| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hammer
Varsity
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Posts: 385
Location: New Mexico
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | Or by a quantity of faster paced stuff, which is why I belive that is the best overall balance. It works on both areas at the same time, in effect eliminating weaknesses.
|
Could you give an example or a better explanation. I think I know what you are talking about but I don't want to comment untill I fully understand.
Are you talking about intervals run FASTER than race pace, for more distance (maybe 3-5X the race distance) Example: 20X200m @ 800m race pace for a 1500m runner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, that's the idea. I don't have any specific workouts in mind, other than maybe something like the alleged 12-20x200m @ 25sec Kipketer workout, but something in that spirit. Basically, hitting a pace faster than you can currently hold for the duration of the race, then building up the quantity until you adapt to it.
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammer
Varsity
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Posts: 385
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that may be the least efficient way to get faster. Yes they are combination workouts that can work on 2 areas of weakness or strength but running gross numbers of intervals does not directly lend itself to racing fast. Like I have said before speed runners can real off a large number of short intervals even if the rest is limited. ATP is used for the 1st 10 sec. or so; the next 30% of the interval is run with little or no discomfort and the athlete can "gut" out the remaining part of the interval, which is a very short distance.
This is why I do not base by 1600m race pace training on repeat 400s because they are EASY to complete. As are 200m @ 800m pace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Distance_Guru
World Class
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Posts: 1280
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seeing that the conversation has shifted to middle distance I'll just add in what our mid distance coach has been doing successfully this year. His method is to combine the fast intervals that Dan has talked about with a regular diet of 1,2 and 3 mile time trials. It has a nice effect of increasing the endurance and toughness factor of "speed runners" resulting in some nice improvements out of his group of girls particularly. While last year I had two men (one 800 guy one 1500 guy) who were definate strength runners. They loved 60+ mile weeks and our weekly long runs of 12 or 13 miles. They did very well on a diet of longer intervals. Both of them were seniors who'd run under a different more speed oreinted coach three years and both ran PR's for me, the 800 guy going from 1:55 to 1:52. So as coachd said with the variation in individuals from speed runners to strength runners there is plenty of room to be successful in many different ways.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | but running gross numbers of intervals does not directly lend itself to racing fast. |
It does not start out as a high volume, though. It only goes there once the athlete is able to handle it. With that approach, speed is inherent and endurance catches up over time. International racing has proven time and time again that the athlete with the most speed (who is also at a level to be in the thick of things at the end) wins almost every time.
| Quote: | | Like I have said before speed runners can real off a large number of short intervals even if the rest is limited. |
I've never personally known that to be the case...
For most athletes, the short burst energy systems (ATP/Creatine) do not recharge very quickly, so it is the rare exception that can handle that sort of work with short recovery. For mere mortals, that means trying to run fast under a great deal of fatigue and oxygen debt, which is infinitely more difficult than you make it sound.
DG, I like your rationally stated position. 
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammer
Varsity
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Posts: 385
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Runners who are in good aerobic shape (those who have run through a XC season or an extensive track preparation period) CAN run short intervals relativly easily.
I personally am not in great shape, and I had little problem running my 10, 200m repeats in 34sec. Which is 2.12 pace. And I am probably slower than that so the workout was done at FASTER than race pace. I probably could have run at least 2-3 more (I stopped running because I was late for another commitment), and who knows how many more I could have run if I hadn't run the repeat miles in the morning. In discussing the way fast 200 feel I was speaking from personal experience, not theory.
Now I do believe that running a high volume of short intervals @ high speed will lead to faster running, but I don't believe that it is the most efficient or that it does the BEST job in teaching a runner how to deal with the discomfort of raceing. Runner can get fast in a variety of ways (I've witnessed a runner get much better by going with BIG mileage, that was mostly done @ a pace slower than he was or did plan to race at) but if you are going to but in the effort and work hard it is best to get the most out of the workout or workout seccession. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you're talking about distances more in the 5k to marathon range, at which point "speed" becomes a very blurry distinction, especially when talking about something as short as 200's. Unless you're a sloth or crippled, there is absolutely no speed component to 34 second pace for a competitive (non-bantam or masters!) runner. There is nothing about that pace that develops fast twitch. It's just faster than race pace, thus different.
Now, if you were running them at 28-30 seconds and still felt you could do so with very short rest and little difficulty, that would be a very different matter! And even that would be on the slow end for a solid collegiate runner under the system I'm getting at.
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Distance_Guru
World Class
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Posts: 1280
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
5k to marathon? What he's talking about certainly works for the 3k and I personally have had success appling it to the 1500/mile as well.
| wrote: | | International racing has proven time and time again that the athlete with the most speed (who is also at a level to be in the thick of things at the end) wins almost every time. |
After watching a few rather tight mile races this year I'm not so sure about that. When most people talk about speed they usually equate it to finishing speed ie that if two people are near the same performance level time wise in a distance race then the one with the faster 200 PR will out kick the others. It's been my observation that kicks in races that are contested at a high level of the athletes exertion (not that tactical garbage where the winning time is drasticlly slower than the best runners PR that you see at some of the championships) that the winner is the more aerobicly fit athlete at least as often as not.
It's about tactics, mentality and execution. And the more races I watch the more I realize that the sterotypes are all backwards. The common line of thinking is that the speedier athletes want to sit and kick and the stronger (aerobicly) athletes want to push the pace from the start and kill their opponents speed. What actually happens quite often is that the speedier athletes approach races with a he who slows down the least approach to the race. While the stronger athletes approach it with a hit pace early and push late line of thinking. So very often the it's the speedsters trying to get a lead on the stronger runners. Sometimes they open a gap that's to big to close and sometimes the only kick they have is the one the stronger athlete gives them in the ass on the way by. But when two athletes of similar ability levels race the result is usually determined more by tactics and who's having the better day rather ran who has the faster 40m time.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If two athletes hit the final turn of a 1500m dead even, both having raced the whole way (not one having gone out way too fast and trying to hold on), and one having a 23-24 sec. 200m best vs. the other being at 26-28 sec., I know which one I'll be placing my money on...
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammer
Varsity
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Posts: 385
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | and one having a 23-24 sec. 200m best vs. the other being at 26-28 sec., I know which one I'll be placing my money on...
|
Now I would agree with that bet..... As long as both runners were trained alike. But the 23-24 sec. runner may have been trained in an inferior system to the 26-28 sec runner and MIGHT get out kicked. Runner #1 may have used up the majority of his energy just to stay even with an aerobicly superior athlete.
The fastest athlete does not always outkick the slower athlete. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are plenty of unknowns there, which is why I was assuming an "all else being held equal" scenario. If everything else is equal, speed will win out. Of course, it's far from that simple, but the importance of it cannot be overlooked.
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammer
Varsity
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Posts: 385
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Unless you're a sloth or crippled, there is absolutely no speed component to 34 second pace for a competitive (non-bantam or masters!) runner. There is nothing about that pace that develops fast twitch. It's just faster than race pace, thus different.
|
The speed of the interval is relevant to the speed of the athlete. An athlete who is running 2.12-2.16 for the 800m is running 200s @ 34sec/. For some that may be as fast as they can go. Now if you are saying that I am a SLOTH because my current 800m time is in that range then you are just insulting me. And if that is the case then I say "lace em up yourself Dan." I'll race you in a 1600 over the Sloth/Cripple comment. I guess then you have no respect for people who are running at a slower pace. I believe that a collegiant female who is running 2.12-2.16 for 800m would be doing quite well. Does your system eliminate the possibility of that type of runner getting faster??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hammer, please step back, take a deep breath, and look at what you're saying. You're not making any sense... Lots of apples and oranges being mixed there.
| Quote: | | An athlete who is running 2.12-2.16 for the 800m is running 200s @ 34sec/. |
But you're talking about pace, not speed. If they can hold that pace for 800m, then it obviously isn't their top speed over 200m. If it isn't top speed, then it isn't speed work, thus no speed development.
| Quote: | | Now if you are saying that I am a SLOTH because my current 800m time is in that range then you are just insulting me. |
If that's the way you wish to read what I'm saying, then so be it. That's up to you. However, that's a few degrees separated from reality... From the workout you shared, it's as plain as day that it was not done anywhere near your top speed. That's all I was commenting on. Furthermore, I made it pretty clear that I was talking about a certain level of runner with my 34 second comment. Like I always say, people are always looking for a reason to be insulted... If you're trying that hard to find something to be upset with, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'll race you in a 1600 over the Sloth/Cripple comment. |
And of course, you conveniently upped the distance in your "heat of the battle" comment. What was a 800m scenario just became a 1600m challenge... 
Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI]) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammer
Varsity
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Posts: 385
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'll race you in an 800, it really doesn't matter. You'd have to duplicat your PR to beat me anyway. And I've probably NEVER broken 27 sec in a 200. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
