can't be wrote:
Why not, for example, stick with the 6 x800 workout
and focus on running the repeats faster or reducing the recovery time?
That seems like a logical progression to me as well. I just don't see how changing the distance of the repeat ( 5 x 1000) and maintaining the same effort level (5K pace) is going to make the difference between improvement or growing stale.
Sure, you could do that. The way I outlined it is the way I like to do it, but you can manipulate any or all of these variables - volume, speed, recovery, and frequency.
The example I gave where the repetition length increases each time is actually an example of reducing the recovery. Note this progression. Each workout includes a 400 meter recovery jog in 2:00.
6x800 = 3 miles at 5k broken up by 10 minutes jogging
5x1000 = 3 miles at 5k with 8 minutes jogging
4x1200 = 3 miles at 5k with 6 minutes jogging
3x1600 = 3 miles at 5k with 4 minutes jogging
I suppose it would be equally valid to reduce the jogging portion. Something like
6x800 w/ 400 jog = 3 miles at 5k with 10 minutes jogging
6x800 w/ 300 jog = 3 miles at 5k with 7.5 minutes jogging
6x800 w/ 200 jog = 3 miles at 5k with 5 minutes jogging
Could you also speed up the running, increase the volume, or increase the frequency? Yes, absolutely. There is something to be said for experimentation and finding out what works best for you.
At the same time, you don't need to re-invent the wheel. The reason runners keep getting faster is they stand on the shoulders of those who have come before them, so they can do what works and reject what doesn't work. Don't go back to Bannister's training just to do trial and error. If you find a program that has worked for others, it may very well work for you.