61 replies to this topic

[Colsy]

Eagle, on Oct 22 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

Wombatoutofhell:

I want to improve my 10km and 21.1km times-what should I be looking at doing?
You know for a simple sport running can get really complex!

However before starting speed sessions I woul dask have you done enough base training for it to be beneficial. Also when is your goal race and how long do you inend to do the speed work for. The most benefit for speed work will come in 3/4 weeks of a session or two a week. After that thee is little improvement in speed and it can have a negative affect on the base you already have.

You may find by increasing you base k's that you times for those distances will come done without the need for a speed session. If you read Daniels you will see that his speed sessions are only part of his program at the ned of the base building phase and near the end of the program - that is close to the goal race.

I have quoted Eagle here from another thread as it says a bit about where I am at the moment.
I have done about 3 months of Low HR training and have gained some pretty significant improvements from it. My 5 KM time has gone from 28 mins to under 24. Furthest distance run is 17 KM.
I want to start some work that will improve my speed and am on a Hal Higdon Half Mara plan to take me through to the Melbourne half on October 12th. I have tweaked it a bit to give me more Ks per week. It will be my first half.
The plan has intervals one day a fortnight and tempo run one day a fortnight.
Tonight I did my first measured intervals and averaged 1:30 over 6 x 400 metres. It hurt but I really enjoyed the release after so much low HR work.

Going on from Eagles comments, should I stick with the plan as is, starting intervals now?
Or should I do more Tempo and hills now and leave intervals to a few weeks out from the event?

Thanks

Col

[aura111]

Intervals are a somewhat controversial topic on this site - sometimes it's about doing them at all (which is what you seem to be asking) and sometimes it's about how people do them (ie how long, recovery duration, heart rate).

Personally I love getting on the track (we do intervals once a week in the late afternoon). I can say categorically that it's helped my form as being a bit unco having the extra propioceptors firing as as a result of the bounciness of the surface is a reminder to keep things compact, upright, and inline. Intervals take me back to school days too - just the smell and ambiance of the track is a buzz in itself.

More than anything else this year, the intervals have provided a increased sense of pacing.

Maybe an example will help illustrate this: Last night was 1600s (5 x 1600m @4:30k pace with 400m medium jog recovery 3:30 so about 1/2 "off" time of "on" time). Kept within 2.5 seconds either side of the 7:10 1600m target time.

Until this year and the regular interval session, there's no way I could have known enough about my body to tell the difference between 4:30 and 4:40 pace especially when fatiguing. Last night I made a conscious choice to incrementally up the pace for the third lap of the 1600s number 4 and 5 and then take it up another notch for the last lap.

Being completely honest, the last couple of races I've done haven't been as completely disciplined as I'd like - but what has kept me driving on when previously would have just eased up, has been the bodymemory of the speedwork - being able summon up again the playfulness and grit of all that running on the track.

So if running for you is about being on a path to an honest appraisal of your capabilities, then I would say intervals may well have a place in your week's schedule.

Other wiser heads than mine would be able to advise on what blend of distances, recovery, and reps.

My personal favourite interval workout is 10 x 800m @ 4:25-4:30 (ie 3:25-3:30 per 800m) pace with 200m slow jog recovery in between. But I started with x6 of these at 3:35 about 5 months ago.

Guaranteed to work the kinks out and possibly also let you have a second view of your lunch.

Edited by aura111, 17 July 2008 - 01:35 PM.

[Colsy]

Thanks for that Aura111. I am hoping to get a lot of different opinions on this matter. I'll take a bit from here, a bit from there..



The other thing I should have asked about is what speed? I tended to go flat out last night as i thought I could measure against it next time. But when i looked at my plan it says to do 5K pace for intervals.

So I'd like to ask that question as well.

What are the pros and cons of going flat out vs 5 K pace intervals in prep for a half marathon?

Edited by Colsy, 17 July 2008 - 01:53 PM.

[Tilly]

Hi Colsy

I agree with Aura111. A strong foundation of base training is very important but I found after continually doing lots of base training (for years and years) I reached a plateau.

I was then introduced to interval workouts twice a week and saw improvements relatively quickly...4 week blocks. The type of intervals I did included:

* 1 minute efforts with stand/jog recovery for 30 seconds
* 2 minute efforts with stand/jog recovery for 30 seconds
* 30 second hill reps (jog down recovery)
* 30sec/1min/2min/4min x 2 efforts with 30 seconds jog/standing recovery
* 500m efforts x 6-8 with 1min standing recovery
* 1km efforts x 4-5 with 1-1 1/2mins standing recovery
* 2km efforts x 3 with 1 1/2 mins standing recovery
*3km time trial
*15min effort
(Pat Carroll online training program)

I used a combination of the above when training for 10k, half marathon and marathon. I knocked 15mins off my marathon time in less than 12 months after introducing interval/speed sessions (I'd done 4 marathons prior to this result with only base type training).

I found that the more speedwork I did the more "gears" I had...I was able to easily judge what pace I was running at (as per Aura111).

Hope this helps!

[moby]

Understanding why you undertake certain types of training and the purpose of each session is important.

This might be a useful starting point but there is plenty of good literature out there online and in print.

IMPROVING SPEED FOR DISTANCE RUNNERS

[Colsy]

moby, on Jul 17 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

Understanding why you undertake certain types of training and the purpose of each session is important.

This might be a useful starting point but there is plenty of good literature out there online and in print.

IMPROVING SPEED FOR DISTANCE RUNNERS

Thanks Moby

[aura111]

Hi Colsy,

Just further to your question of what speed to run your trackwork at - I think this depends a bit on the type of intervals you're doing and to a lesser extent the number of reps. Generally speaking I think the idea is to keep the longer stuff (800, 1200, 1600, 2km) at more like 10km or just sub that pace, whereas shorter would be faster- as you say 5km pace or thereabouts.

Recovery wise: some people say 1:1 (time wise) recovery is safest, though I find that isn't intense enough (heart rate drops too much and get cold). Running partner and I) always opt 2:1 or thereabout ie recovery time is half the time spend at interval pace. This seems to work for us in terms of being able to get through the planned workout for the session w/o overly fatiguing and on target time.

Again, no injuries so far, feel fine + warm inner glow of achievement; and as said equally importantly - the objective measures (consistent times over planned reps) seem to stack up. If you can do then you must be doing something right.

The on target times we use were obtained on Mc Millian using their race predictor calculator and roughly correspond to those found in other places/books.

The 'broad training" thread on this site is definitely worth taking in if you haven't already done so.

Hope this helps. Have fun out there.

[Bellthorpe]

Perhaps it's worth reading Arthur Lydiard's words on intervals:

"Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you use repetitions or interval training, over different distances with different intervals, you don't even need to time them: as long as you come off the track or from your training quite fatigued. However, as a practical guide, it is advisable to get fast running into a total of about 3 miles, or 5000 meters, or thereabouts; i.e. 12 X 400 meters, 6 X 600 meters, 5 X 1000 meters or 3 X 1 mile, etc.: with a recovery jog of a equal distance in between."

I thoroughly recommend that you read his entire article.

[Rudolf]

following on Bellthorpe endorsement of Lydiard,


3 months of Low HR could hardly be seen as a suficient base, as I expect also the total kms be quite low.

The base for Lydiard would be 3-6 months on high volume, however this is not the first 3months of a biggener.

also to Lydiard the base would not be lowHR stuff but quite intense long sessions like the 7/8 pace effort.


so Your situation could hardly be seen as having the base.


Further Lydiard expect first some hills phase before the track stuff,


further Lydiard would simply say, that 4 weeks is maximum You can do the anaerobic stuff before the racing season, for various reason, like destroying the aerobic base in the first instance.


It seems to me You have more than 4 weeks from the race.


Other systems (not Lydiard) use the intervals all year around, however these are not anaerobic (the flat out 400s),
but treshold runs breaked down to short pieces at the 5k race pace, which to You is 5min/km = 120 secs per 400.

This would not be viewed as anaerobic and could be integral part of the year long training system

Edited by Rudolf, 18 July 2008 - 02:05 PM.

[Colsy]

Thank you all for the information.

I agree, my (Low hr) base is not huge and I could benefit from even more training in that area. I will do more next year. And there will still be plenty of Low HR in my long runs etc.
However, when I talk about building a fitness base and Low HR training to other newbs they either stare at me blankly or change the subject. When someone asks you how they can go faster and you reply "Go slower", it really turns them off. So as far as CR peer group pressure goes I have done well to stick with it.
Out of all the newbs on CR, that are at a similar stage to me, I see very few that take on some of this kind of training. Compared to where I was in January my fitness base is pretty substantial. My recovery heart rate slows down way more than fifty beats in the first minute after reaching max. My resting heart rate is somewhere below 45, was 75.
For those reasons I thought I deserved some time on intervals, remember I am not going to Beijing.

Rudolf, I want to do hills, but I would like to use the only hills near my house. They are only about 20 seconds long, is this enough? How many reps etc?

Bellthorpe, what is the best resource for Lydiard material?

[Rudolf]

Colsy, before Bellthorpe answers thje best Lydiard material Q, I would say that the most accessible and teh easiest to read for straters is the few times mentioned Osaka lecture -

find the topic about strenght training (the relation to this was Lydiards use of hills for strenght training) and teh post No 15 had a direct link to downloadable PDF file.


That expalins teh basic Lydiards principles, the phases etc and also explains the hill sessions.



I would say, that If You do not wanna get anaerobic and are after streght training on hills, than tegh 20 secs hill is long enough, the 2 basic metabolism processes based on fast training are teh 6-8 secs interval - pure speed development and teh 20-30 secs interval which do not create lactate buildup since they are too short....


It is not running up hill, it is doing specific uphill drills 1 is called springing, it can be seen as jumps,plyometrics sprint drills etc mixed together.

Lydiard describes in details the correct technique, body posture, pay attention to straight back and pushing the pelvic-hips to the front...

[Colsy]

Thank you Rudolf, that gives me plenty to go forward with.

[cakeboy]

Colsy,

thats a bit too fast, particularly for a first session. If you go to macmillan running calculator, (google it) and put in your pb for 5kms, it will give you a guide of times to run intervals...

eg a pb of 23mins for 5 km (you'll be close to this) gives a 400m interval speed of 1.34 to 1.41

So no wonder 1.30 hurt.

Have a look at the mac calc. It's really useful.

cheers Cakey

Edited by cakeboy, 18 July 2008 - 03:55 PM.

[wombatface]

Colsy, on Jul 17 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

The other thing I should have asked about is what speed? I tended to go flat out last night as i thought I could measure against it next time. But when i looked at my plan it says to do 5K pace for intervals.

Colsy, I wouldn't do any intervals 'flat out'. By definition, that means the fastest possible racing speed for the distance of that interval. Theoretically, the most you could run using this method is 2 x 100m with 30 minutes rest between each. If you ran a 1000m 'flat out' you'd need a couple of days rest before you could attempt that distance 'flat out' again.

I've just completed 14 weeks of base training. The majority of this (90%) has been 'slow' running, with races and occasional short sprints being the only fast running. Slow for me is 5:30-6:30/km, while racing speed is 4:00/km for 3k. This slow running has been very beneficial in terms of lowering my heart-rate at any given speed. For example, my HR for long runs at 6:00/km is now around 120, when previously it was closer to 130.

I feel I'm close to the point where I need to do the hill and interval phases of Lydiard in order to improve my racing speed. In the first phase, I intend to lower my weekly mileage to a point that gives me better recovery, but still maintains my aerobic fitness. Perhaps 70k per week (compared the 90k I've been doing).

I think the best type of intervals to do (initially) are ones that avoid heavy oxygen debt. It's heavy anaerobic training that erodes base fitness (you only need a small phase of anaerobic training to reach peak form). So, intervals around your current 5k and 10k race pace would fit the bill. You could mix these up a bit in terms of distances/recovery. I've started with 200m at 5k race pace with a 200m jog for around 4k in total. You need to get the first 200m at the right pace or you'll blow up. It's a very aerobic session in that max HR only just (briefly) reaches racing HR levels.

Another option would be 5 x 1000m at current 5k race pace with 3-5 minutes recovery. As your 5k race pace improves, increase the speed of the intervals appropriately. Again, aim for consistency over the 5 efforts. For pure speed, you could do short sprints at about 90% effort (80-150m) with long recoveries.

For Lydiard info, try the Lydiard Foundation. They have a forum where you can ask questions.

[Bellthorpe]

Rudolf, on Jul 18 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Colsy, before Bellthorpe answers thje best Lydiard material Q, I would say that the most accessible and teh easiest to read for straters is the few times mentioned Osaka lecture -

Agree, I've emailed it to you Colsy. As well as a couple of articles on speed drills (I sent them to you in February).

Also Rudolf, have you read 'The Self-Made Olympian' by Ron Daws'? It's a good read, and Daws used Lydiard's principles well. I got mine in a second hand bookstore in San Francisco for 50 cents 20 or 30 years ago. I was going to suggest Colsy buy it on Amazon, but it's now over $90! Colsy, suggest you set up an eBay search, it pops up there from time to time.

Quote

I would say, that If You do not wanna get anaerobic and are after streght training on hills, than tegh 20 secs hill is long enough, the 2 basic metabolism processes based on fast training are teh 6-8 secs interval - pure speed development and teh 20-30 secs interval which do not create lactate buildup since they are too short....


It is not running up hill, it is doing specific uphill drills 1 is called springing, it can be seen as jumps,plyometrics sprint drills etc mixed together.

Lydiard describes in details the correct technique, body posture, pay attention to straight back and pushing the pelvic-hips to the front...

To re-inforce Rudolf's comments, this is not just running up the hills as fast as you can. It's quite different, plyometrics being the key word.

[phYx]

wombatface, on Jul 18 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

I think the best type of intervals to do (initially) are ones that avoid heavy oxygen debt. It's heavy anaerobic training that erodes base fitness (you only need a small phase of anaerobic training to reach peak form).

Could you explain how the anaerobic work erodes base fitness?

And, as what %age of max HR would anaerobic be defined? Or is it individual?

[Rudolf]

Bellthorpe, on Jul 18 2008, 04:02 PM, said:

Also Rudolf, have you read 'The Self-Made Olympian' by Ron Daws'? It's a good read, and Daws used Lydiard's principles well.

nope, never heard of it...thanks for the info

[Rudolf]

phYx, on Jul 18 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

And, as what %age of max HR would anaerobic be defined? Or is it individual?

anaerobic is defined as a pace when the body is not able to cover up the oxygen used, so teh deficit happens,
the word anaerobic, as not aerobic, when teh pace is such that no oxygen debt is happening.

The secondary effect than is the increase of the lactate


and teh value of 4 was aggreeed is teh critical, but not every individuals fits here, perhaps 80 % of population
perhasp additional 9% into 3.5-5 range and some exotic individuals show value as 6 or higher....

In lab testing teh the blood is taken in reguklar intervals for measuring teh lactate and from this the graph is constructed to find exact pace- running speed when teh value 4 is reached.


For teh prcaticality this secondary value - lactate - is being estimated - second guessed by the HR, but it is best to get the test to correlate teh lactate vs HR and so this tertyiary info (HR ) could be used in outdore races and training to judge tegh approximation of the effort - ranning pace for the critical aerobic-anaerobic border line.


The generaly writen about %of HRmax is perhaps good starting point but could be very missleading...

[phYx]

OK, so without clinical testing, how do you know if you are in the anaerobic zone?

I only feel lactic acid build up if I am going fast up a hill. Never feel it in races, never any other time, although I can make my HR go quite high. Does this mean I don't go in the anaerobic zone or can I just not move my legs fast enough to get there?

[Colsy]

OK, I just googled Plyometrics. I am beginning to see the light. Thanks.

[Rudolf]

phYx, on Jul 18 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

OK, so without clinical testing, how do you know if you are in the anaerobic zone?

I only feel lactic acid build up if I am going fast up a hill. Never feel it in races, never any other time, although I can make my HR go quite high. Does this mean I don't go in the anaerobic zone or can I just not move my legs fast enough to get there?

the original definition of the lactate treshold (implicating the lactate value 4 and this secondguessing the borderline for anaerobic is :


the effort, the pace, which could be sustained for 1 hour.


So if You run a race or ITT which is track 1H, and Your pace is exactly even with accurate splits etc,


than this pace - effort is the anaerobic treshold pace.


So clearly the race at 10km is faster than this and has anaerobic component in it, for super elite this pace could be very accurately estimated by the halfmarathon performances - as they run it in teh 58-62 range so effectively 1 hour anaerobic treshold test.


From the calculators like McMillan etc You can somehow estimate from the results of 5k, 10k, halfmarathon the most likely 1H performance, however this will only give the estimate for the pace, not the effort.


Difference being You are tapered down for the race, in optimal conditions good weateher (Yourr likely PBs) etc, however when You go for training session You could be tired have last day hills in legs, or the weight session, could be too hot, windy, You need to wear too much cloths for cold etc, so You will not match that pace, You need to go for matching the effort.


So what You are after is the HR at the treshold pace.

so idealy You run the 60 min ITT or rare race on the track, get the performance in metres so You know the speed, but also wearing the HRM you get he HR average.


what You are really after is the stable state at the treshold pace, which should occur during this 60 min test between the minutes 20-40 (likely to rise towards the end - so called drift, and likely to be erratic at the beggining.

so occasional glance at the display between 20-40 min gives You the idea, or if the unit has the memory that You can have close look and get the average value from that time period.


If You have data HR from 10km race and from halfmarathon race, and say Your 10k is somewhere around 40 minutes and hals somehere arouns the 80-90 minutes, than the average HR from those 2 races can give You 2 values and the critical point is somewhere in the middle between them.

I would prefer data from individual time trail at 10km and half or best the 60 min, since the HR from races is often elevated by the exitement adrenaline nervousness etc sometimes as much as 10-20 betas, so not realy being representative of the effort and the speed.


But to sum it up - to be sure all the runs are aerobic, You need to run slower than the 1H pace and at the effort which is represented by lower HR, than the critical one

or in simople words - any short interval You run should be slower than the pace You can keep for an hour.


To complicate the matter, if intervals are short - they are often run faster than teh 1H pace but the interval is over before the lactate reaches the value 4, so there is no time within the interval to create serious oxygen debt, and the rest period takes care of it and so there is chance to do next rep, however there is such fine line doing it this way, and most runners - coaches fail here to recognize this fine line and the session turns anaerobic.

Zatopek was master of this from the intuitive listening to his body

Edited by Rudolf, 19 July 2008 - 08:10 AM.

[Bellthorpe]

Just to add to Rudolf's comments on lactate build-up. When he refers, for example, to a figure of '4' for lactate, that's the concentration in the blood expressed in millimoles per litre (mM/l).

This book by Peter Janssen is, as far as I'm aware, the original bible on the topic.

[Rudolf]

Thanks Bellthorpe for the technical details, I was not sure if I was remebering the unit correctly so left that out.

[wombatface]

phYx, on Jul 18 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Could you explain how the anaerobic work erodes base fitness?

And, as what %age of max HR would anaerobic be defined? Or is it individual?

I don't know the exact physiology. I presume it's something to do with how anaerobic training lowers the blood pH. The conundrum is, that for anaerobic development to be maximised, the training must be done 'hard', and often (at least 2-3 times per week). Maximum anaerobic development (according to Lydiard) can be reached with 4-5 weeks of anaerobic training.

If your racing distance is 5k or longer, you don't need a high anaerobic ability. Marathoners for instance, usually favour tempo sessions, marathon-pace runs and relatively aerobic intervals (high volume mile repeats etc).

The % of max is individual. The only way of being sure is by using a blood lactate testing monitor.

phYx, on Jul 18 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

I only feel lactic acid build up if I am going fast up a hill. Never feel it in races, never any other time, although I can make my HR go quite high. Does this mean I don't go in the anaerobic zone or can I just not move my legs fast enough to get there?

A good way of "getting there", is to do close to maximum effort short intervals (200m for example), with "inadequate" recoveries (say 20 seconds). After 3 or 4 of these you should get that lactic feeling. You shouldn't really feel it in races unless you are racing 400/800/1500 metres, or sprint very hard at the finish of a longer race.

[Colsy]

Bellthorpe, Rudolf

Have you ever thought of going in to the facilitation/presentation business together?

Seriously though, this is good information. Thanks to both.

And to wombatface.

[Rudolf]

Colsy, on Jul 19 2008, 12:14 PM, said:

Bellthorpe, Rudolf

Have you ever thought of going in to the facilitation/presentation business together?

Seriously though, this is good information. Thanks to both.

And to wombatface.

hmmm after reading Ralph Doubell's call for overseas coaching saving australian running, I am seriously considering the offer

[moby]

phYx, on Jul 18 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Could you explain how the anaerobic work erodes base fitness?

I can’t remember the exact physiology either, but it is something to do with the fact that if you do a lot of base running in a purely aerobic zone it maximises the development of slow twitch muscle fibres and the body’s ability and efficiency at converting fuel in the muscles aerobically.

As soon as you start training anaerobically the body starts to develop the anaerobic systems and faster twitch muscle fibres which actually slightly decreases the endurance you have built up and prevalence of slow twitch fibres and aerobic fuel conversion efficiency.

So to say it erodes "base fitness" depends on your definition of this in the first place. Anaerobic training certainly develops fitness but it changes the balance away from pure endurance.

[Rudolf]

the way I see it is this:

the pure aerobic work, when pushed for volume and higher but stil aerobic intensity, along with the correct nutrition, is stimulating the growth of aerobic mitochondria, their multiplication - so the growth in numbers and their individual strenght - health, lifeness activity...
these tiny thingies are living inside the cells - inside of the muscle cells, mainly in slow fibres those for the aerobic work of course, these mitochondrias are the workhorse of aerobic metabolic process, doing the job of converting the energy, utilizing oxygen etc.

so clearly more of them You have and more vital they are, the better Your aerobic fitness.

These mitichondrias would of course develop in the muscles exercised, so this fitness can be quite sport specific...

what is also imortant is, they are in the heart muscle - here You can develop them via any activity - so no running needed just for the heart, cycling will do etc.


There are special nutrients which promote their growth and live activity and there are wrong foods and mainly dangerous chemicals and drugs killing them as well.

One of the very well know drug killing them is the group of prescription medication for cholesterol and thats the reason for high mortality rate in patients taking this drug if they get the attack...

back to aerobic, as these mitochondria can only develop and survive in aerobic zone, any anaerobic stuff will start attacking them making tem weaker and killing them, they simply suffocate.

so what Lydiard found was that enormous development of these in aerobic base period will give him abundance - oversuplay so to speak, and he can afford 4 weeks of anaerobic stuff (3 days per week), to deveop the anaerobic resistance etc, killing some of the aerobic mitochondria in doing so, but the disadvantage from killed mitochondrias is overweight with advantage with anaerobic conditioning, this is than somehow balanced during racing season with anaerobic being only the race and lots of aerobic work between the races. as soon as the main season over - some rest and the aerobic base again, it is allways hoped, that the next starting level is higher than previous season.


If You are not targetting olympics or some big $$$ track races You have no real reason to do anaerobic stuff to keep falling back and killing the stuff which You worked so hard to get in the first place.


It is about Ego racing on a club level...


so If You mentaly strong enough to stick with the pure speed (nonanaerobic), strenght,explosive, plyometrics and aerobic for 2-3-5 years etc You would be better of in the long run. ( yes the long run hehe)

Problem is , sponzor is not going to stick around for so long, so runners like Buster need to compromise and do the killing few times a year.

Edited by Rudolf, 19 July 2008 - 01:06 PM.

[Phoenix]

Colsy,

I can't add anything to this - just beware of injuries. The first 3 times I started interval training I was promptly injured. Was trying to do intervals and hills at the same time.

It was only when i had built up a decent base of hills that I was able to add intervals injury free.

[pjw]

yes i agree with you Rudolf, anaerobic work does involve a 'killing off' of the bits and pieces of the aerobic system. If it is not used it will diminish over time. Don't water a plant and it will slowly die.

There is also the time trade off. We can only do so much training in a given week, we must also rest and sleep at least. If we are developing the aerobic to maximum efficiency then by doing anaerobic training at the same time simply means less aerobic training and therefore less than optimal development of this training element. Following the principle of work:recovery this must be so.

For me i see the aerobic training zone as a recovery zone. When we are not including anaerobic we are healing! When we use anaerobic we are not healing we are damaging. I mean the very principle behind anaerobic training is to break down tissue so it responds and rebuilds stronger for the future. If we don't take the appropriate recovery we don't get the complete rebuild before we next do the damage we are trying to do.

[phYx]

Wow thanks HEAPS Rudolf, Wombatface, Belthorpe + Moby. LOTS of information there to go on. Have to read a few more times for it to sink in.

[Rudolf]

pjw, on Jul 19 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

yes i agree with you Rudolf, anaerobic work does involve a 'killing off' of the bits and pieces of the aerobic system. If it is not used it will diminish over time. Don't water a plant and it will slowly die.

There is also the time trade off. We can only do so much training in a given week, we must also rest and sleep at least. If we are developing the aerobic to maximum efficiency then by doing anaerobic training at the same time simply means less aerobic training and therefore less than optimal development of this training element. Following the principle of work:recovery this must be so.

For me i see the aerobic training zone as a recovery zone. When we are not including anaerobic we are healing! When we use anaerobic we are not healing we are damaging. I mean the very principle behind anaerobic training is to break down tissue so it responds and rebuilds stronger for the future. If we don't take the appropriate recovery we don't get the complete rebuild before we next do the damage we are trying to do.

hey Pete great analogy


it brings me to the issue of strenght training if taken from bodybuilding (and or from gym instructors), it is basicaly anaerobic killing process, yes it grows the muscless and gives bigger slow strenght, but it is very damaging to running and other spoorts, teh strenght training with weight, machines or body weight needs to designed by running coach who knows teh stuff not be exbodybuilder...


and by the way remember Governator-Terminator, who for few season was doing also aerobic sessions with light weights targetting the red fibres specificaly to maximize the development...

[Colsy]

Phoenix, on Jul 19 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

Colsy,

I can't add anything to this - just beware of injuries. The first 3 times I started interval training I was promptly injured. Was trying to do intervals and hills at the same time.

It was only when i had built up a decent base of hills that I was able to add intervals injury free.

Thanks Phoenix, and point taken. I did actually do both this week, very much an experimantal week - good fun.

I am going to focus a bit more on Hills, rather than intervals. And besides, hills are way more fun.

Cakeboy, I have found some small but steepish hills inside the West Beach Caravan park, down near the sailing club. Good practise area before we launch in to our 'Summer of Hills' program.

[sunny1]

wombatface, on Jul 19 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

A good way of "getting there", is to do close to maximum effort short intervals (200m for example), with "inadequate" recoveries (say 20 seconds). After 3 or 4 of these you should get that lactic feeling. You shouldn't really feel it in races unless you are racing 400/800/1500 metres, or sprint very hard at the finish of a longer race.

You will probably find that, after you do several sessions (over several weeks) with adequate recovery, you will start to get an 'itching to go' feeling during recovery. Your recovery time need will decrease very quickly - that is probably the time to use wombatface's 'inadequate' recovery idea. Go when you're ready.

Repeating the warning: interval work is a good way to get injured. Have done it myself several times.

Colsy, on Jul 19 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

Thanks Phoenix, and point taken. I did actually do both this week, very much an experimantal week - good fun.

I am going to focus a bit more on Hills, rather than intervals. And besides, hills are way more fun.

Cakeboy, I have found some small but steepish hills inside the West Beach Caravan park, down near the sailing club. Good practise area before we launch in to our 'Summer of Hills' program.

Hmmm. Whose 'summer of hills' program? Are we still inclusive here in SA? Anyone want to join me on my 'secret' hills training ... anyone .... anyone ... ?

[StellaBella]

Ok I think it's official... there's clearly only so much about running that I can absorb!
One foot in front of the other I can do, and trying to do this faster or for a longer period of time I understand.... all of the above stuff went WAY over my head!

I shall try reading it again as I'd love to comprehend it all but I dont like my chances

[Melruns]

Quote

Ok I think it's official... there's clearly only so much about running that I can absorb!
One foot in front of the other I can do, and trying to do this faster or for a longer period of time I understand.... all of the above stuff went WAY over my head!

Stella I'm with you and I did Physio at uni! I'm now so confused - I got faster last year by following a program that had 1 interval session in it per week, without injury. Now I'm thinking I'm running too fast all the time and I'm not even fast! I understand the slow twitch vs fast twitch thing (my husband jokes that I have a fast twitch body full of slow twitch fibres) but now I think I either don't do my intervals as hard as what I think I do (4.40m ks for 1 k reps) or I'm just a sh!t runner no matter what I do!

[StellaBella]

Melruns, on Jul 19 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

Stella I'm with you and I did Physio at uni! I'm now so confused - I got faster last year by following a program that had 1 interval session in it per week, without injury. Now I'm thinking I'm running too fast all the time and I'm not even fast! I understand the slow twitch vs fast twitch thing (my husband jokes that I have a fast twitch body full of slow twitch fibres) but now I think I either don't do my intervals as hard as what I think I do (4.40m ks for 1 k reps) or I'm just a sh!t runner no matter what I do!

Phew! Thought it was just me... and I have business degrees and loved literature and hated science (in school) so this is all a bit much!

If you can run 4:40kms you arent a sh!t runner! I struggle to do 5:40kms! If you're a sh!t runner then I'm a... well I dont want to think about it! Lol!

[Melruns]

Oh don't worry, I can't string many of those together all in a row!

Very Zen isn't it, you have to run slower to run faster.

[Colsy]

Stella, I may summarize what the sages are saying by saying that the 3 days of speed work that you are doing weekly could possibly counteract the fitness base you have built up over the last year. All that anaerobic (fast intervals) could destroy the aerobic (slow, long runs). This may explain why you are feeling so exhausted lately. If you like I will email the literature that has been kindly passed to me. It is not complex but just requires a bit of time devoted to reading it properly, good night time stuff and incredibly interesting.

If you are doing speed work to get a better Half result for Melbourne you may be better off doing strength work now and leaving your intervals to 4 weeks out from the event. And when you read strength work, dont think Gym leg presses but more of Hills.

[Rudolf]

Colsy, while generaly it is good way You summed it up, I wanna point out, that Stella probably is not going to run halfmarathon under 1H, so if she pace herself correctly she should be all the time in aerobic state.

so she would not need any anaerobic resistance, lactate tolerance stuff etc, so she does not need the 4 weeks of anaerobic conditioning at all, that would actualy kill her before half.

Funrunner targetting the halmarathon in my view should stick with strict aerobic running, plus hills drills like Lydiard suggest, possibly some other plyometrics, lots of core work, and possibly pure speed running on flat or hills, but very short about 8 secs maximum with good rest in between, and than posiibly with session of 25 secs intervals of faster runs, with good rest in between, but these speed session are not really neccessary for slow funnrunners, they would benefit from increased aerobic volume instead

Edited by Rudolf, 20 July 2008 - 09:40 PM.

[StellaBella]

Colsy, on Jul 20 2008, 09:26 PM, said:

Stella, I may summarize what the sages are saying by saying that the 3 days of speed work that you are doing weekly could possibly counteract the fitness base you have built up over the last year. All that anaerobic (fast intervals) could destroy the aerobic (slow, long runs). This may explain why you are feeling so exhausted lately. If you like I will email the literature that has been kindly passed to me. It is not complex but just requires a bit of time devoted to reading it properly, good night time stuff and incredibly interesting.

If you are doing speed work to get a better Half result for Melbourne you may be better off doing strength work now and leaving your intervals to 4 weeks out from the event. And when you read strength work, dont think Gym leg presses but more of Hills.

Thanks Colsy, that would be great.
(It's only 2 days of speed work but it's tiring none the less)

[aura111]

This is probably a very dumb question and please don't think I'm being deliberately obtuse; but what is it about hills that makes them so different to running intensely on a track? I'm genuinely curious to hear!

Is it about the way the lower limbs are rhythmically loaded and then unloaded (as in the Pylometrics others have mentioned here)?

Is is the additional cardiovascular effort required to keep the large leg muscles supplied?

Something to do with the way the mitrochondria are affected by the kind of load bearing unique to hills?

Wondering if any of the Physios or Exercise Physiologists round here may have compared the energy expenditure on hills vs running intensely on flat vs intense resistance training.

[aura111]

This is probably a very dumb question and please don't think I'm being deliberately obtuse; but what is it about hills that makes them so different to running intensely on a track? I'm genuinely curious to hear!

Is it about the way the lower limbs are rhythmically loaded and then unloaded (as in the Pylometrics others have mentioned here)?

Is is the additional cardiovascular effort required to keep the large leg muscles supplied?

Something to do with the way the mitrochondria are affected by the kind of load bearing unique to hills?

Wondering if any of the Physios or Exercise Physiologists round here may have compared the energy expenditure on hills vs running intensely on flat vs intense resistance training (assuming of course that this may give an idea about the virtues of hills as opposed to the other methods mentioned)

Also are there any decent studies comparing rates of injuries in hill work vs track work that people are aware of?. I can imagine this kind of data may be difficult to obtain due to the potential numbers of variables at play though....

Edited by aura111, 21 July 2008 - 09:58 PM.

[Rudolf]

hills or hills ?

it is quite likely we are not talking or thinking the same stuff.

In the Lydiard sense teh hill period does not mean to take the runs to hills, mountains, trails.
It is tehperiod when specific strenght is being developed and instead og going to gym, and jump of the bench with teh barbell on Your shpulder, You do teh Lydiards hills - which is series of 1 legged jumps in specific technique.


This is combined with other drills.


This period is not about doing harder runs, not about aerobic or anaerobic, this is about teh tsrenght - explosive strenght as specifioc to running as possible, it is the preparation for teh tarck work, to have stronger muscles and tendons when teh tarck anaerobic phase starts, so teh tarck session could purely focus on teh anaerobic pace, the legs are already strong enough to handle it.


During teh long aerobic phase the Lydiard runs are often on hlly are, it would be seldom on track or flat road, so teh running is in hills all the time, but that is running on hills, which is not the specific hill work refered often in Lydiards discussions.


But all that said, yes running up teh hill is different biomechanics and could be using similar muscles to sprinting action
but this topic is so complicated that it could mess up majority of readers so lets stay out of it...

[aura111]

thanks Rudolf, that does clear it up a bit. Seems like "hills" isn't just running up incliines for intensity...it's an integral phase of a program and more complex than I'd gathered.

I'm going to have to read up on the Lydiard training so will certainlycheck out the link you mention earlier in this thread.

[Colsy]

Well, after reading the Lydiard principles I have decided to hold off on intervals. I will do 4 more weeks of Aerobic training, touching on Hills, then 4 weeks Hills proper, then some intervals.

My greatest discovery is that Anaerobic training does not develop speed, but can actually decrease it. After Melbourne half marathon I will be straight back in to Aerobic base building until March next year.

Like I said before, I wont be going to Beijing, but it is better for me to spend my time properly rather than doing things that I originally perceived as beneficial.

I have also decided after reading these principles and going outside and 'feeling' them, I am going to commit to a long term goal of sub 20 minute 5 K. I think within two years. Any comments on this would be appreciated. And I mean any comments...

[20thCenturyBoy]

Colsy, on Jul 24 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

I am going to commit to a long term goal of sub 20 minute 5 K. I think within two years. Any comments on this would be appreciated. And I mean any comments...

Wow that's a tough goal Colsy, but I'm sure you can achieve it. It's taken me a year to lose 2 mins from 26 to 24 but that's cos I don't do specific 5k training. I find running short fast distances really tough. What plan will you be following?

[AndrewFF53]

Hi Colsy

Firstly I have only skimmed over the posts, and not read in detail so apologies if I repeat anything!

The key thing with speed work and hills is to make sure you warm up properly before hand and do a cool down at the end. After the warm up do some of the running drills that have been mentioned in the post and maybe some short (say 50 to 100m) run throughs where you gradually build up your speed to near as fast as you can run then easy off gradually. That is what I do, and I suspect that people will have many different views on this.

I know what you mean by wanting to use hills near your home. I moved from Adelaide to Sydney about 10 years ago. I took up running in Sydney and I am very fortunate to have lots of hills to choose from. I was only thinking the other day if I was to ever move back to Adelaide what would I do for hill training?

I have never tried this and only just thought of it, maybe if the hill you have is only 20sec you could run start your run on the flat ground before the hill run up the hill then continue running ‘over the hill’. I am assuming that there is a section at the bottom and top of the hill that you can run on, so your rep would be say 10 to 15 sec hard effort on the flat which then continues to include the 20 sec hill followed by 5 to 10 sec running over the top of the hill. The intent is that when you hit the hill you will be already have a little bit of work in the legs then running over the top will be good practice for racing etc.

Cheers

Andrew

[Colsy]

Thought I might report back on this.


12 weeks after my initial post I have done nothing more than long runs, a few 5 K events, a 12 K event and a Half Marathon. No intervals at all. No speed training in any form. I also had about 4 seperate weeks away from running.

In fact I could probably state that I have never done any 'speed' training.

In this time my 5K time has dropped from 23:55 to 23:02. I think this is purely down to more time on my feet and the few events.

I really think intervals would have been a waste of time for me, and possibly a step backwards. Think I'll continue with the "miles makes champions" method until I hit a ceiling of some kind.

So thanks!

[Peterhorse]

Gidday Colsy
mate, i don't quite agree with your thinking on this one re: a waste of time for intervals. i.e. i think you might find for 5k, even 1 or 2 interval sessions a week for the 4-5 weeks immediately before your next 5k would top off the aerobic base you have built. the way i would approach it is "with 5 weeks to go to a time trial or race, go with what you have built up to that point (base wise), invest the time in some quality/speed work, and then after the race or time trial, go back to the aerobic training and start a new cycle". you would still keep a longer slow run in there and recovery stuff built around the speed sessions.
i'm no coach of course, just what i understand works well. note: i'm not talking about tackling a half or full mara, that needs a longer base
cheers
PH

Edited by Peterhorse, 03 November 2008 - 09:05 PM.