If a 5K is so aerobic, then why do so much speedwork?

Bekele can run a 49 second 400m. He's said so himself when interviewed.

400 rolling start at 8000 feet hand timed. He would'nt break 51 in a 400m race at sea level.

sound of silence wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Which is more aerobic, which is more anaerobic:

16x200m with 400m walk/jog recovery.

16x200m with 100m walk/jog recovery.

The problem is people's understanding of what limits a workout...

16x200m with 400m....is more anaerobic. IE: you are limited by how fast you can run 200m

16x200m with 100m...is more aerobic. IE: you are limited by your ability to maintain that 200m speed, your ability to recover.

In general...

Intervals with less than adequate recovery: aerobic

Intervals with more than adequate recovery: anaerobic*

*Needs to be short and fast, 400m or under.

Alan

Alan

Lydiard said the opposite. He said that intervals with short lenght recovery is anaerobic and to turn it aerobic it may be done with long recovery.

*********************************************

Alan is right, Lydiard was wrong.

********************************

Brian, elite distance runners do lots of speed work, i.e. sprinting.

How can you be so sure?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/8448650.stm

He says his 400 and 800 times in this interview. Skip to 5:30 for the question of his best 400 + 800. He does also say that's when he's training for 5k and 10k. Surely it's reasonable for the greatest distance runner to have ever walked the earth to be able to clock a sub 50 400?

His top speed in races was 12.5 seconds, which he could hold for almost 300m at the end of races, a remarkable display of speed endurance.

I reckon at that time he could probably have put 2 53 second laps together for a 1.46 800

All distance runners exaggerate their speed potential, it's part of the game.

There have been countless threads where posters insist that he was running 11 point for the last 100m of races when in fact it was 13 point, often preceeded by a 12.5 100m section.

Bekele training is private son! That 49/400 is at the end of a workout son, just like great B Lagat!!

so where would strides fit into all of this? Strides, in my opinion, seem like the most basic "speedwork" that a distance runner could do. I really push strides on my guys who don't do well with "traditional" speed workouts because it sneaks in a little bit of flat out speed as well as better mechanics while running faster.

For what its worth I coach 2 guys right now with 5k PRs within 5 seconds of each other- one runs 90 miles a week with almost all aerobic based workouts, very little "speedwork", and mostly 10k-5k pace workouts and tempo runs. The other runs 50 miles a week with tougher but shorter workouts and does 6-8x 200 after almost every workout. Basically I train the first guy like a 10k-1/2 marathon guy and the other like a 800-1500 runner. The 5k is where their PRs match up. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat.

Not if day can't run a 50 sec 400 meter. So how fast is the 200's?

wellnow wrote:What are you blathering on about? If you were a real mathematician, you would have insight enough to know intuitively based on experience what times he was capable of running at his peak.

i have pretty damn good intuitive insight into what he coud run at his peak

i've watched every big race of his on the euro circuit since his emergence in '03

have you ?

I don't believe Lydiard ever said that. You have a quote or a reference?Lydiard never paid much attention to the details of interval training, but often claimed the details didn't matter, just calling it "eyewash". In any case, I never saw any distinction from Lydiard about reps with partial versus full recoveries.

sound of silence wrote:

Alan

Lydiard said the opposite. He said that intervals with short lenght recovery is anaerobic and to turn it aerobic it may be done with long recovery.

KB can run a 1:15 low 600 easy. That is why day was talking about a race with Bolt. No 49/400 runner can race a 45.2/400 meter runner.

ventolin^3 wrote:

this gives an interesting "line"

http://www.jundo.co.uk/

51.60 / 1'48.10 ->

3'31.02 , 7'20.41 , 12'36.59 , 26'14.44

Regression equations are not accurate for less than 1500 meters.

18:06 5k is slow wrote:

Bekele 400 meter time is 47 low!

I don't know what Bekele's 400 meter PR is, but I am pretty sure it is not 47. He would be a miler with that type of sprint speed; no one chooses a longer event when they can run a shorter one. I am sure he has good sprint speed, perhaps 50 point. It really does not matter because if you can a sub-27 10K pace and run your last lap in 55, you will be passing everyone.

Geb actually had more raw sprint speed, perhaps 48/49, but I wouldn't give 47. Btw, the top milers in the world are generally capable of 47/48 and 45/46 for the top 800 guys. It is rare for a long distance guy to be capbale of running a sub-50 400m.

You just one more white guy talking about something you never ran. Stop trying to tell us about speed.

J.R. wrote:Regression equations are not accurate for less than 1500 meters.

method used doesn't appear to be a regression equation...

i agree with your stats & opinion almost completely, except with geb's 48/49

he almost certainly had faster 400 speed than kennster but only fractionally ( it can't be much different as their 5k/10k ability was so similar )

i'd give geb 50/51 with kennster 51/52

geb can't have had 48/49 speed because if you have simultaneous 26'20 ability

26'20 with say 48.5 -> 1'43.4 ! , 3'24.6 !! , 7'12.8 !!! , 12'30.5 !

if he had mid-48 speed at the time, he'd have been crushing hicham !!!

even 50.0 speed is too fast : with 26'20 ->1'45.7 , 3'27.9 , 7'17.0 , 12'34.5

remember also, 26'20 is an underestimate - he actually ran 26'22.75, but his aim was just to nip tergats 26'27wr by a handful of secs in order to allow him to "bubka" his new wr for the following year ( he never got the right race again though ) - he looked capable of at least 26'15 that day if he had wanted it

So what equations does the method use? Did you write a paper, or publish any details anywhere? What is the magnitude of the predicted errors of your best times predictions? Do you have an error function? The website is a little vague on assumptions, methods, and error analysis.For example, why do you conclude that 1 or 2 seconds faster than Bekele's personal best for 3000m is becoming "way" too fast? Seems like 1 or 2 seconds is in the noise, and can be accounted for by any number of externalities of the race and weather conditions.What values for the 400m/800m do you get as output when you plug in Bekele's 5K and 10K times as inputs?

ventolin^3 wrote:

method used doesn't appear to be a regression equation...