Van Aaken was against hills. Igloi too no doubt.
Van Aaken was against hills. Igloi too no doubt.
Not necessary, but they do help build strength.
Schul and Norpoth went one two wrote:
Van Aaken was against hills. Igloi too no doubt.
Arthur Lydiard, Percy Cerutty, and Peter Coe. All big proponents of hills. Which results do you want?
I'm all for serious response on any question about running. Even some of the questions about
other subjects are okay. But what passes for a good question or thread amazes me.
Are hills necessary for track? I can see this one getting "trolled," by some idiot.
I posted a serious thread about long runs and ONE person accused me of trolling.
No One Else responded.
Are You Really That Stupid?
I'm going to have me a beer.
Schul and Norpoth went one two wrote:
against hills. Igloi too no doubt.
Hills are a lot like track intervals, but against more resistance and teaching better bounding.
You do not know what trolling is. wrote:
I'm all for serious response on any question about running. Even some of the questions about
other subjects are okay. But what passes for a good question or thread amazes me.
Are hills necessary for track? I can see this one getting "trolled," by some idiot.
I posted a serious thread about long runs and ONE person accused me of trolling.
No One Else responded.
Are You Really That Stupid?
I'm going to have me a beer.
It's all in how you ask it. Just make sure to use good grammar, be honest, and tell everyone your 5k time. Don't give the trolls bait.
Anyways, this has been great info. I will likely be incorporating more hill workouts into my regimen.
I ran on a track with a hill. The backstretch was uphill and the front stretch was downhill. The 100m guys were running .3 seconds faster than usual.