Asdfghjkl wrote:
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.
Yes it does. Try this experiment: find a steep hill. Do 12x15 second maximal sprints. Tell us how your legs feel the next few days.
jja wrote:
aquafina wrote:Hills allow you to exert a big effort but at a lower pace. For Masters runners this is a nice alternate to all out running which brings a large risk of injury.
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.
True. Hills got my foot injured. It actually puts more stress on your feet.
Troll 101 or Logic 101?
I agree with you that there are a lot of poor coaches out there and it is very frustrating trying to work out the best way to train with all the misinformation out there. Are you able to present your own training philosophy so we can see how it measures up? I am genuinely interested.
hill work is a firm key workout for distance runners. examples: lagat, farah - says it all.
look at Olympic 800 & 1500 gold medalists in modern times. Elliott , Snell , Keino ,Coe , Ovett , any other Kenyan or north African - all these included significant amouts of hill work in their programmes. Ad such names as Cram , Ryun , Scott to the list and I think you have some fairly conclusive evidence that hills help middle distance athletes run fast on the track. to say they are useful only if you are going to race over hilly courses away from the track is absolute rubbish (putting it as politely as possible!)
mark b wrote:
look at Olympic 800 & 1500 gold medalists in modern times. Elliott , Snell , Keino ,Coe , Ovett , any other Kenyan or north African - all these included significant amouts of hill work in their programmes. Ad such names as Cram , Ryun , Scott to the list and I think you have some fairly conclusive evidence that hills help middle distance athletes run fast on the track. to say they are useful only if you are going to race over hilly courses away from the track is absolute rubbish (putting it as politely as possible!)
The common factor running through that list of names isn't hill training—plenty of slow athletes run hills, too—but genetic giftedness. The fact that many elite athletes use hill training evidences nothing except that some people with ignorant minds are blessed with fast feet. Stretching is common among elite athletes too, but it is proven to be worthless, so the fact that something is commonly used by elites doesn't prove its value.
spot on!
Sure sure don't run hills you don't need them, sure....
But i don't believe it.
- Hill strides 5x 10 sec after a run
Beside this also do your running abc uphill.
Great to increase and better your running economy
- long runs on hilly terrain, attack the hill and relax downhill (this is similar to a normal interval training)
If you do it right it will feel as 1 tempo.
- Strides down the hill are beneficial for a longer stride and higher leg turnover rate.
- Running Drill on hills as an extra stimulance
Like Lydiard stated even slow runs on hills help.
The rest of flat running will be your recovery jogs, track workouts and occasional flat tempo runs.
All hill running does is increase the degree of effort required to maintain a given pace. You don't get any more benefit from running uphill than at the speed corresponding to the same degree of effort on the flat. Hill training is only appropriate for road and XC runners who compete over hilly courses.
Seb Coe did extensive hill training and is still the only sub 3:30 / 1:42 runner, her hardly did xc or road races. All Kenyans do hill training if they are not doing it now they spent years as a junior doing it
'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.[/quote]'
So are you going to do all your runs at race pace? You can't go faster than race pace so that must mean going slower is no use either!
Your thinking or lack thereof is against all principles of training. A 100m runner would only ever run 100m and not go to the gym if you had your way
If I do 8x12s hills I get a great workout without injury risk and recover relatively quickly.
If I do 8x100m I get a great workout with moderate injury risk and recover slowly.
Hills are hardly essential, but you'd be a fool not to cushion your footfalls when running at max speed.
Asdfghjkl wrote:
mark b wrote:look at Olympic 800 & 1500 gold medalists in modern times. Elliott , Snell , Keino ,Coe , Ovett , any other Kenyan or north African - all these included significant amouts of hill work in their programmes. Ad such names as Cram , Ryun , Scott to the list and I think you have some fairly conclusive evidence that hills help middle distance athletes run fast on the track. to say they are useful only if you are going to race over hilly courses away from the track is absolute rubbish (putting it as politely as possible!)
The common factor running through that list of names isn't hill training—plenty of slow athletes run hills, too—but genetic giftedness. The fact that many elite athletes use hill training evidences nothing except that some people with ignorant minds are blessed with fast feet. Stretching is common among elite athletes too, but it is proven to be worthless, so the fact that something is commonly used by elites doesn't prove its value.
This guy is such a obvious troll I don´t understand why you bother to respond.
Asdfghjkl wrote:
All hill running does is increase the degree of effort required to maintain a given pace. You don't get any more benefit from running uphill than at the speed corresponding to the same degree of effort on the flat. Hill training is only appropriate for road and XC runners who compete over hilly courses.
Couldn't be more incorrect, hill training builds power, speed and strength more efficiently than similar effort flat efforts. They are integral to any part of track and field training. 👍
Asdfghjkl wrote:
The common factor running through that list of names isn't hill training—plenty of slow athletes run hills, too—but genetic giftedness. The fact that many elite athletes use hill training evidences nothing except that some people with ignorant minds are blessed with fast feet. Stretching is common among elite athletes too, but it is proven to be worthless, so the fact that something is commonly used by elites doesn't prove its value.
there are mountains of evidence about the benefits of hill work. i am afraid you have put yourself in the position of a stubborn child. and don´t trust too much in what a special physiologist publishes. those guys tend to contradict each other. publish or perish.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Seb Coe did extensive hill training and is still the only sub 3:30 / 1:42 runner, her hardly did xc or road races. All Kenyans do hill training if they are not doing it now they spent years as a junior doing it
So are you going to do all your runs at race pace? You can't go faster than race pace so that must mean going slower is no use either!
Your thinking or lack thereof is against all principles of training. A 100m runner would only ever run 100m and not go to the gym if you had your way
I don't look to Seb Coe for guidance because he knew nothing about proper training; the only reason he was successful is that he was genetically superior and destined to a great runner no matter how he trained. Had he trained rationally, he would have run even faster, and might have won more Olympic gold medals than he did.
Ideally, all training should be conducted at race pace or at a pace corresponding to the range of distances one competes at. For a single event specialist, ideally, the running component of his training would consist exclusively of time trials and attempts to sustain a goal pace for as long as possible. I'm not saying that running at non-race speeds is useless, only that it's less than ideal.
Ideally, the training of a 100m specialist would consist exclusively of 1) slow, controlled strength training using a single set of no more than 3-5 exercises to failure done no more than once per week; and, 2) sprint practice covering all technical aspects of e 100m race and speed endurance conditioning specific to the 100m. Unproductive activities such as stretching, plyometrics, "core" training gimmicks, explosive lifting, "tempo," and over distance training would all be banished from the regimen.
Yes, I realize that everything I say flies directly in the face of what virtually all elite athletes and coaches believe. That is because they are clueless. Yes, I am saying straight up that I am right and everyone else is wrong. Deal with it.
Asdfghjkl wrote:
I don't look to Seb Coe for guidance because he knew nothing about proper training; the only reason he was successful is that he was genetically superior and destined to a great runner no matter how he trained. Had he trained rationally, he would have run even faster, and might have won more Olympic gold medals than he did.
Ideally, all training should be conducted at race pace or at a pace corresponding to the range of distances one competes at. For a single event specialist, ideally, the running component of his training would consist exclusively of time trials and attempts to sustain a goal pace for as long as possible. I'm not saying that running at non-race speeds is useless, only that it's less than ideal.
Ideally, the training of a 100m specialist would consist exclusively of 1) slow, controlled strength training using a single set of no more than 3-5 exercises to failure done no more than once per week; and, 2) sprint practice covering all technical aspects of e 100m race and speed endurance conditioning specific to the 100m. Unproductive activities such as stretching, plyometrics, "core" training gimmicks, explosive lifting, "tempo," and over distance training would all be banished from the regimen.
Yes, I realize that everything I say flies directly in the face of what virtually all elite athletes and coaches believe. That is because they are clueless. Yes, I am saying straight up that I am right and everyone else is wrong. Deal with it.
Why would you even bother to post all of that?
Finally, someone telling the truth about the coaching scam that has ruined thousands of talents.
At least he finally outted himself as a troll. I'll give him this, he got a thread about something as benign as hill training into a 3 page thread.
8/10
yyy wrote:
Finally, someone telling the truth about the coaching scam that has ruined thousands of talents.
It's been painful to watch the careers of brilliant talents like Ato Boldon, Alan Webb, and Jeremy Wariner degenerate after age 24 due to the idiocy of modern coaches. To quote someone I respect, the best thing you could do for track would be to take the top 50 coaches in the sport, pack them into a 747 and fly it into a mountain.
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.
A certain workout isn't wrong or right. If you say that, you don't understand training. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Coaches and runners in Track and Field copy workouts all the time. Whatever the best coach or the top athlete says is their "secret" is adopted by everyone without much thought. If I want to improve the alactic anaerobic system or neurally improve, 6 seconds is good. If I want to improve the anaerobic lactic system, I'd do 20 seconds at a higher intensity with good rests. If I want to improve a combination of aerobic/anaerobic, I'd shorten the rests, lower the intensity, increase the distance, and increase the reps.
Hills aren't much different than running flat. Running up a hill just enables you to increase the resistance without increasing the pace.