Bored X coach, willing to give unwanted advice

Probably overthinking it, but would you extend the cooldown to make up for cutting the workout short?

And you didn't answer my question about easy/recovery weeks every 3-4 weeks, do you think they're necessary for everyone?

just wondering...what advice would you suggest for strengthening hamstrings??????????????

Yooooo, would you mind helping me with my mileage/injury problem I asked you about earlier?

Yes I would suggest a longer cool down.

And depending on the person a down week every 3-4 weeks is a very smart thing and a good time to get intense workouts or races in

what do u think the minimum a senior in hs should be able to run on an avg xc course if they ran 53xx 202 and 442 as a junior on the track? i didnt break 18 in xc and i never compete in it but my 2 mile pr is around 11 flat. i attribute it to never putting in the basework ie running maybe 15 mpw with a lot of 0 weeks last summer.

CantKickFasterThanYouCanSprint wrote:

why strides? wrote:

Again, speed is NEVER the issue with a kick. Never.

This is silly. At very least, it is tautological that you can only kick as fast as you can sprint. A guy who can't run a 25 second 200m is not going to kick in 25 seconds. Ever.

On the contrary, if you're kicking as fast as you sprint, you're not sprinting as fast as you could.

A guy that kicks a 200 in 25 seconds can run faster than that in an open 200. So again, speed isn't the issue.

Lol. Breaking 18 with only an hour a day to train? Please. Don't be so pedantic. It's not necessary for you to assert your opinion.

This is simply another archaic 'running idea' that at face value sounds brilliant but upon closer inspection doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Saul Goodman wrote:

Another angle I look at 'fast' running from is that your top race speed and overall race speed are limited by your top speed. Say you're an 18:00 guy, your average 100m in that race is 21.6s. Let's also say your overall top 100m speed is 15.4s. This means you're capable of running about 71% of your top speed over 5km. If you can work your top speed down to 14.8s, you might not see an exact extrapolation on your 5k time (71% of 14.8 for 5km is about 17:18),but you're certain to see some improvement provided you're not sacrificing endurance-building work to work on your speed. Strides don't sacrifice anything.

None of that is correct. If you see a correlation it's just coincidence. I'm sure we can find dozens of stories of people on here running mid and long distance times while having atrocious top speed.

And vice versa.

speed helps wrote:

Yep. I'd look at it this way: faster top end speed means that running a given submaximal pace feels easier. If a 59 second guy and a 52 second guy run 61 flat for the first lap of the mile, the 59 second guy is basically sprinting while the 52 second guy is nowhere close to redlining. They aren't really limited by their sprint speed per se since they aren't trying to run faster than their all out sprint pace, but the faster guy will have an easier time hanging with the pace.

That's ridiculous. If that 59 second guy has better aerobic conditioning than the 52 guy (or the 47 guy or the 44 guy!!) the 59 second guy will WIN THE MILE RACE.

Going by this logic Jeremy Wariner should go run a 3:45 mile because 56 second 400s are sooooo slow!

Sorry to hijack the thread. It's a wonderful thread and not a place to debate the merits of strides.

I do appreciate all the insight and opinions, though. Have a good one fellas.

why strides? wrote:

Sorry to hijack the thread. It's a wonderful thread and not a place to debate the merits of strides.

I do appreciate all the insight and opinions, though. Have a good one fellas.

Strides? Strides? Are you focking kidding me?

I'll be a dick since I've been known to be one before.

Why Strides?, I can tell you have never run fast, coached anyone fast, or had someone fast on your team. You are one of those guys that wants to be heard. You would win an NCAA title if you were only given the chance to coach at team in the NCAA. You also think the only reason X school wins is because of recruiting or kenyans.

Listen every coach is wrong, Salazar, McDonnell, Jerry, hudson. Thank you for enlightening the running community. When you win your age group this weekend at the road race wear that medal proud. You sir are a Internet badass!

Can't wait for you to keep posting on this thread. Did I mention you are awesome?

why strides? wrote:

speed helps wrote:

Yep. I'd look at it this way: faster top end speed means that running a given submaximal pace feels easier. If a 59 second guy and a 52 second guy run 61 flat for the first lap of the mile, the 59 second guy is basically sprinting while the 52 second guy is nowhere close to redlining. They aren't really limited by their sprint speed per se since they aren't trying to run faster than their all out sprint pace, but the faster guy will have an easier time hanging with the pace.

That's ridiculous. If that 59 second guy has better aerobic conditioning than the 52 guy (or the 47 guy or the 44 guy!!) the 59 second guy will WIN THE MILE RACE.

Going by this logic Jeremy Wariner should go run a 3:45 mile because 56 second 400s are sooooo slow!

Your max sprint speed is 15.1 second for 100m. I don't care how godly of aerobic fitness you develop there is no way in hell you are going sub 4 for the mile.

If you think a 15.1 100m speed guy who could run a 4:03 mile has worse endurance then a guy with 12 second speed who can run a 3:55 mile your either insane or using a completely different definition of aerobic than most do (to you it basically sounds like aerobic fitness = race time).

I can also throw the same convoluted logic back at you also: since Bolt and Wariner run so fast in the 100, 200, and 400m they must have the best aerobic endurance of anyone.

Obviously this brings into issue the concern of speed. Your damn near implying speed means nothing and it's all conditioning. I assume you can't possible agree with this for sprinting events like the 100m, 200m, and probably 400m. Where then does it switch to "aerobic conditioning". Do you suddenly hit 800m and speed doesn't matter at all? 1500m? 5k?

Also, your model (at least how you have explained it) doesn't seem to handle certain things very well. For instance let's take a 1:43/14:00 800m and compare to someone like Bekele who is 1:48?/12:37. Now there is a problem, Bekele is much faster at 5K (more endurance) but get's rocked at 800m. Why? How would you explain this in your line of reasoning?

As a high school freshman, ran 35-40 mpw leading up to cross country. However, got hurt following spring and missed both summer training and cross country for sophomore year. So for summer training leading up to junior year, what mileage do you recommend?

As much as I enjoy reading about strides... can we change the topic back to what this thread was intended to be. I am really enjoying hearing what X coach was to say about training.

why strides? wrote:

Going by this logic Jeremy Wariner should go run a 3:45 mile because 56 second 400s are sooooo slow!

You don't understand the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." Having speed is necessary, but not sufficient for running well in distance and mid-d events. That running well in the mile requires some basic speed does not imply that anyone with good speed will be good at the mile.

Speed Helps,

Congrats on taking a 100 level philosophy class. Now that you've made your annoyingly pedantic point shut the fvck up and have a nice day!

What hamstring issues are you having .

gaggle of geese wrote:

just wondering...what advice would you suggest for strengthening hamstrings??????????????

That's no where close to enough info to give you an opinion.

X.Dad wrote:

As a high school freshman, ran 35-40 mpw leading up to cross country. However, got hurt following spring and missed both summer training and cross country for sophomore year. So for summer training leading up to junior year, what mileage do you recommend?