Why 'Float' recoveries? - tinman et al

maybe he's in a hurry

Someone once said "a race is all go, no blow." So keeping the recories short and faster simulates that more closely.

But if you take that argument to its extremes you would only ever run 5K time trials as training for 5K races.

There must surely be a case for doing both a session like 8x400 in 67s (say) with fast recovery and doing 8x400 in 62s (say) with much longer recovery.

Former might be a 5K type session, latter a 1500 type one.

Don't ask Tinman any more questions. He's just full of himself, and he doesn't provide any new information.

Tim Grose wrote:

But if you take that argument to its extremes you would only ever run 5K time trials as training for 5K races.

There must surely be a case for doing both a session like 8x400 in 67s (say) with fast recovery and doing 8x400 in 62s (say) with much longer recovery.

.

exactly. BOTH are good sessions. One is more of a fartlek-type of endurance run(works on running-resonably fast while still not fully recovered), while the other works more on speed/power(likely more anerobic) The first is better likely earlier in the season (and/or for longer-distance racers) and the 2nd better later in the season probably (and more for shorter-distance racers).

But depends on who is doing them and what they are preparing for. Either one could be easy as hell (for a Bekele type) or hard as hell (for most people).

Its not enough to say "one is early season, one late season", without saying why and detailing the different physiological adaptations in both cases.

Is this a test? I bet you are dying to tell us...

I know, funny guy. Isn't that why I said "IT DEPENDS" on who is doing them and what shape they are in, and a HOST of other factors??? And what are you looking for exactly, a discussion of fast-twitch & slow-twitch muscle fibers activation, mitochondrial development, and heart and lung actions??? Well, I will leave that to the scientists.

But I ALREADY said: one is more about speed/power, and likely more anerobic (but again, it depends), and one is likely more aerobic, and a better endurance-builder. But a fast 400/800 runner could do the 62 second repeats in his sleep, and for awhile, while a marathoner with 0 pure speed would likely crash quickly on the session, and handle the slower repeat session better.

Anyway, for 1500 runners to marathoners, I say the bottom line is:

BOTH are good sessions, one more about pure speed/power(and I would prefer in a later stage of training), one more about endurance(and one I would prefer earlier in the season). That is all I need to know to make them work for me.

When you a run a workout, you ALWAYS sacrifice something (in order to gain something else):

harder runs sacrifice post-workout recovery and sometimes volume (for intensity)

Aerobic runs sacrifice Anerobic ability/buffering ability of high amounts of lactic acid(for aerobic development of lots of volume)

Anerobic runs sacrifice aerobic development and recovery and sometimes volume (for intensity and anerobic development)

steady runs sacrifice pace/speed (for consistency, ie, no breaks/slow parts)

fartlek/interval training sacrifice consistency of pace (for faster/quality portions of running)

faster-paced repeats sacrifice either speed/time of recovery interval or volume of repeats (for faster quality work)

slower-paced repeats sacrifice faster-paced running (for faster/shorter recovery periods)

etc, etc

No one workout has it all, and that is why they all have value. So choose your poison/medicine wisely. But when choosing the majority of your workouts, always keep in mind that of course a high volume of aerobic development is key to all endurance races (but leg speed/power is also important, though it is likely secondary, and again, depends on the event. But that is why I like Igloi-style workouts[his LESS intense ones] best: they allow HIGH volume of running and aerobic development, but also LOTS of speed and some small doses of anerobic development. But they, like all workouts must sacrifice something, and they sacrifice consistency of pace: there are lots of short rest intervals between the short fast repeats. And as far as "float" recoveries vs non-float recoveries, Schul almost always WALKED his recoveries. So take that for what it is worth)

I don't post much, but, as a huge fan of the "float", I felt compelled.

One of my favorite workouts is 8 x 400m with quick 200m floats. The entire session is 3 miles. You start with a 200m float and end with a 400m. It was made famous by former marathon WR holder, Rob de Castella or "Deek" who did it weekly. The goal is to run the 400's at or close to 5K pace and then keep the 200's honest (no jogging). If I (2:16 'thon PR) groove this one, I'm running the quarters in 65-67 and the 200's in 40-45 for a total time somewhere just under 15 minutes. When Deek was fit, the entire workout took him14 minutes.

Although I don't do it weekly, it's a staple. I love it for a few reasons. 1) It's quick and pointed. I hate spending two hours at the track having the life sucked from my legs. 2) A few of you already touched on this, but for myself and others who are not mid-distance oriented or perhaps fast-twitch deficient, this workout takes way less out of me than the standard 12 x 400's at say 62 with longer recoveries. I can do that one, but the lactic acid gets to my brain by number 4. I start to see God by number 8, and, by number 12, I'm often tying up and running 67's anyway. More importantly, I still feel it three days later, and I'm not sure what I've accomplished. 3) I'm not an exercise physiologist, but to me floating recoveries make more sense. This workout teaches your body to recover at pace which is more applicable to race situations where the pace often surges and then relaxes. Certainly there is a place hard intervals with some longer recoveries, particularly for events 5K and down, but I think that for a lot of people it does more harm than good.

My two cents.

That's more like a buck and a quarter.

Hey Jason!

This is not meant as criticism, but I know other 2:16 guys who did the workout in close to 14 minutes (65-40). I'm fairly certain that when you can do it that fast, you won't be a 2:16 guy anymore. Have a great spring season.

No criticism taken. Noone who knows anything has ever been impressed by my track workouts. I like to think I save the good stuff for races... or for when Wenneborg shows up.

What do good coaches say? I think it's something like, "Step off of the track thinking you could have done one more."

In any case, I hope you're healing up nicely. Will we see you back out on Tuesdays?

BTW: I did this one last night, 66s-43s for a 14:50ish total in that monsoon. I think it's coming around nicely. I've got Beantown on the schedule. If the marathon gods cooperate, hopefully I'll see a new PR there. Cheers.

An alternative way to do it is to start with a 400m, and on the final lap (4600-5000m) you do the 200m float and then 200m in half the 400 time. Or, you hammer it home even faster to simulate the race.

Great workout. I should get back to it this season!