I promise you that i will post about that spain coach, and i use to keep my promises. Besides that´s intersting to understand how ionterval training may be used in the spain training method. But, despite i know the essence of that training by memory i don´t want to write a post just by memory, then i need to take a look in some articles, and in the next week i will write to answer your question.
bump for Antonio
bump for Antonio
Mr. Cabral, are you going to be true to your word?
I know you will post....just wanted to bump it
Some time I have the opportunity to go into letsrun, and I'm interested in reading what is written about technical arguments.
All the explanations by Antonio are very, very clear and correct. It's possible to see that he is a man used to manage technical probelms thru a deep knowledge of physiology, and of the history of methodology.
I saw a question to myself, regarding the practical use of intermittent training with my athletes.
At first, I want to say the reason because I use this type of training. This is very different from the classic "interval training", having a different effect.
The INTERMITTENT TRAINING can be used with different distances, and different goals.
For example, the theorical of preparation for soccer players, the French Gilles Cometti, spoke about an INTERMITTENT TRAINING for players, with sets of repeatitions of 30m with very short recovery (may be 5 sec., the time for turning a start again), imitating the type of effort that a player can do.
In the methodology for training swimmers, there are a lot of short interval with very short recovery (for ex., 20 x 50m at 98% of max intensity with 10 sec. recovery).
Speaking with prof. Bonifazi, a physiologist that is also the scientist checking the italian swimmers, I learnt that the effect of LONG INTERMITTENT TRAINING is the same of Long Fast Run, but the final level of lactate is lower, and the level of cortisol doesn't grow too much. The level of cortisol is the main difference. An high level of cortisol (in Italian is Cortisolo, I don't know if in English Cortisol is the correct name, but I hope that someone more expert than me can correct some mistake) provokes a state of stress making the recovery longer.
For example, for an athlete like Shaheen, if he goes for 5 km fast in training in 13:45 (2:45 per km), he reaches 12-15 mmol, and his speed per km is 90% of the final goal. Instead, if he goes for 15 x 400 in 61.0 with 20/30 sec. of recovery, the final level of lactate is lower than 10 mmol, the total amount of km is 6, and the speed is 100% of the speed of the competition. The recovery after this type of training is faster, this is not damageous for muscular fibres, and the type of physiological support is more consistant.
The point is that, if the duration of an effort is not very long in relation of the speed, you can remove the most part of the lactate in your muscles in very short time, so you can maintain low the level of Cortisol.
The new idea for increasing the Aerobic Power and creating the MAX LASS is to reach for short time high level of lactate, but not to last the same effort for long time in order to avoid the accumulation in the fibres.
Practically, is a training that can help the fibres to become more elastic from inside, provoking in short time a quick raise in the production of lactate, but not making the fibres tired because is possible to recover in very short time. This system is also called OBLA, and of course cannot replace the long continuous run, but can help a better execution of it.
I don't know if my explanation was clear, because I cannot help myself with a dictionary, but I hope that is possible to understand the mean of this training.
Regarding the practical use of it, I use the INTERMITTENT TRAINING during all the season, mostly during the Fundamental period, but also during the competition period. The system is the same : for example, if I want to prepare a race of 3 km at 7:30 (60.0 every lap), my training (INTERMITTENT) is 8 x 400 in 59.0 with 20 sec. recovery. This is the BASE of ENDURANCE for a training of SPEED ENDURANCE (for example, 8 x 400 in 55.0 with 1 min), and is the base of SPEED for a training of SPECIFIC ANAEROBIC RESISTANCE (for example, 20 x 400 in 61.0 with 1 min).
In any case, in my type of training I don't use MICROCYCLES, and every type of training can be carried out only once every two weeks.
I think that the secret is to use with continuity a mix of all the elements of the preparation. But, in my opinion, also elements very close really mean different type of stimuli.
Renato
Thanks for your post. Of course that I mainly agree with your intermittent workout version, but in someway with this your post you did the same than that curious guy - that after read the first pages of the book novel he gives up and goes to read the last pages to see what´s the end of that story. Or like the guy that goes to see a thrill movie and tell to all his friends the movie story before they saw that movie (L.O.L). Of course that what you tell us about your intermittent intervals use is the end of the story, or the last/actual version of the intermittent training. But that´s ok (L.O.L). I promise that I will keep on with my story, not with chronological order, but focus in what I consider some interesting facts and experiences from use of the interval training.
I want to comment about all this.
1/Of course that the use of short reps/short recover in an intermittent style I think that´s very good, and that´s right, to some extend replaces the long continuous runs or even long intervals. I use that as an interesting workout format, to those that are in a aren´t able to perform long intervals. My logic is this one: the runner isn´t able to complete ex: for a 5000m goal - 5X1000m/5000m race pace, I guess that he is able to run the same 5000m total distance but now my proposal is that he does 10X500m/5000m race pace with an half of the recover he uses for the 5X1000m workout. That´s a total 5000m also but that´s easier. Due to what you say about the benefits of short pauses. In the same logic if you do 25X250m/5000m race pace with the half of the recover that you did the 500s reps (that means ¼ of the time recover pf the 1000m reps), that´s also the same 5000m total distance in the same pace but easier.
2/In the introductory period or distant from the target goal of the periodisation you may use that short intervals but instead of standing rests for recover, you may turn that same workout “dense” and get different benefits –more aerobic - you may use active recover (ex: instead of 10X400m rec=20sec standing , run 10X400m but 100m ahead on track, and you are working with an active interval – best for mitochondria.
Well, all this short intervals close to race pace, of 20sec, 30sec, 40sec, 45sec intervals this short rests i did test that for training in the sea level only.
But don´t misunderstand me. I also may direct your training to speed and also long reps and/or check tests. I consider this intermittent reps just as the "plateau” or the “platform” that ables you to hard and specific workouts, those of medium to long intervals.
3/About the cortisol. Well. Once again not all sport physiologists are in agreement to what you say that´s Professore Bonifazi opinion. People that studies “heavy-metal” physilogy” (L.O.L) disagrees that the cause of tiredness is due to cortisol. But this is not my deal or business, in my coach position I´m not concern about the causes, I´m concern about the training effects not the causes.
PS- Soon I will post about some insights in Pascual Piqueras training and spain coach, because that´s also intersting to analyse the interval training in that intermittent style. But don´t pressure me. I need to take care of all my runners. For me a 17:00 runner i take that as serious, or more serious than Renato takes a sub 13:00 runner. For me what really matters that´s how to improve the man i have in front of me, independently of his talent.
Antonio: I appreciate very much you concern for every runner in front of you, not just the fast ones. I too think every runner deserves credit for their work and goals just as much as the elite runner. The true thing about sports: not everybody is fast, but everybody can do their best. Tinman
Renato did an example what´s are intervals in the modern version, his own style. But let´s take a look back and understand that since long ago, runners and coaches, they did the first steps into that modern interval training
How the several training schools interpret Gresheler interval training ?
Relate to Freiburg interval training I try to force my point of view about certain details that i´m convinced that was done as I say and that despite several interpretations of the same method they some keys that remains untouchable.
This time I want to present different interval training versions, but all of them that goes according my point of view.
Resuming my opinion about interval training
1/definitively I think that the basis and fundament of the interval training derived from the german school is based in the interval recover, in the case of the interval training –independently of several workout formats - that may consistent to an incomplete recover, and most of the times active recover.
2/the pace intensity, that may change according the number of repetitions/intervals, the distance of each repetition/interval unity, the number of repetitions/intervals, the interval recover, the season periodisation, the workout target goal, the target distance event, etc, etc, but most of the workouts aren´t done in maiximum/all out pace intensity – to allow the use of incomplete recover.
3/ In my interpretation, The Gresheler the original “rule” of 180 heart beats as a maximum during the hard effort period and the need to get down to 120 heart beats in a rest/recover period no longer than 90 seconds, this is not a fix rule use – this is more consider a “validation process” to check if the workout design is well done, thus the reason they did that in the last after the workout ended – taking the heart beat immediately after the stop and after 90seconds.
This is 1960 track workout interval training resume of the 3000m steeple Russian runner Konov 8:37.4/steeple and also 4:04/1500m and 14:44.5/5000m.
I think that this example is also paradigmatic. Why? Because this runs against the presumed idea that Russians runners (USSR at that time)they use short distance reps exclusively. Books also quote Bolotnikov or Popov or Vladimir Kuts as doing 100m and 200m intervals, may be 400m intervals. But they tend o ignore the long intervals.
During the winter season:
* 70X100m/15sec rec=20sec
* 30X400m/66sec rec=40sec
* 8X1000m/2:50 rec=3min
During the spring/summer season:
mix up of 1000m/2:50 + 2000m/5:55 + 3000m/8:55 + *2000m/5:52 + 1000m/2:47 rec=5minutes
* 20X200m/28-29sec rec=1:30
In all sessions the last repetitions were done in a fast pace.
In some aspect this is a bit outdate, in some other may be that´s not. In my opinion in 2 aspects this is the modern interval training concept when considers that
1/the season modulation/periodisation goes from the use of straight interval training during the winter period (short distance/short and incomplete interval recover and also 1000m) to the long reps in the followed summer period in intensities that are close to race pace (1000m+2000m+3000m+2000m+1000m) and also short reps in fast pace (speed maintenance)
2/With this he seems to understand something that only in the next decades some coaches did realize. Is that interval training is a good training method, BUT short intervals, are no more than general shape condition and not specifics. Long intervals are more relate to the distance event specificity. Then, despite the use of workouts along year round, the specifics of the specifics are long reps in intensities close to the race pace.
I appreciate all you comments and doubts and questions.
António Cabral
(end of part 3)
Reference was made to Zatopeks indifferent marathon placing in 1956 as being, if I read it correctly, as suggesting multi runs of 400m as not being the correct preparation for the marathon. I recall that Zatopek was hospitalized just a few weeks before the race with appendicitis and this was the main reason for his apparent failure. Les Crouch.
Antonio Cabral wrote:
I promise you that i will post about that spain coach, and i use to keep my promises. Besides that´s intersting to understand how ionterval training may be used in the spain training method. But, despite i know the essence of that training by memory i don´t want to write a post just by memory, then i need to take a look in some articles, and in the next week i will write to answer your question.
I agree 100% with António's conclusion that long intervals are key.
I have observed (high anaerobic capacity) runners build to where they can manage 20 x 400m with 35 secs recovery at a pace they cannot hold for even 3k. That's absurd training, and shows the inherent flaw within short intervals as a methodology.
Our acid test is always to build to 4 x 1200 at 5k pace (or slightly better) with 3-4 mins recovery jog. You can't hit that, don't come and tell me how fast you can run your 400s.
Les Crouch
You are right about the facts. Zatopec was still sick with fever after arrives to Melbourne. And one more reason for Zatopec poor performance -that´s the fact that the weather temperature during that 1956 marathon event was 32 Clesius degrees, and of course the French Morocco born Alain Mimoun is more used to warm weather than Zatopec or the Finn Karvonen that ended 3 rd, or the Russians that they tried to follow Mimoun and they all end walking in agony.
But what I want to express, is more than to prove that the Zatopec monster 400s reps didn´t work as marathon training, after all, 60X400m rec=200m that´s 36kilos, what top marathon runners they do today. What I want to prove is that the extensive of the number of reps to a unconceivable limit, Zatopec didn´t get benefits from that use, after 1954 he isn´t able to produce the same chronos he did with less volume (number of reps). So, that´s not just a question of an single marathon event, that´s more than that, he wasn´t able to be so competitive in 5000m and 1000m and also road runs that he did before that. In the other side, people like Valdimir Kuts (that also trained tons of volume) but used short reps distance in a faster pace than Zatopec BUT less number of total distance, or Pirrie, or all the rest they quickly outstand Zatopec PBs to get him down from the top of the rankings of 3000m, 5000m, 10000m distances.
Renato Canova wrote:
Speaking with prof. Bonifazi, a physiologist that is also the scientist checking the italian swimmers, I learnt that the effect of LONG INTERMITTENT TRAINING is the same of Long Fast Run, but the final level of lactate is lower, and the level of cortisol doesn't grow too much. The level of cortisol is the main difference. An high level of cortisol provokes a state of stress making the recovery longer.
For example, for an athlete like Shaheen, if he goes for 5 km fast in training in 13:45 (2:45 per km), he reaches 12-15 mmol, and his speed per km is 90% of the final goal. Instead, if he goes for 15 x 400 in 61.0 with 20/30 sec. of recovery, the final level of lactate is lower than 10 mmol, the total amount of km is 6, and the speed is 100% of the speed of the competition. The recovery after this type of training is faster, this is not damageous for muscular fibres, and the type of physiological support is more consistant.
The point is that, if the duration of an effort is not very long in relation of the speed, you can remove the most part of the lactate in your muscles in very short time, so you can maintain low the level of Cortisol.
. .
Renato,
I find your comments quite interesting. As many on this board are likely aware (TOO aware probably.... :-) ), that I am a big proponent of the Igloi/Schul system of intermittent training. What I like about it is the SHORT distance (often 100-150m) of the repetitions, often run at a "relaxed/fresh feeling" pace. But since the repeats are so short, the pace can still be reasonably fast ( say right around 5k race pace), with fairly short rest intervals (does not take long to recover from), and done for a LONG TIME (a good total volume of miles).
You described/compared the benefits "long intermittent training" vs a "long distance run" stating that the benefits/effect could be similar, BUT.....the negative stress (high lactate, high cortisol) would be LOWER with the "long intermittent training." This is the point I have been trying to make at for awhile: short repeats can done for a long time (achieving a GOOD VOLUME of aeorbic conditioning in the workout, same as one would get from long, fast, steady run) BUT......with the added benefits of increased neuromuscular efficiencies at/near race pace AND WITHOUT the accumlated cortisol stresses you talk about that might occur with a long, steady, slower run.
I have mainly talked about "near race pace" repeats (usually of around 150m) when discussing the Igloi use of intermittent traing, but of course one can also do these repeats faster and make them more of an anaerobic stimulus. But that is less of my interest, but because finding a good anaerobic stimulus is never difficult to do, but finding a powerful, voluminous, easily repeatable (can be done often) high-end aerobic stimulus, WITHOUT lots of hormonal or muscle tissue stress and that ALSO works on race-pace speed, seems like a gold standard in speed/endurance backgroud/base to me (of course I know that later longer race-pace repeats would be needed, which are the most specific to preparing to race a certain distance). And that is why these not-super-intense (again, run with HR's below anerobic threshhold, and feeling "relaxed/fresh") long bouts of short repeats that Igloi/Schul used with such success interest me so much.
What do you think?
You compared 2 possiblke workouts for Shaheen of:
1) " 5 km fast in training in 13:45 (2:45 per km), he reaches 12-15 mmol, and his speed per km is 90% of the final goal. or...
2) "...he goes for 15 x 400 in 61.0 with 20/30 sec recovery, the final level of lactate is lower than 10 mmol, the total amount of km is 6, and the speed is 100% of the speed of the competition."
What about.......
3) 50-60 x 150 in 23 second ( 61.3 400 pace) with 15-20 seconds recovery? With the even shorter distance, I would think that the lactate and cortisol would be EVEN lower than the 400 workout(less muscular fiber stress), the total distance would be 7.5-9 km, and the speed would be 99% of competition.
Wouldn't that workout be quite low on stress on him, and wouldn't give him both a good aerobic stimulus along with race-pace neuromuscular efficieny training?
Antonio,Excellent last chapter! Now relating what I just wrote to Renato to what your wrote above, I have a question for you:Discussing the training of Russian Konov:
Antonio Cabral wrote:
2/With this he seems to understand something that only in the next decades some coaches did realize. Is that interval training is a good training method, BUT short intervals, are no more than general shape condition and not specifics. Long intervals are more relate to the distance event specificity. Then, despite the use of workouts along year round, the specifics of the specifics are long reps in intensities close to the race pace.
(end of part 3)
I see your point, that later in the season it is probably most important (as Renato also says) to move towards "long reps in intensities close to the race pace." That makes much sense. But I do want to ask (again, relating to my Igloi inquiries), and since I do see Konov running "70X100m/15sec rec=20sec" in winter, my question is: do you think that NOT ENOUGH runners use the short repeat/short interval style of intermittent training to build a a speed/endurance base? I know many that simply do long slow, moderate, or fast STEADY runs to build base, with occasional workouts of all-out sprints (only to work on PURE speed). But they negelect these long workouts of short intermittent style training popularized by Igloi. What do you think?
Also, one last question for both you and Renato, that I do not think has been discussed much:
What is wrong with intermittent training as "easy or recovery" training? My point being, if one can do 6 miles at 7:00 per mile pace as an easy recovery run, why is 42 minutes (same time) of 150m repeats run at 6:00 pace with short rest intervals (very easy jogging for 20 seconds) not as good or better? The volume of running minutes is the same, the avg HR will be the same or lower possibly, the speed is not stressful on the muscles, but the pace is closer to 10k race pace. Why do people seem to ONLY use easy STEADY runs for easy, recovery days, rather than every using easy INTERMITTENT training for the same purpose?
Antonio,
I also have a question for you, and for any others who would like to chime in.
You've used an example of two different athletes with different race performance profiles. They both run 1500 in the same time, but one is faster than the other at shorter distances, and vice versa at longer distances.
I would hazard a guess that the guy who's better at shorter distances is either: relatively poorly aerobically developed; OR, has a greater proportion of fast twitch muscle fibres than th other guy, and therefore genetically inclined toward speed in favour of endurance; OR, a combination of both (please let me know if there are other possibilities).
If we assume they have done identical training, and therefore the difference is probably more related to muscle type, and if we imagine they're both looking to take 5 s off their 1500 time at the same goal meet, do you approach their training the same? If not, what sort of general differences would there be in the sort of work you'd assign the two runners?
This basically agrees what Renato has written, but doesn't speculate as to the long term benefits of either intermittent runs at vVO2max, or long runs at ~90% race pace. Also they did not find much diff in lactate values for each training method.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Feb;81(3):188-96
Intermittent runs at the velocity associated with maximal oxygen uptake enables subjects to remain at maximal oxygen uptake for a longer time than intense but submaximal runs.
Billat VL, Slawinski J, Bocquet V, Demarle A, Lafitte L, Chassaing P, Koralsztein JP.
Laboratoire d'etude de la motricite humaine, Universite de Lille II, Faculte des Sciences du Sport 9, Ronchin, France.
Interval training consisting of brief high intensity repetitive runs (30 s) alternating with periods of complete rest (30 s) has been reported to be efficient in improving maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and to be tolerated well even by untrained persons.
However, these studies have not investigated the effects of the time spent at VO2max which could be an indicator of the benefit of training. It has been reported that periods of continuous running at a velocity intermediate between that of the lactate threshold (vLT) and that associated with VO2max (vVO2max) can allow subjects to reach VO2max due to an additional slow component of oxygen uptake.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the times spent at VO2max during an interval training programme and during continuous strenuous runs.
Eight long-distance runners took part in three maximal tests on a synthetic track (400 m) whilst breathing through a portable, telemetric metabolic analyser: they comprised firstly, an incremental test which determined vLT, VO2max [59.8 (SD 5.4) ml.min-1; kg-1], vVO2max [18.5 (SD 1.2) km.h-1], secondly, an interval training protocol consisting of alternately running at 100% and at 50% of vVO2max (30 s each); and thirdly, a continuous high intensity run at vLT + 50% of the difference between vLT and vVO2max [i.e. v delta 50: 16.9 (SD 1.00) km.h-1 and 91.3 (SD 1.6)% vVO2max].
The first and third tests were performed in random order and at 2-day intervals. In each case the subjects warmed-up for 15 min at 50% of vVO2max. The results showed that in more than half of the cases the v delta 50 run allowed the subjects to reach VO2max, but the time spent specifically at VO2max was much less than that during the alternating low/high intensity exercise protocol [2 min 42 s (SD 3 min 09 s) for v delta 50 run vs 7 min 51 s (SD 6 min 38 s) in 19 (SD 5) interval runs].
The blood lactate responses were less pronounced in the interval runs than for the v delta 50 runs, but not significantly so [6.8 (SD 2.2) mmol.l-1 vs 7.5 (SD 2.1) mmol.l-1].
These results do not allow us to speculate as to the chronic effects of these two types of training at VO2max.
On the other hand, this research suggests that you should go longer at 92% vVO2max to attain VO2max and hold it for longer than running at the pace associated with VO2max.
Int J Sports Med. 1997 Jul;18(5):325-9
Responses to exercise at 92% and 100% of the velocity associated with VO2max.
Hill DW, Williams CS, Burt SE.
Department of Kinesiology, University of North Texas, Denton 76203-1337, USA.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rationale for using the velocity associated with VO2max (vVO2max) and the time that vVO2max can be sustained (tMAX) in exercise prescription.
Six male runners performed a 0%-slope incremental treadmill test to determine their VO2max (61.6 +/- 9.1 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and the velocity at which it was elicited (vVO2max; 271 +/- 18 m x min(-1)). Then, they performed exhaustive tests at vVO2max and at 92% of vO2max. VO2max in these tests (4.56 +/- 0.55 and 4.57 +/- 0.50 l x min(-1)) were not different from the incremental value (4.31 +/- 0.83 l x min(-1)). At vVO2max, VO2max was attained after 299 +/- 74 s and sustained for 32 +/- 41 s. At 92% of vVO2max, it took longer to attain VO2max (491 +/- 156 s), but it was sustained longer (130 +/- 66 s).
Since no athlete reached VO2max in the first 60% of the runs, the results did not provide a rationale to support the recommendation that athletes train at vVO2max for a fixed percentage of tMAX when the goal in the training session is to maintain VO2max.
Hello Kop that
Thanks for your reply.
The target goal of coach when he uses intermittent training or any other training that´s not to improve max. VO2 or max.VO2 speed or whatever. The focus target of a coach that´s to improve runner PB´s.
If that´s so we will estiomate amomg the runners what´s the best VO2 and we will give him the WR or the gold medal.
And because the runner that runs is much more than the - animal that runs - , then that´s not simply physiology, an less that´s VO2 that matters, who told you that VO2 is what really matters ? There is much more to be consider than VO2 or lactic acid when you want to improve a runner. By the way: did Billat estimates perceived rate exertion of that training formats ?
By the way, if you mention VO2, it would be intersting to see if Billat she tests also the levels of dopaminabetahidroxilase (indicator of tiredness in the nervous circuits excuse me if that´s wrong in english). Did she test that ? Nervous level of tiredness is probabaly the most important of tiredness manifestations.
By the way, when Renato mentions that 13:45 5000m continuous run by Cherono/Shaaeen he have 12mmol and that with his 400´s workout with 20-30sec recover he gets less than 10mmol what you know about that 400m intervals lactic acid value value. Then we can only speculate. Did he gets 9.5 or 6.5 mmol? We don´t know because Renato doesn´t say. And about Cortisol ? Why Renato refers lactic acid concentration and also says that he have less cortisol, but why Renato doesn´t he says us what´s the cortisol values obtained in that same workouts? Then we can just speculate about physiologic impact of several distinct intermmitent training workouts. And because I´m no man of great speculation as some physilogists they love to be, I see that sometimes they speculate, to make us think that they know some values that´s the key for the problem, but that don´t. Look, some people as Renato (he said that recently in the monster thread) they just use scientific data to satisfy his own curiosity or to confirm his point of view about training methodology, but some other like Billat loves to send us some figures/values to get people´s attention. That´s the case of Madame Billat. That´s the only way she have to try to be famous and iscuss her methods – because what she understands about training methodology that´s not too much really.
You need to understand this. In the past the great/major running performances were done not by the use of physiology (only if that´s for the drug use ! ). In recent times there are some people that they want to get public attention, noutority and then they speak to the audiences with the add of some data, and they use some very doubtfull figures just to impress that audience or they claim scientific accuracy just to impress, that´s the case of Madame Billat. I know that most of their studies are a lie. Go to another LetsRunCOm thread “low mileage volume” and read in the Richard_s site that Billat she comments about a study of madame Billat and you may read that Billat she did a study about portuguese marathon runners. This is what Richard_s will consider scientific dishonesty. Or, I can guarantee you that in the last decade - no one from the best/top portuguese marathon runners (or coaches of that runner´s, or whatever) they didn´t answer to any Billat inquire or did any tests from Billat or to a Billat study.
It happens that I coach the best portuguese marathon runner in the last 4 years but she didn´t no enquire to him either
The best marathon runners in the last decade I know them all, and I ask tham if they did that inquiry - more than once each other. As you may see (if you believe me) she is no more than a lier, in the case with an “agenda” that´s to prove what´s positive according her own VO2 prespectives - that´s good training for the running improvement - BUT what´s not according hes own points of view – that´s no good. Tell him that I told she is a lier with no honesty at all. I´m able to say that face to face with her.
As Renato always say and did repeat recently: training methodology that´s the key for a good training analysis, not physilogy or science. Pardon me all physiologists experts, but the past, the present and the future of the running improvemnet that´s not mainly based physilogy or any science, but in training methodology, more than anything else.
Besides the prolific use of the intermittent training in running distance that´s not 30sec/30sec or that kind of idiot formats. In what pace? People uses are 100m reps, 200m reps, 300m reps, 400m reps, 500m reps 1000m reps and so and so – that´s modern interval training – not 30sec/30sec – this is a joke, rarely done by any top class runner. What´s the top class runner or average runner that uses 30/30 intervals – only swimmers ! may the ones from Billat, that portuguese-french female runner that she coaches.
The problem here is that she, instead of using a protocol with real cases or real workouts she did “invent” a her own 30/30 to study the problem.
Pete, you pose a good question. I do train differently, based upon their strengths and weaknesses, and in the case you present, one athlete has better sprint speed than the other, the need to indivualize is crucial to success. I would tend to run the same relative percents of maximum to achieve certain physiologic goals, but because the runners have different all-out 200m times, the times for their reps are different, despite the fact that their 1500m times are about the same.
Let us use an example. Runner A has personal best of 22 seconds for 200 meters and has run 3:45 for the 1500m (60 seconds per 400m). Runner B has a personal best of 23 seconds for 200 meters and has the same 3:45 time for 1500m. If I intend to increase their aerobic power of their muscle fibers that contribute to a 3:42 1500m performance then I would have both runners do 200m reps at 80% of their best 200m speed/time. So, runner A runs his reps in 27.5 seconds. Runner B runs his reps in 28.75 which is 1.25 seconds slower than A.
Now, the question is this: how do you adjust the number of reps and the recovery to accomodate the two runers individual abilities? I would have the first runner do 3 sets of 200s, say 5 per set, jog 100m between each rep and jog 400m between sets. I might have the other runner do a straight set of 15 reps with a 100m jog between. The first runner is doing 200s faster by 1.25 seconds, so he will tire out and become severaly anaerobic by the latter half of the workout if it is run in a straight set. He has to do them in sets to benefit.
The second runner would not be able to run 27.5 second reps without straining a lot because his personal best was just 3.5 seconds faster, so the 28.75m second reps is better for him. However, because he has greater endurance, presumed since he ran the same 3:45 time for 1500m, he will benefit from doing a straight set without periodic long breaks.
So, as you can see, taking into account the factors the contribute to each runners 1500m time is important. T.
I said 3.5 seconds. Sorry, I meant to say 4.75 seconds. I started wtih 24 seconds, but decided to use 23 as a reference for comparison. You get the idea, though.
Tinman
Thanks for your post.
2 comments.
One is that i see your point but with the figures that you present 22-23sec 200m PBs for 3:45 1500m specialists - both are very fast in speed but weak in resitance/strenght endurance. Ex: i doubt Rui Silva is able to do 200m in 22seconds, but i know hundreds of runners that did run sub 3:45 - including me i did 3:39.8 - but they aren´t able to run 22-23sec for 200m. But i see your point. So, or you correct the perfomances or you someone may conclude that both your runner examples they are weak in strenght endurance. And more. The 1sec that both 200m PB´s are distant, are not a sensible distance, considering that 1500m is so distant from the 1500m event. So, if you consider a so distant distance (relate to goal distance event ) 200m is 1/7.5 from 1500m, or vice versa 1500m is 200m X 7.5 or as you write 1500=200M*7,5 that´s is quite innacurate to dertermine the lack of each ability. Also the fact 22sec 200m chrono that requires a so distinct ability than 1500m – 200m is speed (anaerobic and lactic some 96%) and 1500 that requires a lot of aerobics makes both 200m and 1500m both distance relate quite irrelevant. If that´s 22sec to 26secs, but 22 to 23 that´s a minimum, Om I can continue but you know my point that the realtion to consider a runner fast or slow may be more accurate if you consider 400m or 800m and in another direction 3000m or 5000m perfromances.
My second comment goes for your option. You are right, in your analysis. But may be you opte to design different repetition distance workouts for each one runner in your example. ex: 200m for one and 400m for other.
But this comes to a complex question about training individuality. The question is - what to train WEAK or STRONG QUALITIY/ABILITY ?
This is the first question to be answered.
There are only 2 types of runners according each distance event – the fast type (he have speed) and the slow type (he have strength endurance). The fast types are the ones that have fast performances in short distances than target event distance and the slow types are the ones that have enough strength for the distance – but eventually their lack is speed.
I think that this is the key question – in what direction to train – to train your weakness or your strongest ability . It seems that in your example despite that you did design both workouts for the same training goal.
But if I tell you that as you know that a runner progress made by aerobic improvement that´s easier than from anaerobic improvement what you will say about training direction – to train weak points and strong points?