@MontrealTaylor@Raestaketv I never said they wouldn’t benefit.
I said that it’s a fallacy to believe that running the 200m will without a doubt unequivocally make your 60-100m section of the 100m faster, which is just straight up wrong.
@dem_teach@Raestaketv Choking is a separate discussion.
The 200m doesn’t teach the pure speed endurance required for the 100. It teaches maintenance of sub max speed.
The two fastest men in history have fast 200s because of their massive Max V and speed reserve required for the 200.
@MontrealTaylor@Raestaketv What if I told you that you have it the wrong way?
Bolt, Blake, and Gay have phenomenal 200m times because their 100m performances are sublime.
Kishane has sub 9.7 potential, but the way to get there is to work on max V and pure speed endurance and relaxation.
@Radir_Annoor@Raestaketv Does it though?
If you’re talking about improving the 60-100m section of a 100m, a single 200m race does absolutely nothing compared to (for instance) 2 x 150m at max speed with 15-20 min rest.
@MontrealTaylor@Raestaketv You’re confusing correlation with causation. I’m not saying the 200 won’t help - I’m saying it’s not a certainty.
Modern examples: Ajayi, Seville, Jacobs, Simbine all have splendid 60-100 sections, yet don’t have fantastic 200s - nor do they even run the distance that much.
@vincenteke2@NLS_TF@Raestaketv Nono, running 150s and 200s in training can help your 100m - indirectly. It will allow you to more specific 100m work with higher quality.
Knocking out multiple 150s and 200s in training won’t directly make your 100m faster. It’s too slow.
@vincenteke2@NLS_TF@Raestaketv That’s a magic trick. Struggle with maintaining mechanics? Here’s a 200m for you and watch your mechanics magically improve due to this glycolytic STORM you’re about to go through.