Discus - Easy runs, tempos and short intervals is the recipe for success?

malmo wrote:

NEWSFLASH! SCIENTISTS DISCOVER WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN!

+1

When I first saw this I thought of you, your training log and your thoughts on tempo running.

I knew it wrote:

So basically, you can reach most of your potential in running by just running a lot, whenever you feel good do a "run to the barn"/steady state run/progression run and doing some short reps(defined as what?). Not surprised. Keep it simple stupid.

Yes!

Add some hills and I think hilly tempo runs help, although they will mess with your V-Dot- which is why I don't like V-Dot.

Use race pace and "feel" as a guide.

arpy wrote:

You left out weight training and technique. The discus is not that easy to throw at the top level , even if Daniel Stahl's recent performance may have looked that way.

Maybe he stalled in his wait training, but I doubt that led to all those >69.5m throws.

You are correct, running alone is not enough to reach your potential at discus.

runn wrote:

I knew it wrote:

So basically, you can reach most of your potential in running by just running a lot, whenever you feel good do a "run to the barn"/steady state run/progression run and doing some short reps(defined as what?). Not surprised. Keep it simple stupid.

Yes!

Add some hills and I think hilly tempo runs help, although they will mess with your V-Dot- which is why I don't like V-Dot.

Use race pace and "feel" as a guide.

Unfortunately facts (vDot) don't care about your feelings (race pace, feel).

The title of your thread has nothing to do with training for the discus event, very confusing.

Tinman states that CV pace correlates to 90-94% HR, which is would be "long intervals" according to this study, not tempos. So it seems that this paper actually discredits CV training for elites?

gdeegz wrote:

Tinman states that CV pace correlates to 90-94% HR, which is would be "long intervals" according to this study, not tempos. So it seems that this paper actually discredits CV training for elites?

That's correct. CV intervals start with the first one at 88-90% at the end, and then after 2-3 reps you reach around 92-94% HR at the end of the reps.

But do you really think it's possible to test the effect of training like that? The study is useless. Tinman believes in individualizing training based on FT- and ST-fibers, this study puts all athletes in the same boat. Also, long intervals are prescribed as "1000-2000m at 90-95% HRMax" - there is a HUGE difference between 6x1k at CV and 6x2k at CV. There is also a difference between 5x2k at 95% HRMax and 4xMile at 90% HRMax.

HR depends on at least a dozen different factors, so it should never be part of such a test anyway.

We have to consider that:

- Humans are individual. What one human responds to very well, might be a performance loss for someone else (let some of the current US elites try Jim Ryuns training for some time and they would all be toast after just a few weeks).

- The ranges are far too wide in the test. "Short intervals (between 200 and1,000 m long and from 95 to 100% of maximum heart rate[HRmax] in intensity)"

gdeegz wrote:

http://www.therunzone.com/viewtopic.php?t=2628

Tinman states that CV pace correlates to 90-94% HR, which is would be "long intervals" according to this study, not tempos. So it seems that this paper actually discredits CV training for elites?

That's correct. CV intervals start with the first one at 88-90% at the end, and then after 2-3 reps you reach around 92-94% HR at the end of the reps.

But do you really think it's possible to test the effect of training like that? The study is useless. Tinman believes in individualizing training based on FT- and ST-fibers, this study puts all athletes in the same boat. Also, long intervals are prescribed as "1000-2000m at 90-95% HRMax" - there is a HUGE difference between 6x1k at CV and 6x2k at CV. There is also a difference between 5x2k at 95% HRMax and 4xMile at 90% HRMax.

HR depends on at least a dozen different factors, so it should never be part of such a test anyway.

We have to consider that:

- Humans are individual. What one human responds to very well, might be a performance loss for someone else (let some of the current US elites try Jim Ryuns training for some time and they would all be toast after just a few weeks). They did not even separate between fast-twitch and slow-twitch runners in this test, which could be easily done by a muscle biopsy.

- The ranges are far too wide in the test. "Short intervals (between 200 and1,000 m long and from 95 to 100% of maximum heart rate[HRmax] in intensity)" - is this a joke? There is a huge difference between 200m and 1,000m repeats and the pace they are being done at. Also, some of the most intense sessions like 3x5x200 or 8x400 at 800m (mile) pace or faster will never reach close to that max HR. Let an elite do 8x400 in 59s with long rest and I guarantee you he will NOT get above 84-87% of his max HR at any rep. The aerobic system simply can't get up to maximum capacity that quickly.

- There are several external factors affecting running performance. What if an athlete improved nutrition? What if he lost weight? What if he gets more sleep? What if he is doing more strength/core now?

This study doesn't account for many factors and is therefore not very useful. I think discussing optimal training is very important and there have been great advances by coaches like Tinman or even here on the forums with Canova and Hadd/Cabral. We can learn much more from them coaching and training actual elite athletes than from a silly scientific paper that is trying to dumb down the complexity of running and make it very one-dimensional.

Libertarian Centrist wrote:

runn wrote:

Yes!

Add some hills and I think hilly tempo runs help, although they will mess with your V-Dot- which is why I don't like V-Dot.

Use race pace and "feel" as a guide.

Unfortunately facts (vDot) don't care about your feelings (race pace, feel).

Arthur don't care about Shapiro.

I don't think easy runs have much to do with success in discus.

Definitely not a top an optimal predictor.

arpy wrote:

You left out weight training and technique. The discus is not that easy to throw at the top level , even if Daniel Stahl's recent performance may have looked that way.

Maybe he stalled in his wait training, but I doubt that led to all those >69.5m throws.

You must be new on Letsrun.

Vobjsbcov wrote:

The title of your thread has nothing to do with training for the discus event, very confusing.

New on Letsrun?

y nobody give u sh1t? wrote:

I don't think easy runs have much to do with success in discus.

Definitely not a top an optimal predictor.

Lots of Letsrun newcomers on this thread.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

longer, moderate tempo runs instead of the 20 min Daniel's tempo

Wrong. The HR range in the study for tempo (82-92%) is well within typical Daniel's tempo HR (88-90%). The authors seem to define tempo as ranging from marathon pace up to perhaps 12k or 15k pace. This is also clear from their duration of 45-70 minutes (as in MP) or 1,000 to 5,000 intervals (as in Daniel's LT). Neither heart rates nor duration supports Tinman over Daniels.

slower 1k intervals at CV pace rather than Daniel's VO2MAX pace.

I simply don't know how you can conclude this given that authors specifically point out that one component that doesn't have any as significant impact is precisely the CV component. To quote the study, "between 1,000 and 2,000 m long and from 92 to 95% of HRmax," The HR corresponds to about 12k to 8k, right in the CV range.

I guess everything's a nail to a hammer. You just want to see support of Tinman's training despite the fact that they seem to conclude CV pace is the one that has the least effect. Don't get me wrong I like some of Tinman's ideas (year round CV and sparing use of VO2max type of work), but may I suggest you approach things without a confirmation bias.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

[quote]gdeegz wrote:

http://www.therunzone.com/viewtopic.php?t=2628

We can learn much more from them coaching and training actual elite athletes than from a silly scientific paper that is trying to dumb down the complexity of running and make it very one-dimensional.

Well.....not true! Tjelta is a very recognized Ph and knows a lot about the brothers Ingebrigtsens training system.

Don’t the Ingebrigstens do lots of long intervals or are these considered “broken tempos” and fall into the tempo run category?

Ah. I should have read the whole thread first.

It depends on the individual. Each one is different with different body adjustments to training, it is not a recipe for success, just a study with a suggestion.

Easy runs, tempos, and short intervals will not help you too much in the Discus