Why are 150m repeats a thing? Why not just do 200s or 100s. Why would someone decide "oh let's be different and stop half way between where the track isn't even marked". Is there a history to it?
Why are 150m repeats a thing? Why not just do 200s or 100s. Why would someone decide "oh let's be different and stop half way between where the track isn't even marked". Is there a history to it?
150boyyy wrote:
Why are 150m repeats a thing? Why not just do 200s or 100s. Why would someone decide "oh let's be different and stop half way between where the track isn't even marked". Is there a history to it?
Actually, HS tracks in the US have a mark for the 300m hurdles that is exactly 150m from the common finish line.
The point remains the same. Why not just run a full 200?
creatine phosphate metabolic pathway
Explain.
Why are repeats of any distance a thing?
150m repeats are usually a good tuneup workout where you work on coming out of the turn and winding up a nice finish without building up much lactic acid.
4 repeats of those usually does the trick
It could be done after a harder session.
Like 2 X 600, 400, 200 then do the 4 X 150.
Or by itself a day or two before a race you are peaking for.
Warn up. 4 X 150. Warm down.
random physiology wrote:
creatine phosphate metabolic pathway
Excactly, I think. 100s are primarily creatine based (if enough rest between), 200s are much more lactic (even if you do not feel it too much) and 150 are in between. And then, we can keep a higher speed on 100s compared to 150s compared to 200s so the muscular activation is different.
I use 10s hill sprints (comparable to 100s) and 30s slightly uphill sprints (comparable to 200s for me). On the bike I do 10, 20 or 30sec sprints and they are different. the 10s are pure speed, the 20s are speed with lactate and the 30s are lactate and a little lower speed, kind of speed endurance. On the bike it is easier to get lactate much faster. I guess due to what I am used to and that I do not have the running mechanics to sprint fast.
For variety..
One point is so the athletes don't get too caught up in time. In 100s/200s people get numbers in their head while in 150s they can just give a good effort without knowing good 150 times
100s seem a little short for middle distance.
I mean, why run a 300m when you could just run a 200m or 400m? Why run a 1000m when you could just do a 800m or 1200m?
As a coach who has worked with tons of middle distance and distance runners, I like doing 150's for weekly strides and pre-race days. 4-8 x 150 with a walk back recovery is a great training tool. I like to set up cones at the 50m and 100m mark and have them accelerate at each cone. This helps them learn how to stay smooth and work on accelerating into the finish line. Like a previous person mentioned, 200's can produce more lactate than I would like and people get caught up on time. A 100m is just to short and people run too hard.
150s are great. You can run a decent volume of them at 800 pace or faster, more than if you ran 200's and not be sore the next day - great for improving running economy. If you're a 200-400 runner, 150's are your bread and butter and you can do like 5 or 6 of them in 400 workouts, which is a nice volume at 400 pace as well. 150's are also going good overdistance training for the short sprinters (100-200). Basically, no matter what type of runner you are, 150's allow you to run decent volume at a hard intensity, much more than 100's.
20 years ago, a great Staten Island coach told me that 150s provide a neurological blueprint without fatiguing you.
This coach was a disciple of Daniels and I told him that my Daniels' trained distance runners were having trouble running the 4x800 in indoor meets. He recommended 150s at the end of easy runs.