In seeing some examples of Bowerman's workouts "something like 6x1,320 at 5-10k pace, followed by a six to ten mile hard run, followed by 8x110 fast". In other references to his training I've seen the six to ten mile type of segments of the workouts refered to as "fartlek". Was this fartlek at any certain pace, tempo, or basically just by feel, as easy or as hard as one felt like running?
In the example you are referencing to, the ten miler refers to what Bowerman calls, "lydiard Fartlek." It's a steady paced run, what most people call a tempo or rhythm. Bowerman did not ask a specific pace as he knew you would get after it if you were feeling good.
BuffofHistory wrote:
In seeing some examples of Bowerman's workouts "something like 6x1,320 at 5-10k pace, followed by a six to ten mile hard run, followed by 8x110 fast". In other references to his training I've seen the six to ten mile type of segments of the workouts refered to as "fartlek". Was this fartlek at any certain pace, tempo, or basically just by feel, as easy or as hard as one felt like running?
Sounds like a good workout for a marathon on a track.
The fartlek portion, as I've read, was on the roads away from the track, many times through hilly neighborhoods, ending up back at the track for the 110s.
The entire setup really just looks like a lot of fun and variety. Good solid session with quality and volume.
BuffofHistory wrote:
In seeing some examples of Bowerman's workouts "something like 6x1,320 at 5-10k pace, followed by a six to ten mile hard run, followed by 8x110 fast". In other references to his training I've seen the six to ten mile type of segments of the workouts refered to as "fartlek". Was this fartlek at any certain pace, tempo, or basically just by feel, as easy or as hard as one felt like running?
That's not fartlek. Fartlek training is unstructured. That is the beauty of it.
It is the distance work after the Intervals that is the "fartlek", being just a portion of the overall workout as Bowerman seems to have designed it.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=432770&page=0
Scroll down to KnutK:
"He was as mentioned a believer in fartlek running. These are often described as easy runs. Bill was very aware and in many ways encouraged some of us to run some of these runs in a solid pace. These were runs between two sets of interval work in one session. Some of us we put in a major part of our training effort on these runs"
Or in Kenny's example, the "five-mile run through the hills" that is the "fartlek":
http://www.kennymoore.us/kcmarticles/The%20Man.pdf
"I was allowed our regular hard-day sessions of four three-quarter-mile repetitions at 67-second-per-lap pace, then a five-mile run through the hills and rhododendrons of nearby Hendricks Park and four fast 110-yard strides before showering."
Perhaps Bowerman's definition was simply different hence the original question, and fartlek for him simply meant the running portion of the workout away from the track, whether loosely planned or spontaneous.
Bowerman was very low volume. 4 x 1,200 would be a hard workout...plus w-up and w-down, strides etc....maybe the main set would be followed by 110's or 3 x300 cutdowns. Dellinger modified Bowerman's system and increased the volume of work significantly.
Any structure to a sesssion such as a prescription of distance or time means that it is not fartlek.
In a fartlek workout, the idea is to run fast and stop before you get tired and repeat. Unspecified speed and distance allows you to do this. This makes the session more fun and gives physiological benefits that you don't get from structured work, i.e. it helps you to learn to run fast without the usual pain and fatigue. The original concept was based on the way that kids develop their running talent, which adults tend not to do because of the adult preocupation with working hard in training which kids don't do because kids run for fun, they don't 'train'. In other words, adults should spend more time running as kids do, this is true fartlek.