Traditional intervals versus partial time trials

I’m pretty sure it has to do with 2 main factors, there might be more though.

1. Doing a workout like 1200 at 1600 race pace is incredibly taxing on the body. When you think about racing an all out 1600, at 1200 you’re feeling quite tired and just have to kick it in the last 400 or so. Doing such a workout every week would just be incredibly hard to recover from for at least 2 days, and you’d have to push the rest of your schedule back. Especially if you added a short tempo into the workout.

2. I’m pretty sure to improve physiological function of your body, your aerobic system for instance, the key is time spent at a stressable rate. If you’re running 4 flat mile. You’d only be running 3 minutes at mile pace. A workout like 8x400 would be 8 minutes. So the recovery in between reps is what allows you to stress yourself more.

Also, the mile is an aerobic event. You need to have some stamina component to race well, and if your workouts consist of exclusively race pace work with short tempos and easy runs, you won’t have the same kind of endurance that the guys running 5k and threshold work are doing

Or do both:

http://www.fitnesssports.com/lyd_clinic_guide/Arthur%20Lydiard.pdf

Alan

From what I see in your post, you are talking about both approaches training at the same pace.

If so, the intervals train for improved lactate handling, at race pace, and are easier to recover from. Doubling the distance isn't mandatory, but will certainly assure you that you are ready for the race.

The time trials just dig you into an anaerobic hole, with less training time at race pace, and add more free radicals, and train your brain to give up at 75% of the distance. It's too easy to do an over-speed fast finish during the time trial, and lull you into the illusion that you are ready for the race distance.

I've never heard of a top runner doing what you suggested. Traditional intervals max the anerobic training and over distance running the aerobic. Many top runners don't even do tempos.

RyecorDone wrote:

From what I see in your post, you are talking about both approaches training at the same pace.

If so, the intervals train for improved lactate handling, at race pace, and are easier to recover from. Doubling the distance isn't mandatory, but will certainly assure you that you are ready for the race.

The time trials just dig you into an anaerobic hole, with less training time at race pace, and add more free radicals, and train your brain to give up at 75% of the distance. It's too easy to do an over-speed fast finish during the time trial, and lull you into the illusion that you are ready for the race distance.

By that logic if you did 400m intervals at mile race pace you would be training yourself to give up 25% in to the race. Also it’s just as easy to overcook an interval workout just as much as a partial time trial look at Alan Webb or any burn out training they did in the 90s. A partial time trial at the correct intensity should also improve your lactate tolerance, and then you would stop at the appropriate distance before more harm is done than good.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true that it takes days to recover, it may take days to absorb and see the benefits of training but you’ll see high school kids double up in meets and run pretty close to their PR for two events within a couple hours. And if you did a partial distance time trial you would even take less amount of time to recover.

I’m not talking about doubling in races. It’s a lot different In a race where you have competitors and are mentally in race mode than working out. If I put together a two week schedule of: ez day, 1200 at 1600 pace, ez, ez, 2400 at 3200 paces, ez, long run. And did it again the next week. I would be completely gassed and not be able to hit the splits. Pushing yourself to that extent is just not maintainable long term

I hear ya. But my take is that a single 75% distance chunk is likely to train your mind for stopping at that distance, a lot more likely than the intervals would.