The secrets of Asbel Kiprop revealed - Our man on the ground in Kenya says hand him the gold and WRecord

ummmm, he did a 1200 in 2:47 before the 4's and 2's.

objective thoughts on this wrote:

Very interesting.

Ok, taken alone, I'd say "is that enough for a miler"?

Let's say I was trying to break 5:00 mile.

If I did a 4x400 workout: 74,74,74,74 as prep, people on this board would be screaming "not enough reps!". They would say "you are racing your workouts".

Is it the additional 4x200 that makes this work-out great?

I always thought mile training need at least 8x400 consecutive. This workout has lots of rest between sets. 7:00, right?

The speeds are very fast, but is this an ideal work-out for improvement, or is it just a confidence booster?

What?

objective thoughts on this wrote:

Very interesting.

Ok, taken alone, I'd say "is that enough for a miler"?

Let's say I was trying to break 5:00 mile.

If I did a 4x400 workout: 74,74,74,74 as prep, people on this board would be screaming "not enough reps!". They would say "you are racing your workouts".

Is it the additional 4x200 that makes this work-out great?

I always thought mile training need at least 8x400 consecutive. This workout has lots of rest between sets. 7:00, right?

The speeds are very fast, but is this an ideal work-out for improvement, or is it just a confidence booster?

What?

but... wrote:

Bigtool05 wrote:

Which would be a fair point if all he did was the 1200

Well, first of all, no they don't. El G's mile record was 2:47.91, so if it's not a sub-3:27 race, they aren't going through in 2:47. For another thing, you try running 1200 meters at 1500 pace to start a workout. Whether you run 3:50, 4:50, or 6:50, it's pretty insane! Roger Bannister knew he could break 4 when he ran ONE 1200 in 2:59.9. That was just the start of Kiprop's day.

Well, Bannister also supposedly ran a 1200 time trial in 2:52 in 1952, and didn't break 4 for a couple years. I imagine Kiprop's 2:47 was a lot more relaxed (and it was at altitude), but I don't think it is out of the realm of expectations for this workout.

bigtool05 wrote:

This makes Makhloufi's workout look like JV shit

I would say Makhloufi's workout (with a flying 1:44 800) was superior.

Kiprop's workout was very good - but people are generally overimpressed by fast 1200. Keep in mind that Peter Elliot did a 2:45 1200 TT back in like 1990.

The Champ wrote:

bigtool05 wrote:

This makes Makhloufi's workout look like JV shit

I would say Makhloufi's workout (with a flying 1:44 800) was superior.

Kiprop's workout was very good - but people are generally overimpressed by fast 1200. Keep in mind that Peter Elliot did a 2:45 1200 TT back in like 1990.

What did Peter follow that 1200 up with?

Think about that workout this way, with the paces adjusted for a 4:00 miler.

1200m in 2:59-3:00

7mins rest

4x400m in 58 58 59 58 (50s rest)

7mins rest

4x200m in 25 25 25 25 (50s rest)

Its a hard workout but doable. 7 mins is basically full recovery, especially for someone who is aerobically fit and that has lived at altitude his whole life. Also keep in mind altitude actually 'helps' sprints, so the 200s are probably easier when going that fast.

The Champ wrote:

bigtool05 wrote:

This makes Makhloufi's workout look like JV shit

I would say Makhloufi's workout (with a flying 1:44 800) was superior.

Kiprop's workout was very good - but people are generally overimpressed by fast 1200. Keep in mind that Peter Elliot did a 2:45 1200 TT back in like 1990.

Kiprop's is way better. 2:47 is more impressive than 1:44, plus Kiprop did way more overall volume and far less rest for the most part.

yeah no yeah no yeah no wrote:

Think about that workout this way, with the paces adjusted for a 4:00 miler.

1200m in 2:59-3:00

7mins rest

4x400m in 58 58 59 58 (50s rest)

7mins rest

4x200m in 25 25 25 25 (50s rest)

Its a hard workout but doable. 7 mins is basically full recovery, especially for someone who is aerobically fit and that has lived at altitude his whole life. Also keep in mind altitude actually 'helps' sprints, so the 200s are probably easier when going that fast.

How in the world do you know that it is a hard workout but doable for a 3:26 1500m guy at 7,300 ft altitude ?

Have you ever in your life done this workout at 7,300 ft. altitude? If you had actually done this workout at 7,300 ft altitude…you would not be saying that altitude makes the 200s easier in that workout. Absolute complete nonsense.

Altitude helps sprints when you are doing 1 sprint at altitude, not 4 x 200m in 23sec with 50sec rest, after 4 x 400m in 54sec with 50 sec rest, which was 7 minutes after a 1200m in 2:47... at 7,300 ft. altitude.

Asbel Kiprop is probably the only person on the planet today that could do that workout.

OK?

I heard it was a 160m track in Kenya.

Excuse me - 360m

rjm33 wrote:

Altitude helps sprints when you are doing 1 sprint at altitude, not 4 x 200m in 23sec with 50sec rest, after 4 x 400m in 54sec with 50 sec rest, which was 7 minutes after a 1200m in 2:47... at 7,300 ft. altitude.

Asbel Kiprop is probably the only person on the planet today that could do that workout.

OK?

No, not "ok?". If altitude helps for 1 sprint, why wouldn't it help for more sprints? You haven't explained that. You are just saying things.

odi wrote:

rjm33 wrote:

Altitude helps sprints when you are doing 1 sprint at altitude, not 4 x 200m in 23sec with 50sec rest, after 4 x 400m in 54sec with 50 sec rest, which was 7 minutes after a 1200m in 2:47... at 7,300 ft. altitude.

Asbel Kiprop is probably the only person on the planet today that could do that workout.

OK?

No, not "ok?". If altitude helps for 1 sprint, why wouldn't it help for more sprints? You haven't explained that. You are just saying things.

Because it's harder to recover in 50 seconds at altitude than it is at sea level, even if the air is slightly thinner. Get it?

odi wrote:

rjm33 wrote:

Altitude helps sprints when you are doing 1 sprint at altitude, not 4 x 200m in 23sec with 50sec rest, after 4 x 400m in 54sec with 50 sec rest, which was 7 minutes after a 1200m in 2:47... at 7,300 ft. altitude.

Asbel Kiprop is probably the only person on the planet today that could do that workout.

OK?

No, not "ok?". If altitude helps for 1 sprint, why wouldn't it help for more sprints? You haven't explained that. You are just saying things.

Um, ever heard of recovery?

odi wrote:

rjm33 wrote:

Altitude helps sprints when you are doing 1 sprint at altitude, not 4 x 200m in 23sec with 50sec rest, after 4 x 400m in 54sec with 50 sec rest, which was 7 minutes after a 1200m in 2:47... at 7,300 ft. altitude.

Asbel Kiprop is probably the only person on the planet today that could do that workout.

OK?

No, not "ok?". If altitude helps for 1 sprint, why wouldn't it help for more sprints? You haven't explained that. You are just saying things.

OK. It is because of something very complicated called "muscular fatigue"…which increases with repeated high-intensity sprints.

I guess you have never read about it or heard about it from other people that can read.

OK?

Meb FTW wrote:

rojo wrote:

What do you think of this workout??

All done at 7,300 feet of altitude.

1200: 2:47

7:00 rest

4 x 400 (:50 rest): 54, 53, 54, 54

7:00 rest

4 x 200 (:50 rest): 23, 23, 23, 23

The times are impressive, yes. Especially considering the altitude. However, the structure is not out of line with what I would expect an elite's 1500m specific workout to be. So, knowing that's a 3:26 guy doing the workout, I'm not blown away.

I _would be_ blown away if the structure was something insane like

3x1000m in 2'20" / 5'

10'

2x10x400m in 55" / 1' / 5'

GTFO no miler is doing 11k worth of intervals (near or at race pace) unless they are an idiot or fictional.

but... wrote:

Because it's harder to recover in 50 seconds at altitude than it is at sea level, even if the air is slightly thinner. Get it?

Harder does not mean hard. You are the one that doesn't get it. Sure, altitude may make it harder to recover, but the altitude also makes the sprinting easier. You haven't explained why you think the cost outweighs the benefit.

And since we are talking about reading and writing, here is a headline from the Letsrun.com front page for today:

Alan Abrahamson Says Russians Should Be Allowed To Compete Even If KSB Helped Them Dope We disagree. If the KSB allegations are proven, they have to be punished.

Sorry, but the correct term is FSB…not KSB.

I guess someone got confused by the old KGB and the present FSB and made it into the new combined KSB.

OK.

rjm33 wrote:

odi wrote:

No, not "ok?". If altitude helps for 1 sprint, why wouldn't it help for more sprints? You haven't explained that. You are just saying things.

OK. It is because of something very complicated called "muscular fatigue"…which increases with repeated high-intensity sprints.

I guess you have never read about it or heard about it from other people that can read.

OK?

No, once again not "ok?". You're too busy being negative and insulting to understand that "muscular fatigue" IS complicated. Certainly more complicated than being explained by "ok?" "OK?" "get it".

Like i told the other guy, there is a cost AND a benefit that comes with altitude. How do you know that the cost outweighs the benefit? Some estimates put the altitude benefit at almost a second per 400m. He is also a speed runner, so the altitude isn't going to have as much of a penalty on him as it would for someone like Bekele.

That could change the muscular effort of the 200s from 23.x to 24.x (half a second) or the 400s from 54.x to 55.x (a second). Still a ridiculous workout, but a bit easier.