10% "rule" with regard to weekly speedwork -- Who says?

There IS a range of abilities - - - but my sense is that the slower runners actually benefit more from the tempo-type running, as you describe it, and the faster runners benefit more from pushing their engines a little bit harder. What I have really seen is that in past years, the recovery might have been "400 meters recovery" and depending on how fast or slow the person did that recovery lap could really affect the whole difficulty of the workout. This way, with everyone running in the same time block, things are much more structured. i actually think that the slower runners sometimes have the tougher workout, since their recovery time is pretty minimal, but I also think that that translates well to a racing situation, where there is no "recovery time" at all . . .

Coach B wrote:

...but I also think that that translates well to a racing situation, where there is no "recovery time" at all . . .

Fair enough. But if you think the shorter recovery translates well to a racing situation, why wouldn't you want the faster runners doing the "better" workout too?

I guess my point is simply that you're prescribing two very different workouts to your fastest and slowest runners. If you think there's some physiological justification because slower runners benefit more from tempo work, that's fine. But it sounds like it's more a question of convenience to have them all start together.

(I don't mean to sound too critical here. Having all the runners start together is certainly an advantage, and can help provide motivation to all the runners.)

The reality of the situation is I came up with these workouts somewhat by trial and error (and borrowing from the philosophy of swimming workouts) - - - - Is there any scientific validity to what I'm doing? I's love to know! (That's where my original question came from -- how much of the coaching rules are scientifically based, and how much is just stuff that's been handed down the generations). From a coach's perspective, I run three levels of workouts (the cheetahs, the mini-cheetahs, and the micro-cheetahs), and having everyone start off together certainly makes it easier to time runners and keep track of where they are in their workout. But you're right, if the slower runners benefit "more" from the shorter recovery period, then why not let the faster runners do that as well? (I think they'd revolt if their recovery periods were any shorter!) I have also heard the CONVENTIONAL WISDOM that says that the recovery period should be 50% of the running time (e.g., run a 6:00 mile and get a three minute recovery), and actually my runners are getting less than a 50% recovery (the 6:00 minute mile repeaters only get a 2:00 minute recovery period) . . . so again, where did that rule come from, and am I hurting my runners by violating it?

You don't need science to figure out running.

If you get too analytical you lose the feel for what to do.

But I love to analyze my feelings. :)

X Runner is right.

Yeah, but sometimes knowing the "science" behind the workout makes it easier to explain to a runner WHY we are doing a particular workout in a particular way . . . .