As opposed to building up mileage and then increasing speed after? Anyone experiment with both before? I just want to know which approach is ideal and why. Does it vary depending on runners?
As opposed to building up mileage and then increasing speed after? Anyone experiment with both before? I just want to know which approach is ideal and why. Does it vary depending on runners?
Different runners require different training.
If you haven't learn that yet, you are either very new to this sport or quite a slow learner.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, except perhaps for the increased injury potential (but even that is iffy).
Ideally, you would probably want to get in both ends of the speed spectrum. Hill sprints and lots of mileage
Short to long is common among sprint training. It is also less rare with 4/8 runners than say 5k guys. But it can certainly be a viable training strategy for 1500/5k double type of guys. Just gotta keep in mind that you will need to start with lots of 1500/5000 specific quality workouts, not like 200s in 26 as your workout for the 1500/5k
rather than look at it as a mutually exclusive choice, i.e. EITHER short-long or long-short, why not work both?
If you're in a base period, run lots of miles, but also do short hill sprints & short sprints, like flying 30s & 40s, weekly. Gradually increase volume & length of hill sprints & short sprints as you're increasing overall volume.
A lot of the benefit from training comes simply from the time you spend doing it. Running eight miles fairly easy might take 50-60 minutes. Running four miles hard might take a bit on either side of 25 minutes. So you're getting in roughly a half hour more training the first way and no, the greater intensity of the second approach will not totally compensate for the shorter amount of time spent.
As others have said, there's a time and place for both.
I dun get it wrote:
As opposed to building up mileage and then increasing speed after? Anyone experiment with both before? I just want to know which approach is ideal and why. Does it vary depending on runners?
What's wrong is your word choice. Short and fast mileage is not "building" at all, it is refining.
People have been experimenting with both for nearly a century.
If you truly want to know which approach is ideal and why, this message board can only point you in the right direction.
If you are talking about distance running, then no, it does not vary depending on the runner.
HRE wrote:
... and no, the greater intensity of the second approach will not totally compensate for the shorter amount of time spent running.
And no, the greater time spent running at a lesser intensity will not totally compensate for the lesser amount of higher-intensity running.
Did you not read the line that says "there's a time and place for both" or just not understand it?
HRE wrote:
A lot of the benefit from training comes simply from the time you spend doing it. Running eight miles fairly easy might take 50-60 minutes.
So running eight miles in 60 minutes would be more beneficial than 8 miles in 48 minutes since you are putting in more time.
At the same level of effort, yes. That was a big reason that Lydiard switched from telling people to measure their runs by miles to measuring them by time. As you got fitter and covered your miles in less time you were getting less benefit because you were shortening the amount of time you spent running.
So the distance covered on the run is not the important variable. Naturally, someone who can run eight miles in 48 minutes will be running at a much lower effort level if he does the distance in an hour. If we assume that the 48 minute time is not "too hard" then the runner in question ideally would run for an hour and cover more distance. Another runner who is at the same effort level but who needs an hour to run eight miles at that effort would run for an hour but as he gets fitter would run at a faster pace and progressively cover more distance.
I've done it and observed it in others. Right off the top though, if you periodize then you might actually get a boost from short fast stuff. Back to that in a bit.
I don't have the science on hand to back this (maybe someone does), but I believe that your legs/body are only alloted so much fast running in a given amount of time. A lot of speedwork and low mileage gets you running fairly fast in a short period but it's not sustainable over a longer period of time. Just can't hold up to it more than a few weeks before getting stale and breaking down.
Furthermore, and this has been established scientifically, aerobic training builds capillary networks and mitochondria, so that oxygen is transported more efficiently and wastes are removed readily. Plus, having a base allows greater staying power (hold a peak longer).
Now how to combine the two. Spend a portion of the year doing higher volume (and it doesn't necessarily have to be all running--cross training can help too). Follow that with an intensity period, lower volume, of several weeks to a couple of months (e.g., train for events ranging from 800 m to 5K) and then follow with a volume period, aiming for much longer distances (up to half marathon or even marathon). The speedwork helps with running economy, feeling light on your feet. At the very least this helps prevent getting stale.