800 m training

Great.

So much is wrong with what you said it is hard to know where to begin.

Bekele ran 53 only because of his lifetime MILEAGE base--it is because of this work he is strong enough and conditioned sufficiently to nearly equal his 400m PB in the last 400. The previous 9600m for him does not delve so deeply into the anaerobic system, so for him, a very fast pace (27:05) can still be achieved predominantly aerobically.

So your statement about mileage is wrong. Stick to the 800m and maybe you can get away with it (though you won't likely run as fast as you could). Anything longer and yo are toast.

funny,

people post and act like experts, but they are really slow and so have no room to talk.

That is all very good Mr Ryan Locklin but you still need to include an endurance base period of training within your "systematically periodizing training all YEAR".

Have you included a base period within your training? maybe if you did you would be a world beater instaed of a 1:47 guy.

"Its a proven fact that power in distance runners provide a superior running economy"

To much power will take away from the power to weight ratio.

"Vo2 max is not the optimal way to gage performance, that is a conventional way of thinking"

Vo2 Max is an optimal way to gage performance and has been proven so, the gaging of performance is improved when used with other tests such as power etc. What is your thinking on gaging performance instead of V02 Max?

"Look at the last split in the winner of the 10,000 meters. 53 seconds that is just pure horspower"

That is very good to have 53 seconds pace for you last 400m in a 10,00m but it is not good if you are 2 laps behind because you have not got the endurance.

I take it that becuse you have run 1:47 that you have total knowledge of running and are the greatest expert.

Many great coaches have never been great runners.

I hope you go far with your mentallity

dont worry about it lock people are scared of change. if it works for you more power. at least you have a name behind your handle. yes my name is really jason bourne.

Well,

Not claiming to be an expert, but I do use the Journals of applied physiology, sports medicine and strength and conditioning. The data is there and has changed the way distance runners train through out the world. There is one article in paticular that has really changed the way I think of endurance. It is the 2nd most read article in the Journal of applied physiology, ever. I dont base any of my thoughts previous to this post on how I trained in the past. I believe in brigding the gap between science and sports. You guys talk alot on this board, but I have yet to see some disccussion over the validity of journal articles. I don't think they are the holy grail, but they are systematic and use data to find optimal training regimes.

"Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time

by improving running economy and muscle power."

This is the article I am refering to. If anyone wants this I would be happy to email it to them.

Lock

Locklin, no offense, but havent you been a "1:47 guy" for 5 years now?

Maybe with some base you'd be 1:45 guy.

Those guys were still doing 75-80% of their normal load, right? So they didn't just decide to do speedwork on the track everyday and just train for power. Maybe if they increased their mileage while adding the explosive work, then they would have seen even more improvement. Lots of glycolytic work negatively affects running economy and you need the mileage in order to offset that lactic tolerance work.

I have also run 1.47.81 and I agree with Racer1. It is the proper mixture areobic vs anareobic that will get ones best results.

Mr. Locklin--

First, time and again I have seen that only the most sophmoric discount another's view of training because, intuitively, you "know" that the person is "slow."

You have adopted the fundamentally unsound strategy, when your argument fails, of attacking the runner who you do not know, lamenting his "slow" times. Someday you might just encounter a sub-4:00 miler, and where will you be then?

As for the study, that is a commonly bandied about piece of training "wisdom."

Few will argue that there can be benefits to plyometric training, but as the 5,000 meters is a LONG DISTANCE running event determined by AEROBIC energy sources predominantly, training like a sprinter for an inordinate amount of time will do precisely nothing for you come race time.

Further, that study, as I remember it, seemed to use MEDIOCRE athlete times by your own apparent standards (there was one that had a number of 20 minute 5K runners) and therefore the result is a study that applies to NON-ELITE athletes.

I would not put so much stock into studies of that nature (or similar studies where a scientist puts a RAT on a plyometric program, sees its 5K time improve, and Owen Anderson proclaims that doing any running slower than speeds that elicit 90% of VO2 max is a "waste").

hey lock,

i was jus wondering what kind of training u did.. how many days a week u took off. what u did on ur hard days and how much mileage u did..

thanks

Boys boys, Change does hurt. This is good stuff. keep it up.

Lock

Lock, 3 Questions for you?

1.The article you mention is about explosive strength training for 5000m runners. How does this apply to the 800?

2. How would you set up a year long training program using the information from this article? Lets focus on the 800m since that is your area of expertise.

3. Are you training right now?

well,

Since you guys really want to sink your teeth into this and me. I will try to explain further hoping that the next thread will have some symballance of an open mind! And don't qoute me anymore, if I wanted to make a sound arguement I would write it in an arguementative style. It is stupid to debate like this.

High mileage causes lots of injury, none of you have read this article and it is written very well and answers almost all of the relative questions, so it is hard to refute. I will say the subjects are slow, but there is evidence that suggests that we are overtraining when use excessive miles. High mileage is effective, but it may not be nescary in reference to this article.

lock

Plus I am bigger than all of you.

lock

Are you trying to come across as a meat-head?

Ryan, When you ran 1:47 weren't you running more miles than you did in the years following?

Lock down, you mean to tell me you're gonna prop up your argument on one freakin' paper! Come on dude, you should know better than that.

Not only that, but I can't believe that you would twist the results of that particular paper to mean that high mileage=bad, low mileage and plyos=good. It's not that simple. Especially not for distance runners.

If we are talking about training 400/800 guys then I might agree a little more. But you're going off half-cocked here.