HILL SPRINTS / hill work necessary for every runner?

Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:

jja wrote:

Hills do not have a lower risk of injury. The muscle focus is just different. On flat ground it's hamstrings, on hills it's groin, quads, and calves. You can get an injury on hills just as easily as on flat ground.

And no, hills are not important or necessary for track runners. Beneficial maybe, but far from important or necessary.

No lower risk of injury? The force of impact on the legs is significantly less than on a flat surface. Just think about it.

Do not quote me if you're going to troll.

Asdfghjkl wrote:

Training should replicate as closely as possible the conditions of racing. You never sprint uphill during races. Instead, you struggle through fatigue to maintain your pace on inclines, and ideally your training should reflect that. Work hills into your sessions instead of treating hill running as an end in itself.

Not getting into other hill work, hill sprints aren't meant to be specific training. They are meant to be support training, similar to lifting but using the running motion while also increasing the stroke volume of the heart. If you know something that Canova, John Kellogg, Brad Hudson, etc don't know than please share.

In my experience hill sprints have been an important part of my training and you should do them if you have the time.

somebody wrote:

Letsrunners,

What do you think? Should every athlete that wants to compete at the top level do hiil sprints or hill work? I do'nt do them, but if it would improve my times I will do them.

When I am on track, hard intervals of 200-400 meter feel as sprintning, my teammate are more controlled druring these intervals than I. I think I lack some strenght. Would hill sprints the ideal way to develop this strength?

P.S. I live in a country were hill sprints are not usual business, we do'nt have many hills.

Most beneficial workout you can do for strength building. Nothing more needs to be said.

Turnip Truck Teamster wrote:

Macho manzano wrote:

Yes I think they would be helpful. 6 secs is too short. Do sets of 8x20secs with a 40 sec jog down in between reps, five minutes in between sets. Do them on a semi steep hill that is paved. Build up to three sets and then start doing sets of 10, up to three sets. Hope this helps!!! The session is better if done with someone else of similar speed, but can be done on your own.

Wrong. 20 secs is too long. 10 to 12 secs, walk down and even take a moment at the bottom before the next one. Think of these as more of a form drill rather than a fitness drill. The goal here is good mechanics. You can't do really good movements when y ou're fatigued.

Slightly longer hill sessions like the one described by Macho Manzano work very well too. I know there is a fashion for absolute, all-out 6-second sprints, but good runners were doing sessions at a 'fast cruising' pace for decades before that and they help too. By the time you get up to 4 sets of 10x20sec, you're getting a really good aerobic workout as well as a ton of practice at good, smooth powerful running.

The difference is that 6x6sec probably wouldn't count as one of your weekly "quality" workouts, but 3-4x10x100m definitely would - it needs more recovery.

collegexcrunner9 wrote:

Asdfghjkl wrote:

Training should replicate as closely as possible the conditions of racing. You never sprint uphill during races. Instead, you struggle through fatigue to maintain your pace on inclines, and ideally your training should reflect that. Work hills into your sessions instead of treating hill running as an end in itself.

Not getting into other hill work, hill sprints aren't meant to be specific training. They are meant to be support training, similar to lifting but using the running motion while also increasing the stroke volume of the heart. If you know something that Canova, John Kellogg, Brad Hudson, etc don't know than please share.

In my experience hill sprints have been an important part of my training and you should do them if you have the time.

jja wrote:

hilarity wrote:

Wow. No benefit in posterior chain flexibility & strength versus on the flat? Have you ever run hills?

Way to fail at reading comprehension.

Please, do tell.

He said "You don't get any more benefit from running uphill than at the speed corresponding to the same degree of effort on the flat."

I think there is benefit. I mentioned one example.

Eagerly awaiting your response.

collegexcrunner9 wrote:

Not getting into other hill work, hill sprints aren't meant to be specific training. They are meant to be support training, similar to lifting but using the running motion while also increasing the stroke volume of the heart. If you know something that Canova, John Kellogg, Brad Hudson, etc don't know than please share.

The goal is to get faster at one's chosen event, not increase the stroke volume of the heart. If you train specifically for your event, you don't need or benefit from any additional "support" training—more isn't better. In my opinion, the coaches you named don't know anything.

Asdfghjkl wrote:

hilarity wrote:

Wow. No benefit in posterior chain flexibility & strength versus on the flat? Have you ever run hills?

I'm against ascribing benefits arbitrarily like that. "Flexibility" has no value in the first place. One should develop muscular strength through resistance training, not hill running.

Interesting opinions.

"No value". Well, don't know what else to say on that than I disagree. Strongly.

"Should develop muscular strength through resistance training, not hill running". I wasn't arguing which is more effective. I was taking point with your claim that there were NO BENEFITS to running hills versus running on the flat. Huge difference. So, are you changing your original claim?

Asdfghjkl wrote:

collegexcrunner9 wrote:

Not getting into other hill work, hill sprints aren't meant to be specific training. They are meant to be support training, similar to lifting but using the running motion while also increasing the stroke volume of the heart. If you know something that Canova, John Kellogg, Brad Hudson, etc don't know than please share.

The goal is to get faster at one's chosen event, not increase the stroke volume of the heart. If you train specifically for your event, you don't need or benefit from any additional "support" training—more isn't better. In my opinion, the coaches you named don't know anything.

In my opinion, the coaches he named have coached some of the most successful runners in the country and world. Actually that's not really an opinion is it.

But I wonder which guys you've coached to the world stage.

The fact that someone coaches elite athletes doesn't mean he knows anything about training. The most fundamental knowledge on the subject of physical training is that ability is primarily determined by genetics, not training, and if you fail to understand that, you know NOTHING else about running, period. The state of track coaching today is abysmally, insanely horrible, still in the dark ages in all events. I am not aware of any coaches in the sport who possess even a basic understanding of correct training principles. Most elite coaches knows less than a non-runner who knows nothing at all—the coaches actually possess negative knowledge because everything they think they know is wrong.

In my opinion hill work is the most important part of middle distance training. I don't think there is only one way to run hill workouts. I use all the workouts below.

short hill sprints 8 to 10 seconds 9% plus grade ,8 repeats, full recovery.

30 second hill sprints med hill at close to 800 pace. 4-6 repeats, walk back. Add 200m track work after.

long hill runs of 1:30 seconds at 3k to 5k pace, jog back

Tempo hills at 30 min total

hilarity wrote:

"No value". Well, don't know what else to say on that than I disagree. Strongly.

"Should develop muscular strength through resistance training, not hill running". I wasn't arguing which is more effective. I was taking point with your claim that there were NO BENEFITS to running hills versus running on the flat. Huge difference. So, are you changing your original claim?

If flexibility is important, men should be more flexible than women, but the opposite is true. Flexibility is a NOT DESIRABLE in running.

The claim that hill running develops leg strength is dubious. If anything, hill running somehow conditions your muscles to the specific demands of hill running; however, such emphasis is inappropriate if one is training for events that take place on a flat surface.

hilarity wrote:

jja wrote:

Way to fail at reading comprehension.

Please, do tell.

He said "You don't get any more benefit from running uphill than at the speed corresponding to the same degree of effort on the flat."

I think there is benefit. I mentioned one example.

Eagerly awaiting your response.

You can't even correctly comprehend your own writing. That is incredible.

Asdfghjkl wrote:

If flexibility is important, men should be more flexible than women, but the opposite is true. Flexibility is a NOT DESIRABLE in running.

Some is important, but too much is undesirable. You can't acknowledge that some men with restricted range of motion could get faster with additional flexibility? Mind boggling.

jja wrote:

You can't even correctly comprehend your own writing. That is incredible.

Thanks for the confirmation - you are all talk and no substance. Take care.

Asdfghjkl wrote:

One should develop muscular strength through resistance training, not hill running.

OMG wtf do you think hill repeats ARE??

Asdfghjkl wrote:

One should develop muscular strength through resistance training, not hill running.

OMG wtf do you think hill repeats ARE??

I was a pretty fast sprinter in my collegiate days and got to run with a solid 4x100 and 4x400 team. Stadium stairs out the wazoo were the order of the day. Hills are just as good. Work that posterior chain!

aquafina wrote:

OMG wtf do you think hill repeats ARE??

Resistance during hill repeats is negligible in the context of strength training. It does not constitute overload.