I did not say that. I just said I had never seen someone that fast struggle to break 60. Probably because the people I knew did at least some distance running, as I am presuming the OP does.
I did not say that. I just said I had never seen someone that fast struggle to break 60. Probably because the people I knew did at least some distance running, as I am presuming the OP does.
set the record straight wrote:
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.
Several studies over the last decade have demonstrated that brief, high intensity training results in the same degree of aerobic development as steady-state training. Look up the McMaster studies if you're interested.
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.
They shouldn't have much trouble at all if they do any sort of proper 400 training or distance training.
12 flat speed is generally considered good for 52-53s over 400. Certainly 24s 200 speed is.
we b cookin bacon wrote:
set the record straight wrote: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.
Several studies over the last decade have demonstrated that brief, high intensity training results in the same degree of aerobic development as steady-state training. Look up the McMaster studies if you're interested.
Studies that look over the period of a couple weeks or months. Not necessarily over a 10 year career.
I know the high intensity you are referring to is different than the hard intervals of the 90s...but remember where that got us. It's possible that same concept applies.
we b cookin bacon wrote:
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.
That's a pretty darn big red flag.
If this method of training is especially good, why have no elite runners tried it and had success? At that level, especially amongst those struggling, people will try just about anything in the quest to get better.
SMJO wrote:
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.
Interesting. Could runners adapt racehorse training? Worked for Secretariat.
SMJO wrote:
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.
The runner would carry the goal pace to the point of exhaustion (where it becomes impossible to maintain the gives pace) every time out.
pimlico downs wrote:
Interesting. Could runners adapt racehorse training? Worked for Secretariat.
Racehorse training is just tuning up what they are born with genetically. Like a Cheetah making its first few runs at live prey.
i b cookin bacon wrote:
The runner would carry the goal pace to the point of exhaustion (where it becomes impossible to maintain the gives pace) every time out.
That wasn't the original description.
LM wrote:
Studies that look over the period of a couple weeks or months. Not necessarily over a 10 year career.
There is no evidence that high volume aerobic training is better over the long term, so that's an arbitrary conclusion.
If this method of training is especially good, why have no elite runners tried it and had success? At that level, especially amongst those struggling, people will try just about anything in the quest to get better.
Elite runners and coaches are indoctrinated and mentally locked into a paradigm that's based on superstition, not science or logic. Everything they think they know about training leads them to believe that a program like this would be ridiculous, and they would never think to try it.
For those that are wondering, here are my times:
http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=104215
I never really run more than 300m , it's a pitty I haven't got a recent 400m recorded. When I recorded an 800m time I had not done any specific training for it, i had been training for the 100/200.
As you can see I am not quite a 12.0 runner but it was a nice time to make calculations with. This last year / year and a half I really overtrained which may explain the plateau in the 100/200 as those times are quite bad for my age.
...... I did however do a 400m in training max effort a few weeks back and only did it in 58 seconds, though i suspect in better weather and race conditions I could have run it in 56/57 seconds but no quicker really.
Also worth pointing out ; he 1500m was not a max effort - I ran the race with a friend ,however the 800m time was a max effort in ok conditions.
The British Milers Club, Horwill, Coe, etc. advocated in their interval systems keeping session volume and rest intervals constant, but proressivley increasing repetition length.
Example Progression:
2 weeks: 24X100m @ goal 800 pace w/ 30-60s jog
2 weeks: 16X150m @ goal 800 pace w/ 30-60s jog
2 weeks: 12X200m @ goal 800 pace w/ 30-60s jog
2 weeks: 8X300m @ goal 800 pace w/ 30-60s jog
2 weeks: 6X400m @ goal 800 pace w/ 30-60s jog
2 weeks: 5X500m @ goal 800 pace w/ 30-60s jog
Elite athletes basically used to train like this up until about the 1940s. After that you had fartlek training, interval training, Lydiard etc ...
charlie0 wrote:
Ok I was just thinking about this the other day. Say you have a 12.0 100m runner, wanting to run the 800m in 2 minutes.
Continue your normal training program, but x times a week do a progressive test run as such, lets say we start at 400m.
test 1 : try to run the 400 in 60 seconds. If successful attempt test 2 in your next session.
test 2: try to run 405m in 1 minute 0.75 seconds. if successful attempt test 3 in your next session.
test 3 : try to run 410m in 1 minute 1.5 seconds . etc etc.
You could change increments and the target time. I assume what would happen is you would hit a plateau before hitting the desired 800m time where the increments in distance to get a PB are silly, eg. 410.1m in 1minute 1.65 seconds? Just wondering what you all think about this idea?