Thanks KnutK. Excellent info.
Jens
Thanks KnutK. Excellent info.
Jens
Frank:
You are correct that sports science may be behind (a question that naturally comes to mind is why did the scientists change their recommendations??).
I view it this way: Coaches and runners are the experimentalists and sports scientists are the theorist. The latter should be able to explain _why_ it works and how. Then they need to focus on long-term development and not on short-term studies.
I recall you were working on your PhD a couple of years ago.
Have you finished it?
Cheers,
Jens
Jens
My statement was also black and white indeed, to made you understand my point, because in the names i did quote ther are also some agreement - i guess that Astrand agrees with Rodhal (LOL). The question is that when you see white i see the same as black or cinder for the same issue. Besides my posts don´t think that i´m against science or that i don´t consider that or that i don´t base nothing of my principles in science. But i also see too much msistification - too much indeed. All that are specialised areas, people tends to mistify thinks. Look for mathematics. This quite is accurate, it resists to new human knowledge aquirements. and since a long ago did reach quite perfection that any question in that issue have an answer. But even mathematics is questioned by quantum physics.
Science or physiology or biology develops in doubts. Ther+s no such thing as a physilogy key. But as a old man and an experienced coach and a past runner when i have some hard ultimate doubts - i ask to the best portuguese sport physilogist - Ph, doctors amd post-graduation in West German with the worlds best calsssifications and so and so - that are my friends and physiology Knowledge rarely gives me an answer that can help my deep training doubt. That´s what i don´t understand the coaches that say that sports science is far behind and they are satisfied with the the answers. That´s because they haven´t the same doubts that i have - they believe that almost everything is solved by science or correct. Once again in black and white - this is only possible because they never had been deep doubts, they are satisfied by superficial answers.
Knut K,
Thanks again for all your posts. I know that you don't want to turn this into a discussion about your training but just to clarify:
"Most of my runs were probably run somewhere between 3.45 and 4.00 pr km. I never timed these and I never ran on measured courses. Part of the build up I also ran on snow witch means that the actual times are slower if you use the same energy. These times are an estimate made later. The point is that these runs were not hard runs. I would often run them by myself and think of other things than running just covering distance and not worry about pace. They almost always had a recreational aspect.
These runs were coupled with quality distancework of hard runs and intervals with very sort rest say 1600m with 1 min rest."
I take it that you mean that you were doing basic mileage, with one workout of a "hard run" and "intervals with very short rest" all in your build up phase which lasted until the track season.
It is interesting because my experience is that many runners thrive of this kind of training but today, not many people try this anymore as you say.
I guess, and this is nothing new, that a runner with very good basic speed is probably going to go well with interval work and more intensive training all year around. Coe was able to run 400m in 50 seconds when he was 16 years old. Running repetitions on the track at say 60 seconds/400m was probably not very stressful for him thinking in relative terms so he could take it week in week out. Moorcroft also had fairly good speed, under 50seconds for 400m I think, so again he could also try the intensive approach.
On the other hand runners with poor basic speed are maybe wasting their efforts when they try the intensive interval training apporach hoping that they will become faster.
There may be exceptions to this such as Ovett who ran high mileage, but generally this may be the rule.
You understood my post correlctly. I probably should mention that I did not jump right into the full track sessions but did some sessions with strides and things like 6-10*200 to get my legs used to spikes before I started doing the ful sessions. These stides or 200m was not fast. They were just done to get my legs used to the track.
Yur idea about slow and fast people certainly fits me. I was always very slow. When I was in the states I was always amased at the basic speed so many runners had.
Your idea about basic speed and training I think has some merit to it as a general idea. I do not think this is an absolute though. It is easy to point to examples that do not fit into this. Juha Vetainen is one obvious example.
I will finish it this spring.
What kind of speed did you have Knut? 200m PR and 400m PR?
Look at Mark Carroll he does similar training to what Knut did. Look at his work-outs.
"Key workouts are 5 x 1000m averaging 2:27 (three minutes reco-very); 3 x 1 mile averaging 4:06 (three minutes recovery); 6 x 600m averaging 1:26 (three minutes re-covery); three sets of 4 x 400m averaging 56.0 (with one-minute recovery and three minutes bet-ween sets)"
Extremly hard and anaerobic training. He ran 3.34, 7.33 and 13.03.
Tell me more wrote:
What kind of speed did you have Knut? 200m PR and 400m PR?
Look at Mark Carroll he does similar training to what Knut did. Look at his work-outs.
"Key workouts are 5 x 1000m averaging 2:27 (three minutes reco-very); 3 x 1 mile averaging 4:06 (three minutes recovery); 6 x 600m averaging 1:26 (three minutes re-covery); three sets of 4 x 400m averaging 56.0 (with one-minute recovery and three minutes bet-ween sets)"
Extremly hard and anaerobic training. He ran 3.34, 7.33 and 13.03.
That is not fully "anaerobic" training.
He runs 60.4 per lap for 3K, so the miles are slower than this.
The 400's are a but faster than 1500 pace, the 600's about 1500 pace or slightly slower, and the 1,000's a bit faster again than 3K pace.
please dont bring this thread to the top ever again
MorrisonDr. wrote:
please dont bring this thread to the top ever again
I was replying to another post.
If you are aware of a means to reply to a post without bringing it to the top, by all means share your "wisdom."
Otherwise, I suggest you cease your attempt to usurp moderator privileges from Weldon and Robert. Add something to the discussion or say nothing at all.
Tergat never ran as a youth. He lived right by his school. He is quoted as saying he was running 60km a day during his build up for Athens. Thats basically 3 halfs a day.
The best measure of my speed I ever made was in 1973. This was reasonably good competitive year in the 1500 m for me. I ran 3.39 and a 3.57 mile. One kind of funny thing about that year is my stability. I ran 3.39,- at best but had 6 races under 3.40 and 10 under 3.41.
One day during this season I warmed up pretty much like I should compete and ran 2*300m with 300m jog as rest. The rest might have been 500 - I do not have my notes in front of me.
I ran 38,1 and 37,9. This was an all out effort with another runner.
Interesting with Mark Carroll's sessions. He seems to very link his racing speed over different distances directly to the track work he does. The workouts you mention are the some kind of "all time best" or just regular run of the mill work during his track training? Do you know how his training progresses?
Oh my god you killed the post.
Post started off well and is now a heap of shit. Well done guys!
Don't worry, just a small break for the weekend. The water of this thread is Renato, it grows bigger after every post he does, and it will never ever die.
Sorry if that is the case. This was certainly not my intention.
KnutK,
You're probably put this elsewhere, but have you ever outlined the training you did at Oregon. A long time ago, I bought one of Bill's books, but didn't want to follow the program word for word since it was for elite guys. Any basics? Also, how fast did you guys train? He never really mentioned that...except for a few places where he said 13:45 guys should run 6:20 pace on easy days.
Renato and others:
What do you suggest for improving basic leg speed for a distance runner?
I am slow enough so that even if I improved a lot my aerobic ability, I still could not do anything special without getting faster over 200m-400m.
jackson is innocent
I really would like to know the proper percent for doing the short speed uphill.
When you say Bill I am not certain if upu mean Bill Bowerman og Bill Dellinger. I didi some training under both. First Boweraman coached me and some comments on Bill's training you will find here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=435103&thread=432770
My third year in Eugene Dellinger coached me. Last year I pcked up a used copy of Bill D's book which I had never seen before. The training Bill describes in the book is from his best period as a coach whith Salazar and a bunch of guys runining fast times. When I was in Eugene Pre was Bill's star runner so this was some years before. The principles in the book are the same we ran under but they are developed further by time he wrote the book.
The times run on the easy runs varied from runner to runner. I belive most of us probably ran between 6.30 and 6.00 on most of those depending on how we felt. I never timed those and it never said to run at a given pace on the schedules.
With Bill D the hard days were so demanding that you had to adjust your easy running to make sure you got your rest.