4x200 meters at 800 meter race pace with 60 sec. between. Three sets total.
Seems to fast for VO2 training and slightly too slow for speed (anaerobic) training.
What training system would this touch on?
4x200 meters at 800 meter race pace with 60 sec. between. Three sets total.
Seems to fast for VO2 training and slightly too slow for speed (anaerobic) training.
What training system would this touch on?
this does seem a pointless session and i can't see what you'd get out of it.
It's pace work.
Relaxation at race speed !
speed race I meant!
surely it would make more sense to do something like 3 400s off 60secs at 800m race pace.
hot dog wrote:
surely it would make more sense to do something like 3 400s off 60secs at 800m race pace.
The question was about the purpose of the workout, not whether it was the most effective workout for that purpose.
Pace awareness early in the season. What is the context of the workout? Mileage for the week? Other workouts for the week?
If this is February and you've done nothing but relatively easy mileage and strength/endurance work then this is a good intro to race pace.
If this is May and you hve your championship race on Saturday this is a good early week workout to focus on the pace you will try to run in the race.
You run workouts like this for 1. An early season intro or 2. Race prep.
Alan
I actually don't think this is too slow for anaerobic training. In all likelihood, you were asked to run at 800m goal pace, not current pace. Plus, but the time you get to the later intervals of the 2nd and 3rd set, you will be running anaerobically for the entire interval.
At this time of year, I have my runners focus on VO2 Max and threshold training. It's only early March and we're focusing on late May or early June. This week for example, we're doing 8 x 400 at 1600 goal pace w/ equal time recovery as one workout, and a second workout of either 4 x 1600 or 5 by 1k, both at about 15s/mile under tempo pace with 1-1:30 rest.
I never did true tempo runs or threshold training with my kids before, and the results after about 5 weeks of it are already amazing. They aren't blasting any 800s yet, but they are easily handling intervals off of less than half of the rest they used to get, and their normal training distance run paces have dropped by as much as 30s per mile at the same perceived effort. On girl used to train consistently at 8-8:15 per mile and is now running 7:35-7:45....and this is a girl running year round. We just added tempos and threshold work instead of pure intervals.
We're also doing hill bounding about 2-3 times per week.
I'm hoping to see huge drops in PRs by mid-season, as we start doing more anaerobic intervals with this kind of base already there.
if you read my earlier post you'd have read that i didn't think there was any point to the workout and then i was giving my idea of something similar that i thought would be a better work out.
i see your comment added nothing to the debate.
hot dog wrote:
if you read my earlier post you'd have read that i didn't think there was any point to the workout and then i was giving my idea of something similar that i thought would be a better work out.
i see your comment added nothing to the debate.
I see no debate. I do see some thoughtful responses to the OP's question. Your first response did deal with the subject at hand, albeit in a rather trite fashion. Obviously from this response you must truly know the meaning of adding "nothing to the debate." Your second post, though more thoughtful and valuable, was somewhat off topic. Thus my retort.
Do not be offended. I have chastised many a poster on this board for their lack of reading comprehension. Do not, however, ever again accuse me of not reading something. It is, after all, my name.
I can remember reading (Athletics Weekly) about the Russians (Kazankina, Olizaryenko et al) using this type of session in the late 70s. However, from what I can recall they would run like for like effort/recovery: 29/29 etc. (Prospective) race pace intervals with reducing recoveries as the season progresses can be very effective as long as they are not overused.
In high school our 4*8 did something similar to what you describe. Towards the end of the season when we were about as fit as we were going to get, we would run 4*200 "relays", whereby you run a 200 @ current 800m race pace (just under 30 sec at the time), hand off the baton and jog straight across the infield to receive the baton again from the runner you just handed off to. So it was basically a 1:1 ratio workout. VERY tough for us at the time. It was always a big deal if your "team" of two could break 4:00 for the relay, thus breaking 4:00 for the mile (or close enough to be called a mile) between the two of you. Oh yeah, we started in the middle of the straightaway, and handed off in the middle of the opposite straight, that way we could just jog straight back across the infield. Good times...
I see no debate. I do see some thoughtful responses to the OP's question. Your first response did deal with the subject at hand, albeit in a rather trite fashion. Obviously from this response you must truly know the meaning of adding "nothing to the debate." Your second post, though more thoughtful and valuable, was somewhat off topic. Thus my retort.
Do not be offended. I have chastised many a poster on this board for their lack of reading comprehension. Do not, however, ever again accuse me of not reading something. It is, after all, my name.[/quote]
Ha ha, you do make me chuckle and no offence was taken.
My first response was to the fact that from all my training over the years I have never really seen that session and I didn't really see what benefit it would give, and yes my answer was quite uninformative so sorry about that. The closest I had seen to something like that session was a 400m runner doing split 4s, so they’d do 250m at race pace then have a short break (can’t remember the time) and then do 150m at race pace, and even they would do 2 or 3 sets.
As for my second thought I was responding to the answer above my post and I didn’t think I was sending the thread into to much of a radical direction by saying that I thought a better session for that type of workout would have been the one I mentioned.
Oh and the word trite, good word.
hot dog wrote:
I see no debate. I do see some thoughtful responses to the OP's question. Your first response did deal with the subject at hand, albeit in a rather trite fashion. Obviously from this response you must truly know the meaning of adding "nothing to the debate." Your second post, though more thoughtful and valuable, was somewhat off topic. Thus my retort.
Do not be offended. I have chastised many a poster on this board for their lack of reading comprehension. Do not, however, ever again accuse me of not reading something. It is, after all, my name.
Ha ha, you do make me chuckle and no offence was taken.
My first response was to the fact that from all my training over the years I have never really seen that session and I didn't really see what benefit it would give, and yes my answer was quite uninformative so sorry about that. The closest I had seen to something like that session was a 400m runner doing split 4s, so they’d do 250m at race pace then have a short break (can’t remember the time) and then do 150m at race pace, and even they would do 2 or 3 sets.
As for my second thought I was responding to the answer above my post and I didn’t think I was sending the thread into to much of a radical direction by saying that I thought a better session for that type of workout would have been the one I mentioned.
Oh and the word trite, good word.[/quote]
WTF??
First off, ask your coach. He/She should be able to tell you what the purpose is behind the workout.
I agree with other posters that you did not include enough information. Knowing what workouts you have done could provide some insight.
That said, as a coach myself I can see many reasons a coach might do a workout like this: If you ran a hard workout the day before it might be a way to train you to run race pace while tired. Or maybe your coach thinks you just need to learn pace. (The 800 will usually possitve split but too many runners in HS have extreme splits like 60 and then a 75). Maybe you have worked really hard lately and this is a workout that will help rejuvinate your legs. Again, hard to tell with such little information.
The real lesson here is to ask your coach. They should be able to tell you why.
Just responding to ‘reading is fundamental’
Just responding to ‘reading is fundamental’ criticism of my posts earlier
hot dog wrote:
I see no debate. I do see some thoughtful responses to the OP's question. Your first response did deal with the subject at hand, albeit in a rather trite fashion. Obviously from this response you must truly know the meaning of adding "nothing to the debate." Your second post, though more thoughtful and valuable, was somewhat off topic. Thus my retort.
Do not be offended. I have chastised many a poster on this board for their lack of reading comprehension. Do not, however, ever again accuse me of not reading something. It is, after all, my name.
Ha ha, you do make me chuckle and no offence was taken.
My first response was to the fact that from all my training over the years I have never really seen that session and I didn't really see what benefit it would give, and yes my answer was quite uninformative so sorry about that. The closest I had seen to something like that session was a 400m runner doing split 4s, so they’d do 250m at race pace then have a short break (can’t remember the time) and then do 150m at race pace, and even they would do 2 or 3 sets.
As for my second thought I was responding to the answer above my post and I didn’t think I was sending the thread into to much of a radical direction by saying that I thought a better session for that type of workout would have been the one I mentioned.
Oh and the word trite, good word.
Can we get someone to translate this please? Thank you.
Searching for sense wrote:
Can we get someone to translate this please? Thank you.
He means there is no debate because he is in agreement with the other poster. He then laughs at himself for causing the confusion about the posts, I think. He goes on to state that the workout he did not like is really much like a workout he is familiar with, so it was really okay afterall. He concludes that another of his posts was an attempt to offer a superior choice. He now realizes it was wrong. Everybody's happy now.