|
Jan 2017
5:06pm, 2 Jan 2017
2,549 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Probably... 1 x 800m 2mins 30secs jog recovery, 4 x 400m 2mins jog recovery, 4 x 300m 90secs jog recovery, 4 x 200m 60secs jog recovery for me.
Magness has a good section in the back on progression of various types of workout. I like the idea of alternating both top-down and bottom-up sets gradually becoming more event specific.
My new year resolution - doing strides more often after easy runs.
|
|
Jan 2017
6:00pm, 2 Jan 2017
23,317 posts
|
SPR
Good call, I'll have a look. At the moment I'm only doing one session a week and not trying to make them too tough. Aerobic intervals are usually kept at 400m or lower although as with most things sure you can manipulate it. EDIT: Magness says generally less than 600 and often in the 100-200 range.
|
|
Jan 2017
10:27pm, 2 Jan 2017
2,550 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
From Steve ovett coach
Interval training was a variation on Reindell and Gerschlers original interval training in that the heart rate was stressed to 180 bpm and then during the recovery returned to 120bpm, then the stress repeated. Wilson is big on progressing these workouts as your fitness improved. This could be done by decreasing rest, increasing pace, increasing the number run, or increasing the distance run. Some examples given of this type of training for a 3:42 1,500m runner is 8x400m in 62 with 200m jog, , 6x500m hill with jog down, or 12x200m with 200m jog. In addition to these workouts sometimes ladder workouts such as 3×800, 4×400, 5×200 and set workouts such as 3x 5x400m with 200 jog and 400m jog between sets. Besides regular intervals, Wilson used what he considered high intensity intervals too. These were described as “sets of small numbers of very fast repetitions with only a short recovery between the fast runs, but a significantly longer recovery between sets.
|
|
Jan 2017
4:12pm, 3 Jan 2017
5,897 posts
|
paul the builder
SPR - I am, but catching up after holidays and the backlog of posts. Being back at work should help 
That 10 x 100-100 sounds like your classic P&D 'strides' but more clearly defined than P&D do?
Intellectually, I always liked the idea of strides. Must be a good stimulus, and good for form, as long as the efforts are short enough to not spend much (any?) time anaerobic, and 'float' enough to not ping a marathoner's delicate hammies But I never did them very often.
I'm not sure how to fit that 10 x 100/100 in twice per week without having to do it on either days when I should be recovering/running easy, or prior to a session (sub-LT or MP) which would be OK except it becomes a pretty lengthy evening run. I'll have a think about it.
|
|
Jan 2017
4:55pm, 3 Jan 2017
2,551 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
9/10 I actually feel better the day after I've done a few strides at the end of an easy day so quite possible to tag on to a recovery run.
The first few feel horrendous but by the end normally feel OK. If it's a recovery day anyway ditch the last 0.5mile and do these instead - won't take you any longer and you won't miss the mileage.
I don't do them as balls out efforts and just take what recovery I need by walking for a bit. Start off with six and work your way up?
|
|
Jan 2017
5:24pm, 3 Jan 2017
23,327 posts
|
SPR
Wish Hadd had given more detail so we understood why he did the session in that way. If it was just about pure speed I agree walk back is the way forward, the 100 float suggests he's doing a mini Pirie session but the 100 effort speed is faster than I'd expect for that. The suggestion of cutting recovery before increasing speed also indicates mini Pirie.
|
|
Jan 2017
5:34pm, 3 Jan 2017
23,328 posts
|
SPR
In the same post he says always remember these are not the main session just a primer.
What does PD say is the point of these?
|
|
Jan 2017
6:34pm, 3 Jan 2017
5,898 posts
|
paul the builder
Improving running economy, in the main. I just went and looked it up. They talk about 70m acceleration to "top speed" and then 30m "float". Which is why I recalled it as a bit vague - I could read that as fastest sprint speed possible, or more of a 'cruise' like (say) 3k pace. I don't know.
I'm going to tack some on to tonight's easy run as per NN. But I won't be sprinting
|
|
Jan 2017
6:35pm, 3 Jan 2017
1,795 posts
|
Canute
While it is of interest to examine the nature and purpose of intervals prescribed by other coaches, it seems to me that when you include intervals in base training, you need to be clear what goals you are aiming at.
We now have much more information about the effect of interval training that was accessible to Gerschler or even to more recent coaches such as Hadd. We now know that intense intervals enhance aerobic enzymes, so the nature of the concern that intense running might interfere with aerobic development is now somewhat different from the concerns in the past. However, there is still a risk that the stress of excessive high intensity training will interfere with the required anabolic/catabolic balance.
One of the main objectives during base-building is to create a favourable anabolic/catabolic balance to facilitate a steady build-up of fitness. Unfortunately, there are still major uncertainties about the best way to do this. It almost certainly depends on the athletes current state of fitness and constitution, so standard prescriptions are unlikely to be optimal.
Nonetheless there are some general principles: 1) fast running promotes anabolism provided it is not excessive. 2) faster running improves aerobic development of type 2 fibres. 3) faster running promotes neuromuscular coordination; in particular coordination between different fibre types within a muscle might reduce risk of injury, both during base-building and also when you start the specific race preparation phase; 4) faster running strengthens connective tissues.
These four are all potentially worthwhile goals of the base-building period provided the stress of the faster running does not interfere with your ability to do a substantial volume of low intensity training. Perhaps the most desirable approach would be to use regular measurements of autonomic function (resting HR, HT acceleration during exercise; HR recovery function, resting HRV) to assess the degree of recovery from training.
Unfortunately, despite lots of interesting evidence there is no consensus about the most effective measurement. The Finns place great emphasis on HRV. First Beat have developed some interesting algorithms for assessing recovery based on HR and HRV at rest and HR during exercise though I have misgivings about algorithms that have been refined in a specific population.
A few years ago when I was training seriously, I experimented with the various autonomic measures. I did not find resting HRV alone was adequately informative. I find that a combination of the above autonomic measures, together will an assessment of my subjective sense of well-being, provided a useful guide.
|
|
Jan 2017
8:06pm, 3 Jan 2017
23,329 posts
|
SPR
PTB - I'd take float to mean maintain speed reached. Top speed I'd say means what it says so proper sprint. Assume he didn't say much about recovery?
In regards to sprinting I'd say even getting down to mile to 3km speed is good for LD runners. I have MD aims so seek higher speeds. Don't think the higher speeds would hurt LD runners but need to be worked up to if you want to do it.
|
