Does shorter rest periods between intervals train the body to dispose of lactate faster?

What do people think of progressing their intervals from longer (1000/800 @ 5k race pace) with full recovery at the beginning of the season to full anaerobic (but shorter-i.e.200's) at the end of the season. The shorter, quicker intervals would be accompanied by less rest. Thoughts about this?

malmo wrote:Pete. The rule of thumb for the ubiquitous 10 x 400 at mile pace would be 1:00 minute rest.

I don't think I could do that workout. Or, if I did it, I wouldn't want to do it very often, because it would beat the hell out of my body.

Yesterday I ran 3 x (4 x 400) with about 70-75s (200 m) jog rest between reps and 2:10-20 (400 m) between sets and managed about 2s/lap slower than mile pace. That was a hard, but invigorating session.

If I tried to run them 2 s faster on shorter rest, I think I would have been puking halfway through the session.

Now, a month from now, it's possible I could be ready for a session like that. But I think if I could manage it, it would mean my guestimated mile time would be too conservative.

Clearly, I could be wrong, but this is my impression based on how I think that kind of session would go for me at this point in my training (noting that I don't do very much short/fast "speed" training).

And just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, when I think of "rest" between reps, I mean active (jogging) rest, not standing rest. Standing rest might make those 400s easier? I can't say for sure as I never take standing rest in any work session.

A couple of other points that I was implying but didn't come out and say - 400s (for me anyway) seem to get a little easier each time you do them (which is why I might think I could run that session in a month but not now), and, I also think some people are more naturally inclined for running fast 400s than others (who might have the same current 5k ability), whether due to natural abilities/preferences (more or less ST vs FT muscle fibres) or training (better or worse aerobic fitness).

pete wrote:

]I don't think I could do that workout. Or, if I did it, I wouldn't want to do it very often, because it would beat the hell out of my body.

Probably for the same reason you CAN run 5 mile tempo runs at half marathon pace. If you can run a tempo run at half marathon pace, that's a sure sign you are not training properly for the half marathon, hence, the reason why you are underperforming at that distance. A vicious circle, for sure.

Likewise, if you cannot run 10 x 400 at your mile pace with a minute rest, that's a sure sign you are not training properly for the mile -- which, might not be an issue at all, since it doesn't appear that you are actually training for the mile in the first place.

Does that make sense to you?

pete wrote:

And just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, when I think of "rest" between reps, I mean active (jogging) rest, not standing rest. Standing rest might make those 400s easier? .

Standing rest would make the workout feel harder, Pete. How long did you say you've been running?

pete wrote:I don\\\'t know why you need to make things personal, malmo. This was a general discussion, not about me, and not about you.

Wow, You're carrying around a lot of baggage. Nothing in my post was personal at all, and all of it was about training.

By "you" I don't mean YOU personally, Pete. And suppose I did, what would be your point?

You got me, malmo. That was a good one.

In any event, to reply to one of your criticisms, I've never run 5 miles at HM pace in training, and I don't know where you got that from. I've done (once, as a check test about 3 weeks before a HM last year), 2 x 5k @ HM pace with long jog rest (10 min). The longest session I've done in the last year (once) at HM pace would be 5k. I wouldn't try 5 miles at HM pace. You've got me mistaken for some other dude.

nordicX wrote:

What do people think of progressing their intervals from longer (1000/800 @ 5k race pace) with full recovery at the beginning of the season to full anaerobic (but shorter-i.e.200's) at the end of the season. The shorter, quicker intervals would be accompanied by less rest. Thoughts about this?

I think you have it backwards. We start with 800/1200/1M intervals at 3K pace, but with incomplete recovery (rest <= work). At the end of the season we are doing the shorter, quicker intervals but with mucho rest. By the way, this is training for 5K XC.

malmo wrote:

pete wrote:I don\'t know why you need to make things personal, malmo. This was a general discussion, not about me, and not about you.

Wow, You're carrying around a lot of baggage. Nothing in my post was personal at all, and all of it was about training.

By "you" I don't mean YOU personally, Pete. And suppose I did, what would be your point?

Pete wrote:

You got me, malmo. That was a good one.

In any event, to reply to one of your criticisms, I've never run 5 miles at HM pace in training, and I don't know where you got that from. I've done (once, as a check test about 3 weeks before a HM last year), 2 x 5k @ HM pace with long jog rest (10 min). The longest session I've done in the last year (once) at HM pace would be 5k. I wouldn't try 5 miles at HM pace. You've got me mistaken for some other dude.

My god, you're paranoid Pete. No one is trying to "get you."

Pete, YOU is not "YOU=Pete". Sorry my prose wasn't clearer. YOU is "you who try to run tempo runs too fast," and that YOU is the one whom I'm speaking of. It's that YOU whom I'm always speaking of, and always have.

Quit projecting.

[/quote]Where's you get that line from malmo? I don't see a post from me in this thread with those words. I have no point in that line of discussion. I believe you must have been talking to yourself.[/quote]

It apparently went into Letsrun black hole just as I was responding to your post.

malmo wrote:Pete, YOU is not "YOU=Pete". Sorry my prose wasn't clearer. YOU is "you who try to run tempo runs too fast," and that YOU is the one whom I'm speaking of. It's that YOU whom I'm always speaking of, and always have.

malmo, when humans quote other humans in reply to them, and then use the word "you" in their reply, the normal assumption is that you're speaking about the individual to whom "you" have just replied (and quoted).

In the future, I will try to remember that "you" (meaning you, not "you") have a different convention for use of the word "you."

I think you're the only person in my entire life who has accused me of being paranoid malmo. I'm pretty sure I'm not paranoid - it's just that "you" (not you) are out to get me.

I still don't think "I" could run that 10 x 400 at mile pace on 1:00 rest, but as "you" (not you) have correctly pointed out, "I"'m not training for the mile.

(Damn, I think I may have got one of my "you"/you's wrong...)

[/quote]malmo, when humans quote other humans in reply to them, and then use the word "you" in their reply, the normal assumption is that you're speaking about the individual to whom "you" have just replied (and quoted).

In the future, I will try to remember that "you" (meaning you, not "you") have a different convention for use of the word "you."

I think you're the only person in my entire life who has accused me of being paranoid malmo. I'm pretty sure I'm not paranoid - it's just that "you" (not you) are out to get me.

I still don't think "I" could run that 10 x 400 at mile pace on 1:00 rest, but as "you" (not you) have correctly pointed out, "I"'m not training for the mile.

(Damn, I think I may have got one of my "you"/you's wrong...)[/quote]

Pete, What is wrong with you? I said "SORRY THAT MY PROSE WASN'T CLEAR" I don't edit my posts in anticipation of every nuance of interpretation. It's a freakin message board.

The old saying is apropos here: "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

malmo wrote:Pete, What is wrong with you?

Just to be clear, malmo, should "I" take this one as a personal attack from you (not "you") or are "you" addressing "those who would run their tempos too fast" again. I can't tell now. You've quoted "me", and you're replying to "me," but I don't know if you mean "me" or me (meaning "us" although not us).

Can "I" take offence to this one (you've suggested there's something wrong with "me," or can I take comfort that you really mean there's something wrong with all of "me" (us - those who tempo too quickly), and that in fact perhaps it's you (not "you") who might be, dare I suggest, paranoid?

Help a brother out...?

Pete, give it a rest. There's no help for you. If there were, you wouldn't take it anyway.

You calling uncle?

Good job Pete for stopping a great thread in its tracks.

Pete wrote:

You calling uncle?

No. I want to help you to continue to screw up a perfectly good training thread.

Pete. "Give it a rest" means GIVE IT A REST.

thinker wrote:Good job Pete for stopping a great thread in its tracks.

I think you give me too much credit. And look, the thread has stayed near the top of the page this morning, so clearly it's not dead. It may have taken a bit of a tangent away from the original intent, but hey, this place is as much about entertainment as it is about information, and if nothing else, I got some idle entertainment, and perhaps some of you enjoyed watching me and malmo take our lumps.

But to go back to the original theme, I think that the rest between intervals depends on the intent for the workout as well as the current state of fitness, point in the season and the length of the reps. I believe (and an earlier poster who said he'd been coaching HS for 30 years sorta suggested) that the real fast stuff with long rest needs to be sprinkled into the training in moderation, rather than as a regular staple. I think the hard VO2max sessions should be done relatively infrequently, and mostly when getting close to the peak races of the season. I think the earlier workload should have a healthier dose of slower reps with shorter rest, which is much more aerobic, rather than faster reps with long rest.

This is just my opinion, mind you.