Why would this method of training not work?

This is all pretty ridiculous. Run 400s or run 600s. You could do a 800 meter time trial if you want. The workouts you describe are far too low in volume to be of much use. You want to get used to running faster than race distance and longer at a still hard pace.

Classic racehorse training except they bump up the distance by a furlong for each workout and then usually top out at not much more than half the race distance.

There is no set rule as to how much specific pace volume is enough for a runner.

There is no guarantee that you would achieve that target time (your genetics determine whether you can) but that is actually a viable training approach. You should strive to maintain 7.5m/sec speed for as long as humanly possible and try to increase your distance each time out. But because this is a maximum intensity form of training, you should cut out most, if not all other training when employing this approach instead of continuing your "normal" training. I would simply perform the session once every 3-5 days and recover completely between sessions. Although highly unconventional, it does work.

This is also the basic idea behind a lot of beginner weightlifting programs. Adding small increments each session. You would eventually stop improving(stall) and if it works like weightlifting, you would have to reduce the distance and build back up again.

The problem with what you are suggesting OP is that the effort is maximal. Constant training at maximal effort is not efficient, although this might be effective for a beginner.

Your method is already commonly used among runners, just in different ways. For instance, increasing mileage by 10 percent each week. In simple terms: trying to beat the last training session(competing with yourself).

bumbojumbo wrote:

The problem with what you are suggesting OP is that the effort is maximal. Constant training at maximal effort is not efficient, although this might be effective for a beginner.

Training exclusively at maximal effort is the most efficient training approach for the 800m provided that volume is kept low, ample recovery between sessions is allowed, and competing training activities are not introduced. This method is not known to competitive runners at any level and has never been discredited.

It's worth mentioning that 60 seconds for a 12.0 runner is not going to be maximal effort.

I was

Edward Teach wrote:

This is all pretty ridiculous. Run 400s or run 600s. You could do a 800 meter time trial if you want. The workouts you describe are far too low in volume to be of much use. You want to get used to running faster than race distance and longer at a still hard pace.

I was not saying it it a good method or that i would use it ,i was just curious as to the reasons it would not work as i have never seen anybody train in this way.

I was

Edward Teach wrote:

This is all pretty ridiculous. Run 400s or run 600s. You could do a 800 meter time trial if you want. The workouts you describe are far too low in volume to be of much use. You want to get used to running faster than race distance and longer at a still hard pace.

I was not saying it is a good method or that i would use it ,i was just curious as to the reasons it would not work as i have never seen anybody train in this way.

SMJO wrote:

It's worth mentioning that 60 seconds for a 12.0 runner is not going to be maximal effort.

7.5m/sec will turn into a maximum effort for anyone if sustained long enough.

SMJO wrote:

It's worth mentioning that 60 seconds for a 12.0 runner is not going to be maximal effort.

It just seemed a good distance to start at , as around 450m - 550m would be where it gets difficult to keep hitting the target time..... No point wasting time testing you could do 100m in 15 seconds when you're a 12.0 sprinter anyway.

charle0 wrote:

I was not saying it is a good method or that i would use it ,i was just curious as to the reasons it would not work as i have never seen anybody train in this way.

It IS a good method and it WILL work. The only reason people think it won't is because it's unconventional and goes against everything they "think" they know about training. Most people only look at the training of elite runners and assume that whatever those athletes do is correct. If you can get past the fact that the method you're talking about isn't used by elite runners, you'll have a viable approach to training.

Assuming that you are doing sufficient volume and training the various energy systems involved from sprints to aerobic power, your overall concept is fairly common, but not quite the way you're saying.

Frank Horwill talked about and actually used sometimes a system that worked more or less like this. Start with, say, 12X200 at 2:00 pace with maybe 2:00 rest to start. When you can do that, keep the total volume the same and the rest period the same, but gradually increase the work bout to 250, then 300m then 400, and so on, until you can run a whole 800 at that pace (many Kenyans use 8X200 with 30 sec as an indicator workout).

You can also go:

3X4X200 with 1 min/6min

then 6X300 with 2 min

then 3X400 with 4 min

then 2X(500+300)

then 1X(600+200)

then 700 TT

As you go through the sequence, you get to where you can run the whole 800 on time.

SMJO wrote:

It's worth mentioning that 60 seconds for a 12.0 runner is not going to be maximal effort.

It's also worth mentioning that you're completely wrong. There are plenty of 12 second runners that would have a hard time with 60 seconds.

we b cookin bacon wrote:

7.5m/sec will turn into a maximum effort for anyone if sustained long enough.

Of course but if he's not adding much distance each time he does the workout it's going to be some time before the workout is actually maximal.

we b cookin bacon wrote:

It IS a good method and it WILL work. The only reason people think it won't is because it's unconventional and goes against everything they "think" they know about training. Most people only look at the training of elite runners and assume that whatever those athletes do is correct. If you can get past the fact that the method you're talking about isn't used by elite runners, you'll have a viable approach to training.

Lets not forget they all laughed at Dick Fosbury.

I'm reminded of this story from Hadd. It's long but worth the read. Unfortunately you can't simply force aerobic development by running hard.

"I have always ridden motorcycles. I tend to ride them pretty hard. I live in a rural area, so this

usually means throwing the bike like a maniac round the twisty country roads. Great fun. The

part of me that loves doing this has not aged one whit. All this just to explain that occasionally I

come off the bike, sometimes spectacularly.

One such time (and not the last), almost 8 years ago, involved some broken bones and a

prolonged spell out of training. It was six months before I felt like getting back into it, and when

I did, it was winter and miserable. So I postponed it some more (which was suprisingly easy to

do).

When I did go out for the first few runs, they were a major struggle and I could not remember

ever running so slow in my whole life. I had still been coaching all the while I was out of

running, and had recently started a couple of new young guys. Although I tell them I really don't

care what training they have done before they come to me (and that I was going to test them

myself and form my own opinion), they (and others) are pleased to show me their old training

schedules and often show up to first day of training with a printout. (It usually turns out they are

mad keen to show me how fast they can run a session of 400s).

Perhaps because I was browsing some of these printouts, added to the depressing fact I seemed

to have slipped back so far in what was now one whole year off training, but I decided to try

something a bit different. I am nothing if not a student of the sport, I knew how I coached, and

what worked for me, but I also knew there were many other ways that claimed to get you fit. I

had read all manners of training schedules over the years. So I decided to put myself on a low

mileage/high intensity schedule and hammer my old ass back into shape in the shortest time

possible. What can I say? It suited my temperament at the time.

I formulated a week that included; a 3-mile run as fast as possible (and trying to improve the

time each week); a 45-min hilly route run as intense as I could make it; and a 90-min run at best

possible steady pace (without struggling or crashing and having to back off at any point). Three

other days were just 30-45 mins at a reasonable lick. No slow easy runs in the whole week. One

day a week off.

I kept this up for 3 months. Along the way I took part in some shorter faster stuff with the

younger kids during training. I realised though that there were some days when I just could not

keep up the pace on the 45min or 90 min runs in training, and would just bag those runs and turn

for home.

A year previously, I had been used to long runs with the 2.35-2.45 marathon group, but I was

now acutely aware that I could not yet go back out with them, but I did accept the good-natured

cajolling of the 3.00-3.15 marathon group to join them for one of their 2hr+ long runs (±8.00-

8.15m/m).

Now, as all runners do, I had already figured out that my 3-milers were by now at 5.30-5.40

pace, the 45 min run was 6.00m/m± and the 90 min run was somewhere around 6.40m/m or so.

Even the easy runs were rarely slower than 7.00m/m. You would have thought 8.00m/m would

be a breeze...

It was one of the worst runs of my entire life. I can still recall it. All the way I wanted to either

stop and walk, or speed up to normal 90-min pace and get my ass out of there. The rest of the

group were laughing and joking and I was gritting my teeth because it felt like my legs were

made of wood and someone had tied a piano to my back. Luckily, I was not too suprised and I

knew why I felt so bad...

Way back in the late 1960s a professor called John Holloszy got some rats to run on a treadmill

for various lengths of time up to 2hrs per day at around 50-75% of the rats' VO2max (easy

running, therefore). After 12 weeks, he found that the rats had increased the mitochondria (vital

for aerobic energy production) in their running muscles (compared to control rats that did no

training). This was a seminal piece of work, because it explained why runners get better with

training.

The next question was logical. How long should people run for to optimally cause this effect?

Back to Holloszy and his fellow researchers who formed 4 groups of rats to train: one group

running 10mins/day, a second running 30mins/day, a third running 60mins and a fourth running

2hrs/day. All at the same easy 50-60% VO2max, and for 5 days/week for 13 weeks.

Perhaps logically, the 2hr-group had the greatest increase in mitochondria at the end of the

training period.

In a tough endurance test at the end of the training, the 10-min rats managed 22 mins, the 30-min

group 41 mins, the 60-min rats could run hard for 50 mins and the 2hr-rats kept going for 111

mins. It was now apparent that time to exhaustion (all rats running the same pace) was directly

related to mitochondria development (which itself was directly related to time spent training).

But what about intensity? Were mitochondria only created while running long and slow?

In 1982, a guy called Gary Dudley decided to explore this question. He had several groups of

rats training five days/week (but only for 8 weeks). Like Holloszy, he also used a range of

different training durations, from 5-90 mins per day. However UNLIKE Holloszy (whose rats all

trained at the same pace) he also used a range of training intensities. Dudley's rats trained at

either 100%, 85%, 70%, 50% or 40% VO2max. He also examined how different intensities and

different durations affected different muscle types (fast twitch white, fast twitch red or

"intermediate", and slow twitch).

The results were interesting and each fibre type responded differently:

Improvements in mitochondria in fast twitch white fibres began while running at 80% VO2max

(but not slower, presumably because they were not recruited) and increased exponentially as the

pace climbed to 100% VO2max.

However improvements in fast twitch red (intermediate) fibres maximised at sub-max paces

(85% VO2max) and did not get better with increased speed.

And the best way to cause improvements in slow-twitch fibres was to run long and slow at 70%

VO2max (adaptation began from as low as 50% VO2max pace). Faster was not better. Although

Dudley found that 90 mins was not better than 60 mins, Holloszy had shown that 2hrs was

definitely better than one hour (which ties in nicely with Lydiard-type training recommendations

that one 2hr run was better than 2 x 60 mins — you have to admit that the guy had great intuition

born of his experience trying out different training on himself).

So, (some of you may be way ahead of me already). Why was my 8.00m/m run so difficult?

Well, all my training in the 3 months leading up to it had been relatively hard. I had not trained

slow enough for my slow twitch fibres to become stimulated to build huge amounts of

mitochondria. My fast twitch red were becoming okay (I was reasonably good for 3-6m fast), but

I could not access those fast powerful fibres at 8.00m/m. The intensity was too low. I was being

forced to use my slow-twitch fibres... and they were not trained for any kind of endurance, and

certainly not 2hrs.

It seems paradoxical, that I can be okay at 7.00m/m, but not at 8.15m/m, but here is one example.

I was okay if I ran hard enough to force my body to recruit my fast twitch red fibres (and as long

as they had enough glycogen). Like most distance runners I have relatively few fast twitch white

fibres, so they were little help, and in all my 3 months of training my slow twitch were being bypassed

on every training run. (Or rather, recruited, but swamped/overworked). The intensity of

each training run was too high for them to be stimulated optimally to best create mitochondria in

themselves (and thus improve). So when I ran at a pace that I was forced to access ONLY them,

I was sunk.

Following this run, I threw out the intensity and went back to training sensibly. In 10 weeks I

was more like my old (younger?) self.

So, to sum up:

To improve your LT (which will have a direct impact on your race performances), you must

increase the motochondria in your running muscles (in a neat move, the optimal training to

improve mitochondria is also the optimal training to improve capillary density).

The more mitochondria, the less lactate at every running pace. But mitochondrial adaptation in

each fibre type is training-intensity dependent. If you want to maximise the number of

mitochondria in each fibre type, you must train at the correct pace for that type. (remember; the

more mitochondria, the less lactate; the less lactate, the faster the racing pace and the more

economical you are at any pace, meaning you can keep that pace up for longer.)"

brained wrote:

SMJO wrote:

It's worth mentioning that 60 seconds for a 12.0 runner is not going to be maximal effort.

It's also worth mentioning that you're completely wrong. There are plenty of 12 second runners that would have a hard time with 60 seconds.

Do you know something about this guy that I don't? If he is doing any reasonable amount of running and has already dabbled with the 800 then it's not going to be that hard.

I've never known a single 12.0 runner who had trouble with a 60 second quarter.

Let me guess, that is your lifetime dream?

It might work, but it would take forever if you're just trying to increase 5 or 10 meters each time.

It is a whole nuther ball of wax to get to 600 in 90 than to get to 400 in 60. You have to train yourself to run at race pace on aerobic power so you don't go acidic and die. Increasing incrementally would train you to switch energy systems at a snail's pace. Run 600's right off the bat and you adapt quickly.

SMJO wrote:

brained wrote:

It's also worth mentioning that you're completely wrong. There are plenty of 12 second runners that would have a hard time with 60 seconds.

Do you know something about this guy that I don't? If he is doing any reasonable amount of running and has already dabbled with the 800 then it's not going to be that hard.

I've never known a single 12.0 runner who had trouble with a 60 second quarter.

Let me guess, that is your lifetime dream?

Since you don't believe somebody could run 12 flat and struggle with a 60 second quarter, I'll chime in and give you an example. My girlfriend's pr in the 100 is 12.1. She has never broken 60 in a 400, despite having attempted it a handful of occasions.

To the OP: This training strategy might work to get a highly talented runner to run 2 flat in the 800. However, I would argue that if it did succeed, that runner probably had the potential to run 1:50 or faster, simply because this workout brings you to exhaustion quickly, minimizing the amount of work you can accomplish in training.

If as you suggest they do normal training, then follow it up with the plan you laid out each day, that wouldn't be as bad, but they will probably burn out from doing something at maximal effort every day.