WannabeFast wrote:
What are some of you guy's favorite speed endurance workouts?
1 x Mile @ 4:45 w/3 min recovery jog + 1 x 400m @ 62-64
3 min recovery jog
Rinse and repeat x 8.
"Go Run One"
WannabeFast wrote:
What are some of you guy's favorite speed endurance workouts?
1 x Mile @ 4:45 w/3 min recovery jog + 1 x 400m @ 62-64
3 min recovery jog
Rinse and repeat x 8.
"Go Run One"
Clyde hart, micheal johnson's coach was one who gave more importance to aerobics in the 400 mt training than his colleagues, MJ ran 5 km a 3' and 26" as I wrote but at 18 years old... then he also improved this time.
Scheme winckler-gambetta is x sprinters, not for endurance runners, reports 2 the aerobic zone for sprinters, is used both as recovery between heavier workouts, and because a good aerobic form improves intra-and inter-workouts recovery, but the intensity wrote is wrong.
However if you use the % on PB and VO2max values, then the values of the rhythms 5k-10k-21 k come from a universal classification valid for both sprinters and endurance runners:
To merge:
Winckler-Gambetta x sprinters= concepts of alactic and lactic power and capacity. (zone 100%-95%of PB ).
RCanova: lactic acid zone: concepts of lactic speed resistance and lactic resistance, which is not the same of concept of capacity as canova said in the video above.
LGigliotti: aerobic zone: VO2max, Max Lass, Anaerobic threshold, Aerobic threshold, medium-fast Continous rus , medium classical continous run, slow continuos runs, regeneration runs.
Thanks Renato. I agree: if it "means" anything, it means "to hold a given pace for longer distances".
"Speed Endurance" for a marathoner is different to speed endurance for a 400m or 800m runner.
Peter Coe once said that if you want to run a 2 minute 800 (think he was referring to women), it's a pretty good idea to be able to run 200m in 30 first. Then 4x200 at target pace, then 4x200, then 600+200 and so on. So "speed endurance" would
In fact the sessions which Seb, Wendy and others did on Sunday mornings at Haringey in 1987/1988, watched by Peter and John Hovell, were pretty much exactly this. For 800 it might involve 500, 400, 300, 200 with long rests; then start with a 600 2 weeks later. For 1500, it would start with 800,600,3x400; and progress the first rep up to 1000 and then eventually 1200. In both cases, the approach was to do a bit more at the season's target pace then the last time you did the session (usually 2 weeks previously).
This involved a team of pacemakers (I was one of them, did my fastest ever 300 pacing one) and a lot of warming up.
I am hoping we can clear this up somehow.
I do not disagree with what you are saying. I am very knowledgeable about Michael Johnson’s training. Much of it was not speed endurance.
I think we are dealing with a language barrier issue here. Half my family is Italian so I am not trying to be disrespectful in saying this.
You guys are fixating on the words and relating it to distance running. Speed endurance workouts for sprinters are NOT designed to build aerobic endurance. You can not change this by saying there is a better way to train to hold speed. Yes, maybe there is. But you can not change the protocol of this very specific workout group for sprinting.
If the thread was “What is your favorite intensive tempo workout?”, how would you respond to that?
otter wrote:
Again... Very interesting but I thought this thread was about sprint training. In trying to develop a long sprinter (400 meters) there is a small aerobic component but it's not the goal of speed endurance to train aerobically. It's more for lactate tolerance (misnomer...I am aware) and to prevent muscle fatigue at near max speed.
This is somewhat different for someone running fast beyond 60 seconds. So, therefore, yes, the goal is the same in that you are looking to carry the maximum allowable velocity through whatever distance you are racing.
Seems like there's a problem with terminologies here. "Speed Endurance" is a very specific term (as otter and I have both pointed out) but this same term commonly gets applied by many people to other types of workouts. Hence the confusion.
10 x 300, 10 x 100, and some of the other suggestions on this thread are not Speed Endurance. They are workouts that serve a different purpose, that may incorrectly be called speed endurance.
Imagine if "tempo run" was not well-defined as a specific type of effort with a specific training purpose, but instead everyone had the general impression that a tempo run is at least 3K / 2 miles and faster than easy pace. It would then be difficult to have any meaningful conversation about how tempo runs fit into a programme or how to best utilize running at tempo pace/effort. One person would be like, "I did four tempo runs today" when they did 2-mile repeats, while another person would be like "I prefer 40 minute tempo runs" when they are actually running at steady state pace, and another person would be like "Four tempo runs! 40 minutes!! What?" because they do their tempo runs at max 3K pace.
As I said, I'm not an expert so my apologies if I stated anything that's incorrect. But I think I'm on point here -- again, it's really just a question of defining our terms and using terminology consistently so that we can all be on the same page as far as what we're referring to.
This is my biggest problem with discussing training, especially when not in person. Distance coaches are among the worst when we throw out words like "speedwork" as though it means something.
I had a teammate who would call anything faster than a run "speedwork" but many coaches draw the line at some kind of repetition or interval running (some even tempo running) all while sprint coaches or many modern distance coaches will find the idea of 5:20 pace laughable as being anything that should be associate with the word "speed".
Most of the time it's semantics. We go through a brief breakdown in communication to figure out what the other guy means when they say "speedwork" then can proceed without too much issue. But when we all think we know what it means but are operating under different assumptions you'll end up with no valuable information exchanging hands.
I subscribe to the idea that when we talk about sprinting we should use the same language as sprinters. When we talk distance running it's equally appropriate to use something relatively standard so we don't need tangents just to make sure we're even talking about the same thing.
There's a lot of room to use the term "specific endurance" since it's well understood that it's a moving target depending on the event that you're training for. We also know that if we're framing the workout by pace relative to an event then it's a decent catch-all that doesn't assume someone knows what you would be using it for.
WannabeFast wrote:
What are some of you guy's favorite speed endurance workouts?
Circling back to the original question in the thread...
I like bleeding my speed development sessions into speed endurance before going into strictly speed endurance sessions. It might look something like this:
4x60m + 2x80m w/ 5 min rest (speed dev)
5x80m w/ 6 min rest (speed dev)
2x60m + 2x80m + 120m w/ 6 min rest (speed dev/speed end)
120m, 100m, 80m, 2x60m w/ 6 min rest (speed dev/speed end)
2x150m + 3x100m w/ 7 min rest (speed end)
5x150m w/ 7 min rest (speed end)
Not necessarily what we do, but it's a similar flavor. I work with distance runners so I don't always get to have this many dedicated speed endurance sessions, that's a big reason why I like bleeding in different types of sessions; I can keep making things more challenging without dedicating an entire session toward something. I also wouldn't mind seeing SE1 work getting mixed in there, but it would almost never be more than 1-2 reps and not more than 400m if we had it paired with speed dev or speed endurance.
sure I agree this in fact in my first message I defined:
speed endurance 70-150 mt intensity 100%-95% lactic power
speed endurance 70-150 mt intensity 90%-95% lactic
capacity.
speed endurance 70-150 mt intensity from 90% to (90%+vo2max)/2 lactic speed resitstance
this with long recoveries the first two and narrower the third work are the same identical training for sprintes and endurace running. what changes is only the pB, but the efforts are always the same, x bolt will be 97% of 9 and 58, in a lactic power- speed endurance training on 100 mt, for sebastian coe will be 97% of 10 "and 70.
the volume is the same because in such intense work no more 800-900 meters in total. what you say is perhaps another thing that a marathon runner does not attend this area because he does not need lactic power, but ranking is always valid.
intensive time for sprinters, is intensity 80-90% of pbs, the problem is that for a sprinters it is in a lactacid zone, but over 80% he still has in a lactacid zone, while a middle distance runner at 80% of a 400 mt has already reached his VO2max and has exhausted his lactacid zone that's why I say this a zone 80-90% of intensity tempo is wrong for a universal classification.
That is exactly the reason because I don't speak about "speed endurance", but about "SPECIFIC speed endurance".
For a sprinter, a session with 4 sets of 4 x 60m at 98% of max speed, recovering about 1'30" between every test and 6' among every set, is a session of SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE, while is a session of SPEED ENDURANCE (not specific) is the same workout is from a runner of 1500m (many of them, not only Europeans or American, use this type of session).
The problem is to understand one important difference :
SPEED is a word that, in every kind of terminology, means an activity connected with the maximal speed of the athlete. Speed for an amateur Marathon runner with 3 hours of PB, who is not able to run 400m in 64", maybe 15" for 100m (pace of the WR of 5000m) : the type of effort for the athlete is at his MAX intensity for duration not longer than 12" - 15" (forget the official terms ALACTIC and look at that distance under the biomechanical point of view).
But this type of training is SPECIFIC for the sprinter whose event are 100m, is already LESS specific for the specialist of 400m, and, when the distance becomes longer, is always LESS important, compared with the SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE.
Maybe that is easier to understand the meaning if we write in different way : ENDURANCE at a SPECIFIC SPEED.
This is the key of EVERY type of improvement, in a seasonal training Period (General, Fundamental, Special and Specific), in one whole season, and in the development of the whole career : the continuous increase of the VOLUME of the SPECIFIC INTENSITY, that is not always connected with the GENERAL VOLUME, or with the MAXIMAL INTENSITY. These are two factors for sustaining the SPECIFIC WORKOUTS, that are always workouts of ENDEURANCE at the SPEED OF THE RACE.
Can you please give an example Coach?
Intervals were to simulate race conditions, which includes simulating the fatigue the last part of race because one can't give that same effort very often in a time trial or they won't race well.
1976 400m bronze medalist Herman Frazier would run "A" mountain while attending the university..
That relatively short but steep incline can simulate race fatigue for the 400m and 800m and 1500m, depending on where you start.
1.
In the USA, starting with Frank Shorter's marathon gold in '72, and mushrooming with Jim Fixx's book The Complete Book of Running, there was a running boom. Except that the participants were not wanting to race for optimal improvement; rather these participants sought run for the benefits of fitness, and to run somewhat faster than last race, or last season's PB.
5Ks and 10Ks on the road attracted large numbers of runners who paid fees to participate. Many of these type of runners are now looking for a Holy Grail set of workouts that will lower their PBs without having to train like those who race. Such runners prefer increases in low-intensity mileage.
The body must rebuild after hard workouts in order to improve, so low intensity efforts help ensure the body has gotten stronger without rest days.
2.
However, the road runners reach a plateau, and are faced with the choice of even more mileage of relatively low intensity, or the choice of sharpening their interval workouts. After a couple of cycles of plateauing and increasing mileage, further increases in mileage brings meager returns, and are often accompanied by nagging injuries.
Therefore, attempts by these runners to minimize the pain required in interval workouts, if one is to race optimally, has resulted in a proliferation of runners checking pulses, measuring (estimating) VO2, and other Holy Grails.
3.
Posts on this site from former racers insist that sharp interval sessions are the path to optimal improvements in races up to 10Ks, that is, if the week's workouts include easier days and weekly mileage is between 30-60.
Road runners persist in years of high mileage, and running road races, and replacing intense interval sessions with pseudo-interval sessions (e.g. 4 x mile at slightly challenging paces).
otter wrote:
2-3x500 @ 800m pr speed is not speed endurance. At best it's Special End 2 But you need 15 minutes minimum rest, needs to be 90+ percent effort and an athlete can only really handle 1200 meters of work for the entire workout.
3x250m can be considered LSE (special 1) but 10-12 minutes rest 90-95% effort
3x150m - Yes, this can be considered SE but 95-100% effort for glycolytic work
I'm not trying to be difficult about this but I think it's important when speaking about workouts and labels that we are all on the same page as to what they are especially when you are saying that someone else got it wrong.
Today I did 3 x 250 with about 12 -15 minutes of rest and then I did 220 , all run 95 percent of of best 100 meter time pace. How many days should I rest before a 400 meter time trial? In three days I want to do something like 3-4 150 meters all out with full rest and then time trial.
Sure, I was very inspired by your work, when the specialty comes into play, we run over it and slide in progression along the scale from one area to another for the specic speed endurance
this concept was also "in nuce" in the winckler-gambetta classification for sprinters, but they did not make three different classifications: one for 100 mt sprinters, one for 200 mt sprinters and one for 400 mt sprinters, but only one; classified absolute speed the peak speed on 70-80 mt, according to this hand as it moved us away they defined speed endurance both the 80-150 mt works and the 10-80 mt works but with narrow recoveries, (ASSE and GSSE) finally moved even further away from 70-80 mt they introduced the definition "special" special I works on distances 150-300 mt and special II works on distances 300-600 mt. (always at high intensity: 100-90% pb).
<a href="
src="
https://i.ibb.co/ypxhCgV/wer.png"
; alt="wer" border="0"></a>
This is a good thread, with great advice, but it really shows how important the context of the race distance is.
Sir Canova for example for increase the specific speed endurance for example one athlete able to run 9:05 in 3000 m which type of exercise is better maybe in one session 4-5 x 1000m 3:00 m pace for km the next step is better increase the time for example 4x4 mnts 3 mnts pace or is better something like 4x1200m 3:36 sec. And which type of workouts is a good support long runs and tempo run for increase the umbral maybe 3:20 for km and the last km at race pace? Increasing the time or the distance? In the short speed session 400 300 and 200 I can go easy less than 15 sec each 100m I need increase the stamina and the endurance. You are my idol of coach cheers from Canary island I really appreciate if you answer me.
I give the example of how we can improve the SPECIFIC ENDURANCE in a period of time.
Suppose to have the goal to run 1500m in 3'45" (15" every 100m).
This speed must be introduced from the beginning of the preparation, already during the General Period. The same speed can produce a different INTERNAL LOAD, depending on the duration.
Internal Load is the level of effort you do : training is not the proposal (for example, 10 x 1000m in 3 min), but the answer to the requested STIMULUS. This means that if we suppose that 10 times 1000m in 3 min represent a well defined stimulus for the athlete in optimal external conditions, when those conditions are not optimal (cold, wind, personal problems...), the EFFECT of the workout can be the same with different times, too (for example, 3'05" / 3'10" instead 3', if in full winter and with a lot of wind).
Now, if you suppose to maintain an even speed in your tests (in this case, 15" /100m), it's clear that the athlete is able, in any period of preparation, to run 200m in 30" and 300m in 45" without reaching a high level of effort, but, if we want to continue, the level of lactate continues to grow, and the accumulation becomes very high. To do something like this at the beginning of the preparation is dangerous, because, due to the lack of Aerobic Power and a low Lactic Threshold, we produce an effort "out of season" with a body not still ready to remove lactate in short time (that is the real goal of SPECIFIC ENDURANCE under physiological point of view).
Don't do the mistake to think that short test are always lactic : this depends on the speed and the duration of the effort, because if you run at the beginning of the preparation, for example, 50 times 200m in 36" with 30" recovery, totally you run 10 km in 30', and this is a workout absolutely aerobic (nothing lactic).
When we speak about intervals, we have the following variables :
1- Total volume
2- Length of the intervals
3- Speed of the intervals
4- Duration of recovery
5- Way of the recovery (standing, jogging, or running at high percentage of the fast pace)
It's a common mistake to look in limited way at the length of intervals and at total volume, thinking that when we reach a "top specific volume" for the event, the point 1 can be archived, and when we reach a "top specific length" of every test, also the point 2 can be archived. The point 4 is considered NOT important, and the point 5 not depending on the speed.
So, at the end of the General Period, the most part of athletes are able to already reach what is considered the OPTIMAL volume and length of tests, AND THE ONLY CHOICE IS TO MAINTAIN THE SAME DISTANCE, THE SAME NUMBER OF REPETITION, TRYING TO RUN FASTER, ONLY.
In this case, we can enhance the shape for short periods only, because with this type of training the Lactic Threshold, after a first period not longer than one month (maximum), starts to decrease, and the real shape (that is always the combination between Aerobic Level and Lactic ability) disappears.
So, we need to use ALL the variables, building a project able to enhance the "specific endurance" of the athlete without solution of continuity for every Macrocycle (or Period).
Length of test : if we can start already after two weeks of preparation for a new season, for example, with 10 x 200m in 30" recovering 200m jogging in 1'30" (classic intervall-training), during the Fundamental period we have to look at a GENERAL INCREASE in all the areas :
A) INCREASING TOTAL MILEAGE (same length of tests, same speed and same recovery)
10 x 200m in 30" recovery 200m jogging in 1'30" become 12 x 200 < 15 x 200 < 20 x 200m
(total volume from 2000m till 4000m)
B) INCREASING THE LENGTH OF TESTS (same speed, same recovery, same volume)
8 x 250m in 37"5 recovery 200m jogging in 1'30", then 7 x 300m in 45", 5 x 400m in 60", 4 x 500m in 1'15"
C) CUTTING RECOVEY (same volume, same length of tests, same speed)
10 x 200m in 30" recovery 60" walking, then 45" walking, then 30" walking
D) INCREASING THE SPEED (same volume, same length of tests, same recovery)
10 x 200m in 30" with 200m jogging in 1'30" become 10 x 200 in 29" > 28" > 27"....
The combination of all this factors can build a well balanced BASIC SPECIFIC ENDURANCE in the athlete.
In all this process, the SPEED considered like a sprint at max speed has only a "mechanical and technical" role, nothing about the "enzymatic and metabolic" role.
But which is the more important speed for our athlete of 3'45" ? Is the SHORT speed (for example, his speed in 60m) or is the BASIC SPEED connected with the rhythm he has to run for 3'45" ? In other words, is more important to improve the PB in 60m dash from 7"3 to 7" flat, or to become able running 10 x 400m in 58" instead in 60", with same recovery ?
I'm able running 10 x 400m in 62" with 1 min of rest, reaching the levl of lactate of 13mmol/l.
For 3-4 weeks I work in other direction : some short sprint uphill for the recruitment of fast fibers, some "Tempo" long (8-10 km) and short (3-6 km), some Fartlek with mixed tests, and some long run at moderate level.
After that period, I go again for the same workout (10 x 400m in 62" with 1 min rest), but my level of lactate is no more 13 mmol/l : now is 11 mmol/l only.
So, I want to reach the same INTERVAL LOAD of the first time (13 mmol), and for doing this I can still run other 2 times 400m in 1 min.
In the period of one month, with the same level of effort and stimulus for my body, I was able to move from 10 x 400m in 60" to 12 x 400m in 60". Obviously, everybody understands that NOW I'm more resistant at the same speed.
But now, I want to run 10 times only 400m, with the same rest of 1 min, reaching the max level of lactate I had the first time. For doing this, I can now run in 58"5 - 59", and this means that, with the goal to develop my SPECIFIC ENDURANCE, I was also able to improve the SPEED related with my event.
Under practical point of view, if now I'm able to run in 58"5 the same number of 400m that one month before I could run in 1 min only, I'm ready for running faster, ON THE SHORTER DISTANCE too. After years of specific preparation for 800m, we don't have room of improvement on the side of speed, and need to look at the improvement of the Aerobic Power for giving new stimuli at the body : so, an athlete running, for example, in 3 following years 400 / 800 / 1500m with the following times : 48" / 1'50" - 47"5 / 1'48" / 3'52" - 47"3 / 1'47" / 3'48", is very limited in further improvements working for increasing the speed of 400m. He has to better prepare the longer distance of 1500m, starting workouts of endurance at the specific speed of 1500m, and become able running 47"8 / 1'45"5 / 3'40", and maybe the next year no more 400m, but 1'44"8 / 3'37" and 8 min in 3000m.
Using the same system, after other 2 years can run 1'45"5 without specific preparation, but 3'32" and 7'35".
So, the first effect of the increase of SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE is to increase the SPECIFIC SPEED for the shorter distance. In all this plan, for building a full career, the "cake" is always represented by the Aerobic Power (or VO2 max workouts, if you prefer).
Renato Canova thank you very much for your words for me your the best coach ever and is one dream for me every tip from you I try my dream for this season go to the Spanish national indoor in 3000m in this week I can be able of do it this type of session 20x400m in 1:12 with 30 second rest an the last one in 1:01 and I try to increase the specific speed endurance all I can thank you I always read every word you read. I don't know if you know canary island is a very good place for train whith altitude also.
But as a distribution in the microcycle? because then you would have 4 Specific Endurance workouts in a week, I think they are rotating in a week even considering the possibility of microcycles of more than 7 days, right?
On the other hand, for these types of work (which are those that then contribute to unlocking the 4 types of progressions mentioned above), are they more standardised or do they follow a similar type of progression or other progression?
Coach Herman Verheul used what Canova described here: same set of reps over 200, 400 and 1000, with same distance for recovery. Regardless of the race distance.
All reps were easy and aerobic.
Renato Canova this is my workout of today interval of 10 times 200m in 31 recovery jogging 200 in 1:15 and 4 minutes recovery and 3 times 2 mnts 2:45 pace recovery 2 mnts what do you think for increase specific speed endurance for prepare 3000m the next step which type? Tempo run around 3 20 per km 20 mnts? Thanks You Renato