2 kinds of runners. Which are you?

Intermittent and Interval Training Decoded – part 2

As we might expect since they were Germans, the original chrono-biologists structured the format of interval training with scientific accuracy. They named one form of interval training recovery (ie: that form which is active and incomplete) as “rich" recovery.

They defined what length of duration it must have to be able to take advantage of the incomplete recovery type, saying it must be one third of the time it would take to have complete recovery. For example: you run your 15 x 400m at your ~5k target pace, and complete cardiovascular recovery (as well as neuro-muscular recovery and lactate clearance) takes between 2:00-3:00 mins, then they defined the “rich recovery” (in this case) as anywhere from 40 secs (one third of 2:00 mins) to 1:00 (one third of 3:00 mins). So, (in this 400s example) complete recovery: 2:00-3:00 mins. Incomplete recovery: 40 secs to 1:00 min.

For skilled, experienced runners, the 1:3 interval recovery works best if, during the short recovery the runner does some easy-to-moderate activity, like gentle jogging.

Old-fashioned determination of the correct length of recovery used to measure the time it took for the HR to get back down to 100-120 bpm after each interval.

Consequently, if you run long intervals like 5 x 1km at your ~5k pace, you need more than 3:00 mins to achieve full recovery. Therefore to maintain the same interval training (incomplete “rich" recovery) workout profile that you did in the example of 15 x 400m, Hadd would suggest you build towards 5-6 x 1k at 5k pace with 200m jog recovery in about 1:30-2:00 mins, and this would be correct according to interval training recovery principles.

Slower runners need longer interval recovery for the same workouts. If a slower runner does the same 5-6 x 1km, he/she will need more time to recover (and here it’s immaterial whether the aim is complete or incomplete recovery); normally relate to the fast runner the slower runner will need more time since the recovery duration depends entirely on the duration of the run.

It’s simple logic: 15 x 400m at ~3k pace” of 80 secs/lap will require more interval recovery than another runner doing 15 x 400m at HIS ~3k pace, when his 3k pace is 63 secs/lap. So, the recovery time is not set by the pace of the interval rep (in which case all those who train at their respective “3k pace” would get the same recovery time), but it is set by the duration of the rep, and 80 secs/400 is longer than 63 secs/400m.

5 x 1km at 5k pace (when 5k pace is 3:45/km) demands more interval recovery time than 5 x 1km (when 5k pace is 3:15/km) and this latter requires more interval recovery than 5 x 1km (when 5k pace is 2:45/km).

But if you want to do an intermittent workout, and your goal is NOT “rich recovery” of the classic interval training type, but instead you simply want to focus on race pace (ie: time trial, check test, all-out run, maximal or supra-maximal run, VO2max ... the name of the workout can have evolved from a number of different concepts), or you wish to run at threshold pace (could be called: LT, LTP, tempo, fartlek, etc), this is no longer interval training; it is fractional or repetition training. In which case, the interval recovery length can be as long as it needs to be, and you may standstill as long as you need to in order to permit/allow you to run your “best pace” in the next repetition. Because, in such a situation, the goal of the workout is no longer “rich recovery” but “fast pace”.

If it’s the case that you want to run 400s or 1kms in the repetition type, then use standstill recovery interval for a long period to allow complete recovery OR go and jog for a period longer than the standstill recovery period.

For example: you run 400s at your ~3k pace with 1:30 standstill recovery OR you jog 200m easy in a time of about 2:00 mins. Another example: you run 1km reps at 5k pace with 3:00-4:00 mins standstill recovery OR you jog 400m recovery in a time longer than 3:00-4:00 mins.

But wait ! If it is the case that you want to run 1km reps, but at threshold pace – somewhere between HM to M pace, or even at 15k/10 mile pace, then all that I have just explained about recovery does NOT apply !

For example: you choose to run 10 x 1km at LT pace. This might be a typical LT workout done in the form of intermittent training. It is slower paced than the usual 1500m, 3k, 5k, or even 10k-pace intervals. Therefore the relatively slow pace must be matched by a short length recovery interval. In this kind of workout you can use the same sort of short and/or active interval that you might use when running typical 200m or 400m reps and the goal is incomplete “rich recovery” interval.

So for 10 x 1km at LT pace (HM to M, or 15k/10 mile pace) you can use 1:00-2:00 standstill interval recovery.

Having said that, please note that I have my own personal methodological argument to prefer 2:00-5:00 mins easy jog recovery in this situation rather than (what I would call) “crazy” 1:00 min recovery.

RE: Is aerobic base training dead??? 10/30/2008 9:21AM - in reply to rickb

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2716803&page=9

rickb wrote:

6. For myself, I got my best results from running 10-milers at an effort where I never got into heavy breathing (2-3x per week) - so you could say they were primarily aerobic with little lactate accumulation. I also would run my recovery days (maybe still 10 miles) but at as easy a pace as possible. The test in them being easy enough was being able to repeat the fast aerobic run the following day.

7. That being said, I also benefited (half-marathon PR 74:02) by running 10x400 (ave. 68 secs - fast for me!) with a very easy 3 minute jog recovery rather than 12x400 @ 72 sec with a short (100-200m) recovery.

8. So it's all intriguing.

Rick

RE: Is aerobic base training dead??? 10/30/2008 9:21AM - in reply to rickb

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2716803&page=9

Rick,

With all due respect, this is not so "intriguing" as you think. It is more likely just a misunderstanding about interval training.

You say that running 10 x 400m in 68 secs average with a very easy 3 min jog recovery is fast for you. But do you know that 12 x 400 in 72 secs average with a short (100-200m) jog recovery is slower pace but harder and tougher than the 10 x 400 in 68s (3 mins rec) workout.

I would imagine that with your 1:14:02 HM and 2:37 marathon PBs you never achieved 15:00 for 5k. Your 12 x 400 in 72s average with the short recovery would therefore be faster than your 5k PB pace (which would be wrong). That type of interval training design with short/active recovery should only be done at 10k pace or slower if you want it to correctly complement your other workout of 10 x 400 in 68s with 3 mins jog rec.

What you did was replace/confuse the target(s) of different workouts. If you want to progress the 10 x 400 in 68s with 3 mins jog to a higher quality plateau, you might shorten the recovery to 2 mins jog, at the same time slowing the 400s to 72 secs. If you want to shorten the recovery to 60 secs, you might even slow the 400s to 78-80 secs each.

If you want to run 10-15 x 400 (perhaps even 20 x 400 if in really good shape) to prepare for your next goal 10k or HM, and you want to run this session with short duration active interval recovery (eg: 100m in 40-45s) then the 400m pace you select should be very close to your 10k performance pace, and not at all similar to your 5k, or 3k, or 1500 pace, or any other pace, as you have tried to do here. If you are FT, you can benefit from this workout and even ST's can do it sometimes.

Of course this workout I have just described does not negate the value of running the original 10 x 400m in 68s with 3:00 mins easy jog. Simply note that both workouts have different training targets and are not either similar nor interchangeable.

Your 10 x 400 in 68s is repetition training and not interval training (and the difference is not merely semantics). With 3 mins jog, you have quite complete recovery. You have some anaerobic pace here because 68s per 400 is related to your 1500-3k paces.

If you completed the type of training of running 10-milers at an effort where you never got into heavy breathing (2-3 times per week), which we can agree means they were primarily aerobic with little lactate accumulation, then you got your aerobic condition primarily from this type of threshold workout. The training effect of such runs is similar to what you could achieve from short intervals at 10k pace with short active recovery.

That's why, in what is considered training balance, you got best results from your 10 x 400 in 68s (fast for you) with an easy 3 mins jog recovery, rather than with the short active recovery like you tried. Anyway, the 12 x 400 in 72s that you tried (with short 100-200 active recovery) was faster than you should have attempted, hence (as you note) you did not get major benefits from them.

In proper training progress and proper training periodisation, you should replace one of your weekly 10-mile threshold runs for 400s in approx 78-80s with short active recovery. What you should NOT do is replace the 10 x 400 in 68s and 3 mins recovery with 12 x 400 in 72s with 100-200 jog recovery. What you would be doing there is create a training unbalance, rather than a good training balance.

In my opinion, some people read what Robert Schul wrote about a workout that he did, but absorb and retain only one part and forget the rest. Schul wrote, "“....When I ran 20 x 400 meters with three in 60 seconds and each fourth one in 58s on a cinder track with 60 yards walk and 60 yards jog back to the start, I believed no one could match that workout. I always ran the 20th one all out and always did :54 something.”

Some might read this post by Schul or read elsewhere that Gordon Pirie did something similar to Schul, as his once in a lifetime very best workout ! They read such posts and tend to forget the aerobic condition such athletes had previously built up through a monster amount of interval training made up of the famous tons of 100s and 200s intervals that the Igloi method was built upon.

Some observers forget the high mileage that such runners did in the interval training method. They fail to realise the amount of mileage that went into these workouts because they were run differently than the traditional LSD training, or those continuous runs "at best aerobic pace".

The mistake of many is in not realising that the main target of such interval training (the type employing short active recovery) is to improve the aerobic condition, and the aerobic power. That was and still is the mistake of many people ... and among them are some who are considered good coaches.

The aerobic base training is not dead. It may contain some interval training workouts as well to improve the aerobic condition. In some types of runner it shall include interval training workouts really indeed.

The main goal of interval training of the extensive kind (ie: in the form of great number of sets with short and active recovery) is to improve the aerobic condition and the aerobic power, and at its ultimate, to improve what we call strength endurance — which has an anaerobic component to it, but is predominantly aerobic. This was the original scope behind the original term - interval training - as well as the correct modern interpretation.

Running that is more anaerobic in nature, or speed-based, or biomechanical in nature can, of course, also be done through interval training, but to achieve this you must increase the running pace and lengthen the recovery interval. And by so doing, it is no longer interval training in the true sense of the term, because the recovery is no longer incomplete in nature; as it should be in the correct characterisation of interval training.

Most of the critic of the interval training is based in the misunderstand that the only version of the interval training type it’s the very fast and the anaerobic type. It´s wrong interpretation and it starts in the 60s and lasts for decades. I don´t need to name the well known and famous coaches that did persist in that mistake and wrong interpretation all life long. It´s written in books about their training methods and their followers and disciples they still continue to spread that wrong interpretation. See the main reason they say every kind of the interval training workout it shall be avoid during the build-up phase 1. They say the intervals it´s anaerobic training.

This is the mistake of many; among them some who were, and are, considered top-class coaches. This single fundamental fact has been misunderstood for decades. In every version of the intermittent training workout they do they want to solve a problem by increasing the running pace, but to do so they must (also) lengthen the recovery period ... and in so doing they create a bigger problem.

The main reason that is always given for avoiding interval training during the base-training, build-up period is all down to a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental meaning of interval training. Or at least a misunderstanding of the form of interval training that is extremely effective in improving the aerobic condition.

The question states, is aerobic base training dead? No. However aerobic base training may include some interval training workouts — used correctly but sparingly — as aerobic training, and in the optimal form designed to improve the aerobic condition. May be you do. May be you don´t. It´s your choice. But it´s not right to criticize those who do it by the wrong argument and the misunderstand.