What Are Your Thoughts Regarding This Workout (Part 1)?

Skuj wrote:

1600m + 4x200m + 1600m + 4x200m + 1600m + 4x200m + 1600m + 4x200m

4min recovery surrounds each 1600m, and 30sec recovery is inbetween each 200m.

1600m at 5k to 10k race pace. 200m at 800m to 1500m race pace.

This is for mature runners who can very comfortably run and recover from a 20km.

i think it looks just like an oregon wkout from about 40 years ago.

It looks hard, but it also looks retarded (or at least not focused). I mean, what's the point? Why the 200s after the 1600s? Is this intended to be a speed development workout for 5-10K runners, or an endurance workout for 8-1500 runners?

I like the thought of getting some speed between 5k/10k pace miles. It'd help condition a runner to cope with (and even push) mid-race surges.

I did (1200m/300m)x3 in college to prep for a fast 3k indoors, and really liked throwing the speed between the race-pace intervals. It made race pace feel much more comfortable, which to me, is the key to intervals.

maybe ol' dathan should do a few of these, and mix it up instead of 24.5 evenly paced laps followed by his getting out kicked.

mytwocents wrote:

I like the thought of getting some speed between 5k/10k pace miles.

That's not speed.

This workout makes no sense without the big picture. Why people ask about a specific workout is beyond me. Unless we know much more detail about the involved macrocycle, one just cannot make an informed judgement.

My recommendation is ask your coach why you are doing such a workout. If he cannot explain it within the context of your prescribed training program, then find another coach.

Pamela Andersons Left Nipple wrote:

It looks hard, but it also looks retarded (or at least not focused). I mean, what's the point? Why the 200s after the 1600s? Is this intended to be a speed development workout for 5-10K runners, or an endurance workout for 8-1500 runners?

If Dellinger and/or Bowerman had his charges so this one it must be legit & did have a purpose. The change of pace looks quite interesting. Teaching a runner to cope with varying paces during a race. Learning how to push the pace while running tired.

Skuj wrote:

1600m + 4x200m + 1600m + 4x200m + 1600m + 4x200m + 1600m + 4x200m

4min recovery surrounds each 1600m, and 30sec recovery is inbetween each 200m.

1600m at 5k to 10k race pace. 200m at 800m to 1500m race pace.

This is for mature runners who can very comfortably run and recover from a 20km.

What is the point of the workout?

Wondering wrote:

Skuj wrote:

1600m + 4x200m + 1600m + 4x200m + 1600m + 4x200m + 1600m + 4x200m

4min recovery surrounds each 1600m, and 30sec recovery is inbetween each 200m.

1600m at 5k to 10k race pace. 200m at 800m to 1500m race pace.

This is for mature runners who can very comfortably run and recover from a 20km.

What is the point of the workout?

You don't see any point at all? Discuss your feelings about it. Are they similar to Pamela's? Or Andrew's? :))

Skuj: I did a kind of similar workout just today actually. It was 3x1mi on grass (finishing on big 100m uphill)then walked back down and did 10x100m uphill sprints after each one (walking back down for rest). My workout was different in that the purpose was to develop sense of pace and muscular endurance (it's kind of like some workouts Canova suggest) WITHOUT developing high lactate. The rest between the mile runs is actually very long and the sprints are short enough and the rest long enough to not produce to much lactate. This is a workout I like doing early in the cross season and then later on in the season shorten the rest with more traditional 5-10k race pace type workouts. I like doing the sprints between each one in this workout as it primes my system for the next repeat mile (which is really to focus of the workout, being able to run race pace while tired but without having to produce lactate acid so early in the season). Don't really know if that helps, just thought I'd share because your workout looked kind of similar.

Thank you, citius. I'd like to keep getting input, positive and negative, for now. I accept that any specific workout really is taken out of context, in terms of exactly who should do it and when. But we can discuss general points I think.

As long as you're already in generally good condition, just about anything reasonably stimulating will be effective, either for maintenance purposes or for transferring that basic fitness to race pace. So if you want to vary the speeds at regular intervals, sort of like an organized Fartlek, go ahead. An intelligent sequence of purposeful workouts is obviously better than a jumble of haphazard ones, but the occasional workout that doesn't really seem on paper to focus on any specific systems can still be useful and, if nothing else, a fun deviation from the standard fare of textbook workouts.

The whole shebang involves achieving that generally good condition.

Coach K wrote:

That's not speed.

It might very well be for a 10k runner with below-average 1500m speed. How many 10ks at the collegiate/post-collegiate level are closed faster than say, 61-62? Not too many. Running 1500m pace between 10k pace is a good idea when the runner is hoping to handle bursts during the race, and a good kick at the end.

To whoever mentioned the similarity to the Oregon program, this sounds just like one of Dellinger's 'callous' type workouts, that teaches you how to handle race situations.

Don't be so quick to write off workouts, even if you don't know how they relate to the big picture.

mytwocents wrote:

It might very well be for a 10k runner with below-average 1500m speed. How many 10ks at the collegiate/post-collegiate level are closed faster than say, 61-62?

I think you and I have a different definition of "speed".

Your preface "might very well be", however, supports the notion that one cannot reasonably judge the efficacy of this workout without knowing more about the overall program.

mytwocents wrote:

Don't be so quick to write off workouts, even if you don't know how they relate to the big picture.

Nonsense! Workouts should not be done without an understanding of the overall macrocycle and how the workout fits into the plan. No knowledgeable coach would suggest otherwise.

I've got to agree that the workout is meaningless when taken out of context. Unless we know what your goal is for the workout, and what you have done leading up to this point, it would be foolish to critique it.

I think you might want to be more specific about the paces of the reps.

For instance, do the 1600s at 10km pace, with the 200s at 800m pace. Big contrast, with the 1600s giving more recovery.

or

the 1600s at 5km pace and the 200s at 1500m pace. All at faster pace, little contrast.

What about the recovery period after the 4 x 200m? Another 4 mins?

i have a similar workout in my training, 1600(3:00)(I)-6x400(1:00)(I-1)-1600(3:00)(I)-6x400(1:00)(I-2)-1600(3:00)(I)-400(R), i use Daniels' charts for the pacing. For me this is a race simulator workout.

Difficult, but a good combination. I like it.

Very odd. A strange confliguration of distances and times. What's the point?

Is the purpose for speedwork, variety to beat boredom of regular sessions,simulate race conditions or just a random idea?

Thoughts please- lots of confusion re:aims and objectives!