or i should just do easy distance runs
or i should just do easy distance runs
Doing that once a week would be a good idea, but if you are a middle/long distance runner you have to do your easy runs.
If you are an 800 specialist, this could be a good easy session, provided you keep the paces under control.
^Jorgen99^ wrote:
or i should just do easy distance runs
You can do it if you want to, and it's actually easy. Some days when I'm feeling a certain sort of sluggish, I'll do something like 20 minutes easy, then 12 x 100m on grass easy-fast,, then easy to 45-50 minutes. I usually feel much better after the 100s.
thanks I'm a 3k/5k runner, I asked because just easy runs leave me feeling flat
Easy runs are supposed to make you flat. If you want to feel sharp add 6 x 50m accelerations at the end of an easy run.
Lets definitely keep this going. I want to hear other people's opinion on this.
People think that anytime you specify anything beyond a jog and some strides, the workout is hard.
The session listed above could certainly be a recovery session for some types of athletes.
The purpose of a recovery session is to you know, recover and prepare for harder training. If easy runs leave you feeling flat, it is possible you are more of a "speed type" runner.
lease has written about athletes that he has trained using workouts such as 40-50 x 100 as a recovery day while their teammates went out for an easy 5-6 miler.
Some good posts above. ‘Easy’ does not necessarily mean slow. Easier/recovery days can take many different forms.. in fact I think they SHOULD vary.. many times people ending up running 2 workouts a week with 5 days running 50-70 minutes at roughly the same pace every day. If you have been running for 6-8+ years following this same pattern I tend to think you would have some benefit for mixing it up.
Also, the ultimate goal is to race fast. Racing fast involves lots of different factors. Sometimes people get so focused on the metabolic aspect of training (oxygen utilization, cardiovascular system, VO2 max, lactate threshold, etc.) Yet they somewhat neglect the biomechanical and neuromuscular aspects involved.. I think that you could slightly enhance these other qualities by making tweaks to your easy/recovery days.
However, it will take some trial and error on an individual basis to find out what is truly easy and can keep your body in the right balance of stress and adaptation. There’s not really a definitive ‘correct answer’ on training strategies such as these. So make sure your overall training has a sound physiological basis and then expierememt with the tweaks that work best for you.
I like your idea, I'm going to try this for some easy days and see if it helps speed up recovery. I suspect this might be better than just an easy distance run.
it could be better for injury prevention
15x200 is a lot to do often, but once a week (maybe cut it to 10) would work. You can vary it a bit too (some days 100s, some days 400, but fewer reps).
I do 12 x 200, 20sec walk before and after, 200m jog in between.
You have to be able to really pace yourself. I try running them not faster than 40s, slower is even better.
200m is too long for a stride imho. Strides should be short to be alactic. Also 15 is a bit overkill.
A typical easy day for me may be 30-40 min easy + 6-10 strides... i wouldn't even wake up and go out of the door for a 20 min workout like yours.
this. make it into an alactic speed session working up to 10*120 m with full recovery. If you do them as hill sprints, it will
be more like a Renati Conover session, which seems to be very useful.
Ah yes, the famous Renati Conover.
Redefine wrote:
200m is too long for a stride imho. Strides should be short to be alactic. Also 15 is a bit overkill.
A typical easy day for me may be 30-40 min easy + 6-10 strides... i wouldn't even wake up and go out of the door for a 20 min workout like yours.
Why should strides only be short and alactic? What's wrong with using the glycolytic pathway a little bit. You can't just put everything into a neat little box.
1979 has the best answer to the OP's question.
CoachB wrote:
Redefine wrote:
200m is too long for a stride imho. Strides should be short to be alactic. Also 15 is a bit overkill.
A typical easy day for me may be 30-40 min easy + 6-10 strides... i wouldn't even wake up and go out of the door for a 20 min workout like yours.
Why should strides only be short and alactic? What's wrong with using the glycolytic pathway a little bit. You can't just put everything into a neat little box.
1979 has the best answer to the OP's question.
Not sure him giving us ALL a time to run them in constitutes "the best answer". You got Div 1 college men on here, master's women, hobby jugglers and everything in between! Personally, I am a 60 year old, juggling my music, running, soap carving, and surfing hobbies and would find 200 repeats anywhere near 40 seconds to be way too fast.
CoachB wrote:
Why should strides only be short and alactic? What's wrong with using the glycolytic pathway a little bit. You can't just put everything into a neat little box.
I don't call 200m or 300m repeats "strides", got it?
A stride is a short speed burst by definition, tipically 10 to 20 seconds.
kmaclam wrote:
CoachB wrote:
Why should strides only be short and alactic? What's wrong with using the glycolytic pathway a little bit. You can't just put everything into a neat little box.
1979 has the best answer to the OP's question.
Not sure him giving us ALL a time to run them in constitutes "the best answer". You got Div 1 college men on here, master's women, hobby jugglers and everything in between! Personally, I am a 60 year old, juggling my music, running, soap carving, and surfing hobbies and would find 200 repeats anywhere near 40 seconds to be way too fast.
Point taken. It would have been better if he said "40 seconds....which is my 5k race pace" or 3k pace or whatever he said. My point was as to the original intent of the OP to replace a standard easy run with some other type of recovery modality.