|
Dec 2014
8:13am, 30 Dec 2014
8,343 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
the micro macro thing is quite difficult for a group. I do tell mine that they should organiethemsleves so that our sessions are their intervals. I then try and increase distance over a 3 week period (total distance and/or interva distance) over the wnter months, with a cut back week for some technical work, usually pace practice, hill work something like that. Summer is fo shorterfster work. However, it is not quite right for an athlete training fora marathon, I would think if we had more coaches, I'd ave a marathon group.
|
|
Dec 2014
7:12pm, 31 Dec 2014
203 posts
|
snogard
As I have beginner/improvers the cycles don't work so well, but we try to work to a park run or a 10k using increases and cut back weeks, so that they start to get the idea of cycles, but then I move them to more endurance/speed based groups
|
|
Dec 2014
7:27pm, 31 Dec 2014
5,218 posts
|
Autumnleaves
My session last night went well - it was very mixed ability as we had members of all 3 training groups there. We did 30 minutes of efforts and core - it seemed to go down ok with most people 
|
|
Jan 2015
2:57pm, 1 Jan 2015
205 posts
|
snogard
We have just had 10 days off as a club, the faster more serious groups have been meeting up I am sure, but the beginners will not be back until 5th Jan, to late for the Jantastic.
|
|
Jan 2015
4:13pm, 1 Jan 2015
10,771 posts
|
SODIron © 2002
I'm not a fan of new/novice runners partaking in hard interval sessions. I know that many feel that's how they'll get faster because that's what Runners World tells 'em however, I feel that most, if not all novice/new runners, would get safer fitness gains by simply running. I personally feel that introducing hard speed sessions too early dramatically increases the chance of the athlete getting injured.
|
|
Jan 2015
4:28pm, 1 Jan 2015
5,227 posts
|
Autumnleaves
I would agree - none of ours were new to running the other night, the 2 from our lower group are both experienced they just lack confidence as much as anything.
|
|
Jan 2015
4:35pm, 1 Jan 2015
10,772 posts
|
SODIron © 2002
you could even argue that there's little benefit to running interval/speed sessions 'til the athlete is capable for running sub 50 for a 10k. The focus for the 50 min plus could and perhaps should be, drills/running form, building aerobic engine, S&C and safe progression of mileage.
|
|
Jan 2015
4:42pm, 1 Jan 2015
5,228 posts
|
Autumnleaves
Well I can't agree with that as I haven't done that myself yet I found interval training very productive o er the last 2 years at improving my 5 and 10k times.
|
|
Jan 2015
8:33pm, 1 Jan 2015
10,773 posts
|
SODIron © 2002
it's just an observation...I see lots of runners chasing that interval session well before they've developed their aerobic engine. I believe that many, no most, would benefit more from building a solid aerobic base/engine before they hit the intervals etc. That way, when the do get to do them they'll be better equipped to get more from the sessions as they can put more in. More bang for the buck so to speak.
The problem is...with the numerous 'run this session to get a new 5k/10k pb' articles you see in runners world and the like it's a very unpopular stance to take.
|
|
Jan 2015
8:56pm, 1 Jan 2015
54,985 posts
|
Gobi
SoD - although I share your logic on intervals the parameter is
Plateau not performance time as everyone is different
|
