Remind me what's the point of speed reps?

Those times show decent potential but lack of aerobic fitness... the best and easiest path to improving your 1500m+ times is to step away from track and put in a decent base phase.... miles and lots of them.

Agree. If he’s applying Daniels’ principles and doing 12 x 200, that suggest 30 miles per week or so. That’s not getting to your potential.

semenyagoat wrote:

Isnt daniels saying 200m repeat and then 200m jog? that would be more like 75 sec rest. Just last week I did 16*200. I like the repeat workouts exactly because they are fast but not hard.

Did something very similar recently 16 x 200m in 45 approx with 200m jog recovery in 60 secs.

Just a question of getting in something faster - near vV02 max pace (I'm 62) - but short enough that it's still actually an aerobic session overall.

Running faster intervals is important to improve running economy. The Better you improve this area, the more efficient you will be at race specific speeds(relative to what your race distance/goals). But you must challenge your bodies ability to do this often, as for most people this is a highly adaptable system.

Everyone’s different of course. But I remember I was very fit and ready to run fast if 25 second 200s felt smooth. I achieved this by doing 200s at 22-23 with 2-3 min rest. only 6-8 were needed to achieve proper workload and it usually came after a long interval say a 1k in 2:40. Then when doing 200s at 25 with 200 jog(65-75 sec) I could get through 10-12 no problem and was ready to run well over 800-1500m.

niet wrote:

I do mostly easy, tempo/threshold, hills/fartlek type running, but now and then do some "speedwork" using Daniels' R pace, which at my VDOT level, is 47s for 200m. I did 11x200 today averaging 42s with 2 min rest and it was ridiculously easy, as it always is. It felt like nothing was being stressed - not legs, heart or lungs.

Please remind me what this is meant to accomplish so I have some motivation to do it again. It's not like I don't enjoy the session - it's fun (and easy!) - but what's it actually doing for me?

Do: 12 x 200m with 90 seconds recovery averaging 37 seconds. If that's too easy, do: 12 x 200m with 60 recovery averaging 32 seconds.

forget Daniels wrote:

Do: 12 x 200m with 90 seconds recovery averaging 37 seconds. If that's too easy, do: 12 x 200m with 60 recovery averaging 32 seconds.

This.

But to be fair, the OP is pretty dumb.

Ernest wrote:

200 repeats has got to be one of flashiest but least useful workouts for a distance runner.

If you weren't stressed, it might because because the aerobic component is small (~20% ATP aerobic) nor is it long enough to experience lactic discomfort.

You're not thinking fourth dimensionally Marty.

Let's put it another way... if there is a place for repeat 200s in a distance running program, it would probably best for in a sharpening phase for a well-trained runner.

Most here, including the OP, train far below potential, meaning there are still easy fitness pickin's elsewhere.

For those folks, instead of 200 m repeats (that speak mostly to what mama gave ya). spending that training time on a LT /Tempo run, or even another easy run, might put more coin in the go-fast bank.

There is definitely a place for 200s in a distance runner’s training plan. I start almost every training cycle off with 200s as my first track session - although it’s usually part of a 4 x 200, 4 x 400, 4 x 200 workout. It’s a relatively low impact way to get back on the track, it helps with re-establishing good form, it serves as a bridge to longer speed workouts like 8 x 400, and it makes vo2max Pace feel manageable.

I also like them as part of end of season sharpening workouts as you suggested, and as an occasional part of a cruise interval threshold session (usually by way of a set of 3 x 200 before and after the cruise intervals).

I agree you get less bang for your buck than you do with traditional longer intervals and with tempo efforts, but most people are going to do a tempo workout in addition to their track session, so you aren’t really forced to choose.

Really, they aren’t a core workout, but they are a useful tool when properly implemented as part of an overall phased training plan.

What Smoove says makes a lot of sense. Like doing them in the first 10% and last 10% of the build. I personally like fartleks vice track for short intervals...like 10 x 1' with 1' jog recovery which I guess is like 300s. Overall, it seems to me that the easiest way to make fast seem manageable is to run faster than the pace for a shorter distance. So easiest way to make MP feel easier is run HMP, HMP then at 10k pace, 10k pace at 5k, and so on. This would apply all the way down to 100s.

Tinman figured out how to train optimally - he is never using single sessions for fast speed, like Daniel's does with R, but instead tacks it on his fitness-maximizing workouts (CV, tempo runs, threshold) which is more than enough to get the benefit of them.

So instead of a weekly schedule with 1 longer repeats and 1 R session, Tinman would do 1 longer repeats + some speed and 1 tempo run + some speed.

Why is Tinman's style better?

1) Every week, you have 2 workouts that improve fitness dramatically (usually CV and a tempo), compares to Daniels 1 workout. The R session is integrated in the two workouts by doing 3-4x200m.

2) The CV/Tempo warms you up for doing the faster stuff, so it's much less likely to get injured. Do a R session and start just a little bit too fast, and you have major risk of injury.