but one factor that seems significant to me, in terms of predisposition for excellence at distance running, has to do with musculoskeletal structure.  Purely ectomorphic body types with very low body fat, rapid metabolism, very lean leg muscles, and a generally "light" body frame (it also helps in many cases to be under 5' 9") seem to be factors in addition to favorable muscle fiber composition that dispose a person to excel at distance running from a physiological perspective. 

Given all of these elusive factors, one has to make a choice at some point about whether to pursue events because they give us joy  or to pursue them because of the hope that we will excel and gain materially from our efforts.  Play to your strengths, in other words. 

Sasha, whether you know it or not, you have "Quality X" in abundance.  There are ultra-runners out there in the world that would  gladly sacrifice a pinky toe (or at least a few more toenails) to be able to run at the intensity you do, for as many miles as you do, and with the consistency you do, without suffering chronic injury.  It seems to me you would like to identify the lack of Quality X as the reason you can't find that extra gear to run sub 2:15.  But maybe the better question is how can you use the Quality X that you do have to maximum potential?  As strong a runner as Sean, Paul, Nick, or any of the other speedy bloggers are, I would pick you in a 50 mile race any day.

Michael Jordan, by the way, is a decent golfer. In fact,from what I hear, he loves golf--plays it all the time. If Michael Jordan had concentrated only on golf, he probably could have been fairly respectable golfer. But it's unlikely he would have become Tiger Woods.  Fortunately for him, he recognized that his Quality X is manifest on the basketball court.

[Sasha Pachev]

Quality X roughly consists of the following in my opinion:

a) Slow twitch fiber volume - 50%
b) Ability of the brain to control the legs - 30%
c) Structural (light bones, long legs, etc) - 15%
d) Body Balance (symmetrical bones, muscle development) - 5%

Because of a) and b) sometimes a non-athletic looking runner could run a sub-29:00 10 K. But usually b) overtime helps c) and d), so a good runner often looks athletic.

I believe the reason I would have the upper hand in a 50 miler has nothing to do with my slow twitch fiber content. It has more to do with the fact that in my life time I've hit more limits and adjusted my lifestyle to overcome them. Dallen observed back in 1999 that I am naturally more inclined to the 10 K than the marathon, and I still agree with him. If others did what I have done for that long and with the same level of consistency, they would hold their 10 K speed in the marathon as well as I do or even better, and they would recover from marathons as fast as I do or even faster.  Unfortunately, I have only been able to discover how to preserve the amount of Quality X through lifestyle, but not how to add to it.

[Chad]

Ok ... so, doesn't the fact that, no matter what the underlying reasons are, you believe can beat those speedy guys in a 50 miler suggest that you are drowning in Quality X? Even if it's a different Quality X than what you're trying to pin down?

[Sasha Pachev]

Chad - 50 miler is not a popular race. Ryan Hall would rock in a 50 miler, but he has bigger fish to catch in the marathon. That is why the guys with low marathon speed are able to succeed there. But somebody like Michael Wardian will destroy me in a 50 miler. He takes care of his health as well as I do or maybe even better, and he has more marathon/half-marathon/5 K speed. If winning a 50 miler was a big deal, sub-2:20 marathoners would be more motivated to do a better job on their diet, and anybody who is slower than them in shorter distances would not have a chance.

There is no such thing as a 50 miler Quality X or a Marathon Quality X. If runner A has more Quality X than runner B, runner A beats runner B in all distances when both are optimally trained for the distance they race.

Let me also repeat that good health is not a part of Quality X, although it helps you preserve it as you get older. Nor is your actual ability to hold speed in a long race, especially when it gets so long that those with poor health start to fade. If we fixed their health, they would not fade. Quality X is not as easy to fix, it sits much deeper.

[Steve Morrin]

I would say if you are really bad out of the blocks (common for a distance guy), you can use a jogging start. Or just run 200 and divide your time by 2.  The purpose of the exercise is to measure your true top-end speed as accurately as possible. We do not want weird sprinter type issues to get in the way, such as being a bad starter.

There are other factors that could affect your performance. The amount of warm-up, air temperature, track quality, wind, etc. I noticed that I run my best 100 after doing about 4 at 800 race pace, and 2 more all out. You want, of course, to do this under the best possible conditions. It is recommended that you do it racing somebody. I noticed I run about 0.7 faster when I am racing a properly matched partner.

What we are really after is to see how fast you can "sprint" without using an extraordinary amount of fast-twitch fibers. If you a sprinty type, you will get a significant improvement from sprint specific training. Otherwise, not much will happen, you may gain 0.3 or so. For a more accurate Quality X measurement,  you want to do this test just off distance training, nothing sprint specific other than occasional strides and intervals, and other things you would normally do solely for improving your distance performance.

If you have been running at least 40 miles a week for at least 6 months, all-out 800 is a good test for Quality X as well. A slow-twitch runner (marathon being the best distance with optimal training)  with world-class Quality X will do around 1:55.

Just commenting on running 100 meters. I know that even good 100 meter runners can't reach their top speed in a 100 because it is too short of a race. In the 200 they can hit faster or equal pace as their 100 time. Wouldn't it be better to run a 200 or a 300 because you can pick up more speed?