Oct 2009
9:04pm, 10 Oct 2009
8,528 posts
|
I understand that many of you like the HADD approach and I myself think it is a very safe training approach however there is NO need to bash other ways that have also been successful for many as well. I would hate to need to defend the way I train on here:(
|
Oct 2009
9:05pm, 10 Oct 2009
1,232 posts
|
Tinytia
Great thread guys:-)
|
Oct 2009
9:09pm, 10 Oct 2009
11 posts
|
Is that a recognition of Chi there, jezzaboy?
|
Oct 2009
9:09pm, 10 Oct 2009
1,684 posts
|
Joe Hawk
Sorry J. I was just stating an opinion and really don't know enough about other "ways" , so what I said was just my thoughts
|
Oct 2009
9:10pm, 10 Oct 2009
12 posts
|
This is a Hadd thread, don't like the love in, sod off yanky doodle.
|
Oct 2009
9:11pm, 10 Oct 2009
13 posts
|
Don't with intervals
|
Oct 2009
9:11pm, 10 Oct 2009
14 posts
|
down*
|
Oct 2009
9:12pm, 10 Oct 2009
5,616 posts
|
Boab
J, I don't think anyone is bashing Interval based training. It should be part of any training plan for shorter distances than marathon, IMHO.
What people are saying is that many people hammer out reps way too fast and don't get the physiological benefits they provide. Instead they either get complete knackered or injured, or worse, both!!
Intervals should be race pace, no quicker. There are places for shorter faster paced work over say, 200m, where leg speed is the aim of the session, but if you are running intervals while targetting a 10K, then should we really be running them at 20 seconds per mile faster than your current 10K condition? My opinion is no.
|
Oct 2009
9:12pm, 10 Oct 2009
3,134 posts
|
jonp
Or running them at a pace they want to achieve over the distance being trained for, ******rather than the pace they can actually run the distance at.*****
This is an incredibly perceptive statement. Really it is.
|
Oct 2009
9:13pm, 10 Oct 2009
5,617 posts
|
Boab
HappyPanda, a new name?
|