12 replies to this topic

[EyeoftheTiger]

Not sure if this is important or not but was just wandering between intervals (eg. if i was doing 10 x 400, after every 400m) if it is better to actaully stop/slow walk or to keep a slow jog going ???

[Peterhorse]

i'll have a shot at this since you haven't had any replies from others (who know more than about this one)....so take it for what it's worth.

the nature of the recovery aspect would depend on what is behind this session, i.e. what it is trying to achieve and this would dictate both the degree of intensity with which you run each effort and also the nature of the recovery phase. the most important goal would be to complete the session fully and properly, i.e. all reps done, and at as even a time per rep as possible.

to do this you either have to change the pace of the reps or the length of the recovery or both.... which comes back the training goals of the session - which the runner and coach wiuld be working on.

so it's very hard to answer the recovery bit in isolation.

in general though, for appropriate recovery, you first need to consider the length of the break in between efforts and before whether to stand or jog.

let's assume you are running them at close to your maximum HR and trying to work on your body's ability to deal with rather rapid lactic acid accumulation by reprocessing it. the rest would be intened to get your HR back down to a level that enables your aerobic energy pathway to predominate. the longer the race distance a runner was training for, the more one would want to flatten out the difference between the effort and the recovery, i.e longer and jog type recoveries would used more than standing. geez, having said that, the close you get to goal race day, the more you might want to up the efforts and do shorter standing recoveries i think.

one sure thing, whichever way you do them is better than nothing at all and getting sophisticated about it is probably of more for the elites than the average punter.

did that make it worse? sorry if so

PH

[EyeoftheTiger]

Thanks for the info !

I might try a few interval sessions with walk breaks and a few with slow jogging breaks and see if theres much of a difference

[Peterhorse]

Perhaps measure the difference in terms of how you (a) complete all reps and ( do them at as close as possible time for each rep ...under each scenario. will take quite a few goes to get some idea. plus also, you'll get fitter doing them eitehr way anyway.

[bruncle]

An active recovery is always better than standing rest because it flushes out metabolic byproducts. Whether you walk or jog depends on how bad you're feeling:P

[EyeoftheTiger]

Just to get a fair idea (i've never done much interval work before so im a bit clueless here) is there like a min/max recovery time between intervals for best results ???

If you guys could share some of your interval workouts that would be great.

[youngrunner]

Here's a sample of intervals pulled from this years Gold Coast marathon training diary (haven't done them myself as I'm training under a different program):

- 6x500m with 1min standing recov (SR)
- 4x1km @ 1:30 SR
- 10x30secs @ 30sec jogging recov (JR)
- 6x2min @ 30 sec JR

There are other suggestion I think on the advanced marathon training plan on that site and in the current R4YL magazine that include total time to do the interval in such as 5x800m @ 60sec JR Total time 4:50 per interval

Have a look around, there's heaps out there, any basic marathon plan will most likely include some in some capacity

Jimmy

[bruncle]

2 minutes is always a good start. If you're still not mostly recovered by then, extend the rest time, but remember, the idea is not to be fully recovered at the start of the hard running section. You should finish the last rep knowing there is no way you could run a single step further.

By the way.. 10 x 400m isn't that great a session. You want to be doing at least 800m per rep or else you'll spend most of the rep getting up to VO2max and you won't actually spend much time training at that intensity. 5x800 is the same distance, but a much better workout.

[trailblazer777]

bruncle, on May 4 2008, 01:27 AM, said:

An active recovery is always better than standing rest because it flushes out metabolic byproducts. Whether you walk or jog depends on how bad you're feeling:P

yeah go the slow jog as much as possible...thats why AFL players often get on the exercise bike while on interchange...gets rid of the fatiguing lactic acid quicker...

[Rudolf]

Peterhorse, on May 4 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

the nature of the recovery aspect would depend on what is behind this session, i.e. what it is trying to achieve and this would dictate both the degree of intensity with which you run each effort and also the nature of the recovery phase.

this is the crucial sentence here, well done PH !!!

so unless You are able clearly answer this - what is the purpose of this session,

than advice could be just plain wrong or missleading.

On 1 side of the spectrum, the advice could be - 20 minutes passive recovery with stretching and little slow walking just to prevent teh body from stiffenening up, and dress up to keep the muscles warm.


On the other side of the spectrum would be - run the "recovery" 400m between the fast 400m only about 15 secs per 400m slower, the emphasys is on the recovery 400m's actually not on the fast ones, if You are training the recovery abilities and training the ability to keep the pace and keep the correct biomechanics while very tired while sore etc, if the aim of the session is the running economy - to learn how to keep the pace without effort, the pace which is still fast but allows for body to recover - this would be very approximate something what Zatopek was doing and what Monna was doing in his Monna fartlek sessions...


So why are You doing or planning to do the intervals session in the first place ?

Edited by Rudolf, 25 May 2008 - 08:25 AM.

[Cl@rkey]

Just my observation - that a lot of runners who appear to be beginners or at least runners hoping to bring improvement in speed for racing turn to speed sessions and intervals etc.

I'm wondering if this type of training is too specific with too many variables to get really great results from it particularly runners who are still on the quick improvement phase of their running.

I am not a fan of intervals personally, they just don't fit in with me getting enjoyment from my running and training. But I do quite a bit of fartlek type training where the pace is mixed, but also a lot of running in hilly / undulating terrain. For me, I believe that mixing up my effort levels and running some hills hard (either up or down) brings extra speed to my running.

I've been running (semi-consistently) since 2004, and still consider myself to have plenty of speed potential to tap into. But I won't be using interval training very often - usually just as a checkpoint to see what progress is being made.

Does anyone else believe that some runners could benefit more from a relaxed and less structured approach to running faster by using varied paces & effort levels within training sessions?

[Bellthorpe]

Yes Clarkey, I agree with you completely.

Intervals should not be done at all by beginning runners IMO. They should wait until there's a solid base, giving the strength to withstand the rigours of interval training.

[aura111]

Hi, was wondering what others here would consider a solid base then? I run 40-50km 5-6days most weeks split into 2 or 3 7-8k tempo runs, 1 longer 15-20km on weekend, 1 interval session (see below), and 1 gentle-medium 10k run. Is this a good base for mara training? Thinking about another crack at Melbourne this year but this time really want to do it right!

For most of this year and late last year I've been doing one interval sessions with a much better runner than myself. He tends to advise on the program each week. I have found these sessions to be very enjoyable. Yes there's the rush of being on a nice rubbery track; but I'd also have to give them credit for improving my mental toughness. My running partner says that my running form is much more compact and upright now that when we started - I reckon that's a bit about the track surface but also confidence and having the tracklines as visual reference points.

Physically though, the results have varied -some weeks I am right on the money - within 5 seconds each rep - for 6-8x 800m (with 400m near1:1 recovery) and similar for 1200s and 1600s; but others (usually involving shorter stuff like 400s I can vary my times up to 15 seconds - usually the middle ones are the slower reps).

Love to know why this would be the case! Are the implications that I should actually stick to longer intervals? They SEEM to suit my aging body more; but if there's anything I've learnt from running- it's not to take the subjective experience too seriously - the rules of physiology are not to be trifled with.

I'm using McMillan guidelines for what the interval times should be. My lungs are pretty bad from being a former smoker, asthmatic, and exposure to some nasty stuff in the workplace a few years ago but I find later in the interval sessions I can breath much more freely and while I finish with not much left in the tank, I tend to feel a real lift in my mood from doing them and suspect I'd would feel a real hole if I had to go back to just road running alone.