projected 1500 m. time

Indeed, Joe, 5k training constitutes the majority of the training year for many outstanding 1500m runners.

John Walker was known for saying that a world-class miler has the endurance of a 5k man and the speed of an 800m man. No offense, ladies, same theory applies.

High anaerobic capacity alone will never make you a good miler. Like all training, balance is key.

Joe, you're one of the few who still preach hills. DEEE HEEELS!!! It used to be everyone ran hills. Now eveyone runs a long run. Ya think there just might be a link?

What type of hills would you advise a 1500-5k guy to do during the offseason (I won't be able to do many hills in season)? Long 1000 meter repeats at about tempo/threshold effort or the 100-200 hard steep hills? 400-600 medium paced? Combination? I plan on doing a tempo run and a hill workout every week during the offseason and was curious to see what the all of you (tinman, malmo, joe) think.

Cragg Advocate wrote:

What type of hills would you advise a 1500-5k guy to do during the offseason (I won't be able to do many hills in season)? Long 1000 meter repeats at about tempo/threshold effort or the 100-200 hard steep hills? 400-600 medium paced? Combination? I plan on doing a tempo run and a hill workout every week during the offseason and was curious to see what the all of you (tinman, malmo, joe) think.

Jerry Jones: What's it going to be Deon, TEN million or TWENTY million?

Deon Sanders: Bofe.

Run big-kahuna-muther hills. Take a short jog down the back side. Sprint back up 100 meters. Do again. Each loop will be about a mile. Do it ten times. Every other week. Report back.

If that doesn't put the badass in yo' ass nothing will.

What would you reccomend to do for the second workout every other week besides a tempo run? A different hill workout, fartlek, or what? Also, when you say a big hill, do you mean like 1000 meters or so? And should these long uphill stretches be moderate or should they hurt like hell too? Thanks.

1500m runners need hill reps, no doubt. You can do all the wt training you want, but nothing is as good as hill sprints, hill sprining, hill bounding for increasing power in your running stride.

I like the idea of one weekly hill session of 40-50 second hills (around 200-300m). The intensity can range from 80-90% of max sprint effort for the distance. If you can run the hill in 40 seconds at 100% effort, then run up it at 44-50 seconds (90-80% effort)(40 / .9 = 44.44 and 40 / .8 = 50 seconds). I think that 80-85% can be done in reasonable volume and provide a solid stimulus for power gain. I would rather you do 6-8 hills than 3-4, so if you have to jog an extra 2-3 minutes at the bottom of the hill to keep the volume and speed up, do so. I think a few slightly downhill striders after the hill reps will loosen the muscles and create some neural quickness too.

As crazy as it sounds to a lot of people in our modern era, I think you can run hill reps with 100-200m fast striders afterward throughout the track season, as long as you aren't racing within 3 days of the hill session. I would not do hill reps the week of the peak race though.

Folks, hill reps are a key for people who have a tendency to get injured. It is almost impossible to tear a muscle sprinting uphill. You can fatigue a muscle greatly and possibly strain it a little if you do too much too soon, but far less so than running speedwork on the flats. Frank Shorter is known for saying that hills are speedwork in disguise.

Tinman: Your description is just about what I use the whole thing for and how I use it. The one concern however is that if a runner has a better 400 than 8 or 15 then you are not sure if that person needs more endurance or if they are just designed that way and will have a greater dicrepency between the distances which could suggest getting the 400 even faster so the same drop off is associated with a better 400 and the 8 and 15 remain related to the 400 to the same degree. Same could apply to a person with a better 15 than the expected 400. One thing seems evident and that is if you make a table of the associated times (using your formula or mine, and with the faster times at the top of each column) with what are estimated to be equal times across the three columns, and then you draw a line connecting your best in all 3 distances, they will usually fall on a straight line. That line may slope down toward the longer distances or slope down toward the 400 column, indicating better speed or endurance, respectively. Many will have a horizontal line indicating equal performances. If you line up the 400 and 1500 (1600/mile or whatever is preferred) and the 800 is below that line then a good 800 just hasn't been run and is sure to follow. Naturally, anyone can use the relationships as they wish.

"South African coach Abrie de Swardt has come up with some excellent tips for hill training in a recent issue of The Coach. Hill training, as you may be aware, offers the following benefits:

*helps develop power and muscle elasticity;

*improves stride frequency and length;

*develops co-ordination, encouraging the proper use of arms during the driving phase and feet in the support phase;

*develops control and stabilisation as well as improved speed (downhill running);

*promotes strength endurance;

*develops maximum speed and strength (short uphill runs).

Abrie de Swardt is a big fan of hill training for endurance athletes and believes it can make the difference between winning and losing. Here are a number of ways to complete hill sessions that will help elevate your performance:

1. Short hills ? 5-10 seconds to improve the phosphocreatine system of anaerobic energy production (speed strength) or 15-30 seconds to improve the lactic (glycolytic) power system;

2. Whistle hills ? controlled by the coach with a whistle, eg sets of 10s, 15s, 20s, 25s flat-out sprints, with an easy recovery jog of one minute between each and 3-5 minutes between sets;

3. Short hills of 30-80m to develop speed strength;

4. Longer hills of 150-200m for strength endurance;

5. Hills of 400-1,000m and hilly circuits over several kilometres for ultra-distance runners;

6. Downhill sprints over 50-80m for increased leg speed;

7. Hill bounding or hops and skipping over 30-80m."

The Coach, Issue 16, Page 18-20

he is not the only one.

Mercier, Leger and Desjardins, University of Montreal indicate that at least two performances should be used in determining performances at different distances. The accuracy is improved if: 1) the performances are made at close distances, too far out either direction incorporates too many other factors; 2) performances were made within a reasonable time frame (same season); 3) the runner specifically trained for the two distances which all others are predicted from.

Is anyone familiar with Young's Table and if the National Running Data Center in Tucson still exists?

Malmo,

As JD stated those charts are simply average statistical values for predicted mile times.

But it does bring up some important points.

1. You can optimize endurance a bit beyond this prediction.

2. But, speed is the ultimate limitation, particularly in middle distance.

You can also argue that speed/quality, is important in events up to the marathon too.

Look at Jerry Lawson's 2 American Records in the marathon after training with Jack.

The overall mileage was lower, but there was a focus on quality. Higher quality both in the REP work and THRESHOLD work and MARATHON PACE work.

The point is that you can keep focusing on the endurance side of the equation, but you may actually be hurting your long term potential because your speed may decline.

So a higher endurance optmized around a slower max velocity can = a slower race time.

A person with a PR of 50 may be able to run a 3:38 1500m by focusing on the endurance side.

But that same person could have run a 3:30 or faster if the speed was improved down to 46...(i.e. Seb Coe example)

Just don't trash Daniel's Formula like you did because it has helped many Americans run well, particularly in the marathon.

Look at Dehaven using the Jack Daniels MP tables...and he the lone qualifier in 2000.

Wolverine:

I am surprised, as well, that JD jumped in with that very specific answer/guess with such other little detail. And I have respect for his experience as a coach. He has done a nice job with a lot of athletes. (and even indirectly helped me with some information)

I guarantee that if I had 1:49 speed I would have been thinking WAY faster than 4:01 / 3:45. and I know many guys that quick who will never break 3:50. 400/800 times are so unreliabe to be almost meaningless.

And if you think the tables were the key to Rodney's and Jerry's success you have not followed their history.

Those boys were talented, hard working, hard ass competitors. Ask JD he will tell you these guys maybe needed some tweaking not a formula.

And regarding your comment about "focusing on the endurance side" to run 3:38, UH, REALLY!

I'm with Malmo on this one. I've got several incidents that don't match up on my team. One case of the 400 to 800 conversion is off by about seven seconds.

mplatt,

The post was not to take anything away from Jerry or Rod regarding talent or competitiveness. Both are outstanding.

It was just to point out that quality side focus got results in the marathon too.

And that Jerry got his best results with the quality focus directly working with Daniels.

To my knowledge Jerry was going no where with the "untamed mileage" approach before he worked with JD on hitting specific paces in workouts. I could be wrong though. But I'm pretty sure from everything I've read that this is basically the "gist" of the story during those Chicago AR marathon races.

The point about working on "the endurance side" to run 3:38 was to show that you may have more "endurance" but the end result is a SLOWER time than if you focused on a balance between speed and endurance.

As you know the purpose of any race is the get the fastest time. The fastest time is best combination of endurance and speed.

Jtupper:

I agree with you on the idea of the 400m fast time indicating that an athlete may have a natural ability to run fast and that training may not necessarily be the reason that the fast time was run. So, as you state, it would be wise to consider whether it would be good to improve the 400m time even more. The same is true, of course for runners who do well comparitively in the 3k and show very good aerobic capacity versus speed from a genetic standpoint. Good example would be Vicky who ran for you. If memory serves me correctly, she did not have much 400m speed, so training her anaerobic capacity was not really a good idea, rather continue to develop her aerobic system would cause her 1500m time to drop. Later, she just plain moved up in distance to where she could maximize her natural ability. Is that right?

You've definitely got the leg speed to POTENTIALLY run very fast in the 1500. My best 440yds(HS ) was 52 on a mile relay and I ran 1500m in 3:47 in college. My training however was geared more toward competing at the 3 mile and 6 mile distances. As Lydiard would say, now it's time to "get stuck in the work"!

m.d. runner wrote:

Thanks for the ineteresting responses. I was a little surprised to see Jack's prediction as I know people slower at 400/800 who have run faster. 3:38-9 is what I've heard in the past, but I didn't want to influence the models cited. Also, just to tell everyone, I actually havee run a 1500's before, my p.r. right now is 3:48. Joe Rubio and jtupper, I'd be interested in talking with you further, if you are interested in emailing me. Malmo, thanks also for the anecdotal evidence, I was hoping a reliable source would cite some.

Read all of these posts, and you come to the conclusion that, NO, we cannot predict it.

That's all, period. Depending on how fit you are, aerobically, it could range as much as 10+ seconds (an eternity in a mile). I think a lot more details are needed about his training to make any prediction.

I know a 1:44.9 guy that can't break 4:14, these formulas are ridiculous, if this guys can actuallt run distance like a 14:15 5k than I see a 3:40 in his future if not, do you know how many sub par 1:49 guys there are out there, that doesn't even qualify you for nats and people are predicting times that would win nats for his 1500, ridiculous, I'm not saying he can't do it, but you need more to go on.

Come on people... of course not everybody who runs 50 in the 400 will run the same times in the 800 and the 1500. No one ever tried to say that yet people have repeatedly tried to disprove that theory (or lack thereof).