16 replies to this topic

[wombatface]

I'm interested in feedback on the following test session. For myself it works well to predict my 3000 metre race time in the range of 10 to 13 minutes. What do faster and slower runners think?

You do the test at a 400 metre track (I use a grass track). After a normal warm-up and 'strides', you run 10 x 300 metres with a 100m recovery walk (or jog) between each 300. The recovery lasts for a specific time, based on your 300 metre speed (if you are slower, you get more recovery).

Getting the recovery time right is a little problematical as you need to have some idea of what your average 300 metre time will be in order to chose a recovery time. It's probably easiest to chose the recovery time, then do the best you can for the 300s. Extending the recovery won't give an accurate prediction. For example, I could probably run 10 x 300m in 60 secs, with 3 minutes recovery, but not with 73 seconds recovery.

A certain blogger from Qld has suggested I call the session "Ewen 300s".

10 x 300m predicts 3000m race time
300m time	Km pace	Mile pace	Recovery	3000m race
40	2:13	3:35	49	7:25
41	2:17	3:40	50	7:35
42	2:20	3:45	51	7:47
43	2:23	3:51	53	7:58
44	2:27	3:56	54	8:09
45	2:30	4:01	55	8:20
46	2:33	4:07	56	8:31
47	2:37	4:12	57	8:42
48	2:40	4:18	59	8:53
49	2:43	4:23	60	9:04
50	2:47	4:28	61	9:16
51	2:50	4:34	62	9:26
52	2:53	4:39	64	9:38
53	2:57	4:44	65	9:49
54	3:00	4:50	66	10:00
55	3:03	4:55	67	10:11
56	3:07	5:00	68	10:22
57	3:10	5:06	70	10:34
58	3:13	5:11	71	10:44
59	3:17	5:17	72	10:56
60	3:20	5:22	73	11:07
61	3:23	5:27	75	11:18
62	3:27	5:33	76	11:29
63	3:30	5:38	77	11:40
64	3:33	5:43	78	11:51
65	3:37	5:49	79	12:02
66	3:40	5:54	81	12:13
67	3:43	5:59	82	12:25
68	3:47	6:05	83	12:35
69	3:50	6:10	84	12:47
70	3:53	6:16	86	12:58
71	3:57	6:21	87	13:09
72	4:00	6:26	88	13:20
73	4:03	6:32	89	13:31
74	4:07	6:37	90	13:42
75	4:10	6:42	92	13:53
76	4:13	6:48	93	14:04
77	4:17	6:53	94	14:16
78	4:20	6:58	95	14:26
79	4:23	7:04	97	14:38
80	4:27	7:09	98	14:49
81	4:30	7:15	99	15:00
82	4:33	7:20	100	15:11
83	4:37	7:25	101	15:22
84	4:40	7:31	103	15:34
85	4:43	7:36	104	15:44
86	4:47	7:41	105	15:56
87	4:50	7:47	106	16:07
88	4:53	7:52	108	16:18
89	4:57	7:57	109	16:29
90	5:00	8:03	110	16:40
91	5:03	8:08	111	16:51
92	5:07	8:14	112	17:02

[Rudolf]

I am bit lost as for the purpose ?

It would be faster and more accurate to actually run 3000m IT and perhasp less anaerobic anyway. ?

The Yasso concept is different for few reasons - You do not want to run marathon to see what is Your marathon prediction,
clearly the 800m repeats are much less damaging than the marathon itself, and there are reason as the training tool,
weekly progress tool (number of 800s at the pace increasing) etc.


The 10x300m in my view is more taxing than the 3000m ITT

Would require possibly longer recovery next few days

Do You see it as a specific training tool for the 3000m race ?


I do understand that ITT is different to a race, so You can use some factor as 1-2 % increase of pace, or measure the HR during ITT and find the corelation factor to faster pace at the 3000m racing HR etc.


Sorry, probably not the answer You wanted to read...

[MadGirlRunning]

It must be the Saturday night glass of wine... cos I read this post and thought 'or you could just run 3000m really really fast' and see how you go!

Calculating the different recovery times whilst 'on the run' would be the hard bit for me - and finding the motivation to knock out another 300m. But it does sound like valuable interval training. Let us know if you find your splits improving over time.

Cheers, MGR

[bruncle]

Yeah, I agree with Rudolf... Much more complicated than just running one..

[wombatface]

Rudolf, on Sep 6 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

I am bit lost as for the purpose ?

It would be faster and more accurate to actually run 3000m IT and perhasp less anaerobic anyway. ?

The 10x300m in my view is more taxing than the 3000m ITT

Would require possibly longer recovery next few days

Do You see it as a specific training tool for the 3000m race ?

The purpose is that it's a session you can do pre-season (before the track season) to give you a guide as to how your training is going if you have a goal time for 3000 metres. So, yes, I see it as a specific training tool - it's another interval session that also gives you a guide to your possible 3000m race time.

As the pace is quicker than 3000m race-pace, I see it as an interval session that suits 3000m racing. In my experience, it's not more taxing than an actual 3000m race (is there nothing harder than an actual race?), although it is anaerobic. The anaerobic feeling kicks in about half way through the session. Recovery seems to be no longer than for any other interval session used in a weekly program.

MadGirlRunning, on Sep 6 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

It must be the Saturday night glass of wine... cos I read this post and thought 'or you could just run 3000m really really fast' and see how you go!

Calculating the different recovery times whilst 'on the run' would be the hard bit for me - and finding the motivation to knock out another 300m. But it does sound like valuable interval training. Let us know if you find your splits improving over time.

Cheers, MGR

Well, running really really fast and seeing how you go is very difficult if you're not in an actual race. In a time trial, there's no adrenalin, atmosphere, or the incentive of actually racing other competitors. A 3000m time trial would usually be slower than a race, unless you set it up with pacers and gave it a full race effort.

If you have a 'memory lap' watch, calculating the recovery times is easy - just click off a split after each 300m, then look at the watch and have a 'running start' for the next 300m a couple of seconds before the recovery time is up and press the split button again for the start of the next 300m.

Then afterwards, you can work out an average time for all the 300s and all the recoveries. At the moment I'm running between 63 and 64 for the 300s, but my recovery time is around 81, so I'll try and get that down to 77 the next time I do the session.

Edited by wombatface, 07 September 2008 - 08:45 PM.

[Sportsman]

You could no doubt fiddle with it to get an accurate 3000m time.
As has been said, usually predictors are less taxing than the actual event.
It might be better to do 5 or 6 x 300 with less rest or
why not fiddle with it to get a 5000m or 10000 predictor?

[Chareth]

Hi all,

I have been a long time reader of CoolRunning and have enjoyed reading many of the posts by members of the running community, and it is always an interesting medium to stir up new ideas and thoughts. However, upon reading this post I felt compelled to throw my 'running ideas' hat into the ring.

Pacing charts such as the one posted by wombatface have no real bearing on actual results. I think that they are a mathematical fallacy and do not give any indication whatsoever of actual performance capabilities.

This 10x300s concept is particularly interesting to me because it is one of my fav track sessions. Usually I use a 1min walk (stagger) back to the 300m start at my local track for recov.

However, I myself and other members of my training group can easily lick 10x300s in 43/44. Granted, we pace share and spur each other on. BUT my point is, that there is no way ever, that I will break 8mins for 3000m, it just doesnt work that way, the body is not a 'mathematical sponge' so to speak.

Besides, as Rudolf and MadgirlRunning so eminently state, why not just run a solo 3000m at your track, with your coach to give you splits, aside from being far less taxing mentally (Its only 1 effort) and physically (only a single lactic induced effort, without bouncing your heart rate everywhere) u'll soon see that 44sec pace really does hurt after less then 1km...and you still have to keep going! Wow, thats gonna really hurt!

I realise that you (Wombatface) are not running really fast reps...yet (I hope you can get there one day, coz it feels great to do) but I think that u'll soon find that unless you are gifted with a 'metronome' ability that Daniel Komen had, that this chart really isnt an accurate proposition.

As an aside, good luck with your interval training, how addictive is it? I just love it when the times start tumbling and you start daring yourself more and more, what a great game to play!

[wombatface]

Hi Chareth. I was hoping to get some feedback from runners of your ability. For yourself, try a set of 10 x 300 one day with a 100m stagger of no longer than 54 seconds. You might have to stagger quickly to get back to the 1500m start in time. For you, the average of all the recovery times must be no longer than 54 seconds.

The recovery time is very important for the table to work. Some runners say they have a one minute recovery (I know this from the ones I see being coached), yet they'll extend it out by a few seconds or more if they're not 'ready to go'. 5 seconds more recovery can reduce the HR by 10 beats.

I myself can possibly run 10 x 300 in 61 seconds if I extend the recovery time. I can't (at the moment) run 11:18 for 3000m. I'm around 12 minutes for a 3k race.

Many years ago I used to regularly race 3000m in 10:00 to 10:10. I did many races in this range. This was close to my limit. If in training I could do the 10 x 300m averaging 54 seconds, with an average recovery of no longer than 66 seconds, I was in 10-minute form.

Looking at your own training... you appear to have the speed/anaerobic ability to run 3000m in 8 minutes. You might be lacking in aerobic ability, or speed endurance. Perhaps you need more mileage over winter to improve in this area? Good 3000m runners are strong aerobically - for example, Deek used to run 8-flat for 3000m, but his 400m speed wasn't that great.

[Greeno]

Wombat

It may well be accurate as you are saying with the correct recovery.

But it defies logic to run 10 x 300m to find out how fast you can run 3000m. It does not make any sense why you would do it.

[Chareth]

wombatface, on Sep 7 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

Hi Chareth. I was hoping to get some feedback from runners of your ability. For yourself, try a set of 10 x 300 one day with a 100m stagger of no longer than 54 seconds. You might have to stagger quickly to get back to the 1500m start in time. For you, the average of all the recovery times must be no longer than 54 seconds.

The recovery time is very important for the table to work. Some runners say they have a one minute recovery (I know this from the ones I see being coached), yet they'll extend it out by a few seconds or more if they're not 'ready to go'. 5 seconds more recovery can reduce the HR by 10 beats.

I myself can possibly run 10 x 300 in 61 seconds if I extend the recovery time. I can't (at the moment) run 11:18 for 3000m. I'm around 12 minutes for a 3k race.

Many years ago I used to regularly race 3000m in 10:00 to 10:10. I did many races in this range. This was close to my limit. If in training I could do the 10 x 300m averaging 54 seconds, with an average recovery of no longer than 66 seconds, I was in 10-minute form.

Looking at your own training... you appear to have the speed/anaerobic ability to run 3000m in 8 minutes. You might be lacking in aerobic ability, or speed endurance. Perhaps you need more mileage over winter to improve in this area? Good 3000m runners are strong aerobically - for example, Deek used to run 8-flat for 3000m, but his 400m speed wasn't that great.

Hi Wombat,

I was interested in your reply, yes, there is a habit of some (well...weve all done it before) athletes cribbing just a few extra seconds recovery during the rest periods, not an uncommon thing when uve got a head full of lactic and u want to spew. However, I still think that you have missed the crux of my argument that although these 300m reps are excellent training, it just cant be a convincing measure for a 3000m race for my reasons cited above.

I did have a read of your training diary. Well done to you sir for your commitment and passion. I can see you have a v.calculating and systematic mind. To have been running for so long is a great achievement in itself.

As for anaerobic vs aerobic abilities, yes, again the facts and numbers may suggest such times are possible, but it still never translates. Take a look at the calibre of runners in the Miller's Club meets in Victoria, or some of the national c'ship races, breaking 8mins is damn hard even for these accomplished and v.strong men.

As for Deek...well im from the 'other', far less popular corner of running folklore, im a speed/quality man, not a Lydiard distance man, and I wont digress into that old pub argument/diatribe in this forum, but i will say this, how can anyone EVER believe that they can run really fast with such little speed training or lack of emphasis on technique. Deek's achievements are truly remarkable given some of the drawbacks of his training, he must be perhaps one of the more courageous/hardest men ever to put a pair of shoes on.

[glenda]

OK this is sort of backwards, but i want to run 9.58 for the 3000m before february 27 next year to get an age group record that has eluded me. I can currently run about 10.15 on a road course , accuracy in question. I have run 10.08 on the track. So, if i was to run 10 by 300's as training session, what time would I aim for and what recovery?

[wombatface]

glenda, on Sep 8 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

OK this is sort of backwards, but i want to run 9.58 for the 3000m before february 27 next year to get an age group record that has eluded me. I can currently run about 10.15 on a road course , accuracy in question. I have run 10.08 on the track. So, if i was to run 10 by 300's as training session, what time would I aim for and what recovery?

There's a bit of variation, depending on your strengths as an athlete. I ran 9:56/57 three times, and prior to those races I would run 10 x 300m averaging 54 seconds, with 66 seconds walking recovery. So, every 2 minutes I'd be starting another 300. This was on a good grass track, which was a bit slower than a synthetic track. Maybe 55 seconds for the 300s would be quick enough on a hard track. [edit]... My mistake - maybe you'd need 53 seconds on a hard track.

At the time, I was not that strong aerobically, or fast. I was running 82 for half marathons and 2:16-2:19 for 800m races.

You run sub-80 for the half and sub-3 marathons, so you could probably get away with a little slower for the 300s. In my sub-10 3000 races I'd be typically 3:17 at 1k, then fade and have to rely on a 'fast' last lap (73-75 seconds). If you're strong, you could just click off 80 second laps.

Chareth, I take on board what you say, and value your input as a fast athlete. For the table to work for fast athletes, I might have to use a parabolic-type curve for the recovery times. In other words, relatively shorter recoveries for fast athletes. For example, to cover the athlete who can knock out endless 43 second 300s, the recovery time might need to be shorter than 54 seconds... maybe 40 seconds? Any suggestions?

Then the idea would be for the athlete to stick rigidly to the 40 second recovery (they might have to start the 300s at different points on the track), and do 'the best they can' for the 300s, which would force then to run slower than 43 seconds. They'd have to pace themselves to get through the session. The very fit (and fast) 8-minute runner would be able to cope with a 40 second recovery, and still run the 43 second 300s.

[edit]... Glenda, short interval speed can be improved if you practise enough over time - as my very fast training partner from Calwell will confirm. Having a reserve of speed should help your 3000.

Edited by wombatface, 09 September 2008 - 04:09 PM.

[glenda]

Thanks, I will give it a go as a test of your theory... Speed is not my forte...

[obiwan]

I have to agree with Chareth. With a group i've done 10x300 sessions on 45 with the 100 jog recovery at the same pace of 45 and i haven't run sub 9 minutes yet. i personally love these mathematical calculators that predict times and so forth, but this seems a bit unrealistic. another similiar session i've done before is to do 8x300 reps at 1500 pace (eg. 48secs for a 4min 1500m) with a 30sec Stop/Start Recovery. This won't give you a time as such, but running at 1500 pace with very short recoveries is a fairly good guide to current form.

Edited by obiwan, 23 September 2008 - 10:46 AM.

[Aceydude]

I agree with obiwan. This is a completely pointless test as a good 1500m runner can run many 300s with short recoveries at there 1500m pace. I have ran many sessions of 10x300 at 45s with 45s recovery but I cant run 8:00 for 3000.

[lactatehead]

I have been sceptical of predicting race times from interval session times ever since I got stuffed in a track session by a bunch of guys who I beat in a race the following weekend. We were doing 6 x 800m with 60 sec recovery. They were all doing 2.20s and I could only manage 2.24s. The following week in an 8k race (5 miles actually) I ran 25.40 whereas all the others were outside 26 minutes.

[Tom31]

lactatehead, on Oct 23 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

I have been sceptical of predicting race times from interval session times ever since I got stuffed in a track session by a bunch of guys who I beat in a race the following weekend. We were doing 6 x 800m with 60 sec recovery. They were all doing 2.20s and I could only manage 2.24s. The following week in an 8k race (5 miles actually) I ran 25.40 whereas all the others were outside 26 minutes.

Some people are racers, some people are trainers. I'm off to run 10 x 400m with 200m jog recovery with 3 blokes who are going to kick my arse. I've been dreading it all day. These are the toughest sessions runners can do - the sort of sessions those soft ultra runners avoid.