Nick Symmonds 5x300 - Terrible

Looks like someone had to get off the meldonium...

Stop the BS. If you can 'easily' do 8x800 in 2:22-2:35 off 2min break, but can only race 4:38/9:51, you are the worst racer in the world. More of a 4:10/8:50 level workout.

Spaghettimonster wrote:

answers2546 wrote:

Its on his 'sweat' profile. He also says he was 'very disappointed' with the work out.

There is a more recent work out of 8x800 off 2 mins. in 2.22-2.35. I can safely say that for a 3.34 runner, that is terrible.

I have run 2:08/4:38/9:51 and could easily do that workout. That's bad.

That session is decent/hard for a 2:03/4:30 mile/9:40 2-mile runner (though if they started 2:22 and finished 2:35 that is bad). Not a good session for Nick, but your racing way off your workouts if that is "easy".

HardLoper wrote:

Remember, every workout must be an all-out race effort, and you must be near peak form, even if you're coming off an injury last month! Otherwise you are DONE.

Well, Symmonds is a strange guy. I've followed his training for a while, and its rarely impressive. Not individual workouts nor a week or two combined. Its so strange. He neither runs fast or show good endurance in his training. Like this fall he does workouts and claims to be happy about progression...but the workouts are not even remotely impressive. Even for a 1.52 guy. Hes doing something right of course, still strange.

more info needed wrote:

doot doot wrote:

That's like elite 1500m race pace ... Not elite 800m training pace.

Context is irrelevant-- the facts are there. If he needs rest then why would he do this mediocre "workout?" Go for a run. Do some strides. What a waste of time lol.

No one has posted anything to indicate that these weren't just extended strides done after an easy run.

Yes, they have. Try reading.

You don't take four minutes between strides, time them and write that you're "extremely disappointed" about your strides.

Still, it's not a big deal. It's April. 1500m at 1:46 pace is good running. Frankly he shouldn't even be timing them at this point.

"Very disappointed with this workout. I wanted to go 42 down to 38. Legs felt maxed out at this pace, which isn't even my 800m race pace. Hopefully this settles in and next time I run it better. Can go 38 down to 35 when I'm really fit."

Straight from the horse's mouth

TardLoper wrote:

Frankly he shouldn't even be timing them at this point.

Because....? Its always good to know where youre at. Highly unprofessionals to run 400ms close to race pace and not even time them, a few months before the trials.

TardLoper wrote:

more info needed wrote:

No one has posted anything to indicate that these weren't just extended strides done after an easy run.

Yes, they have. Try reading.

You don't take four minutes between strides, time them and write that you're "extremely disappointed" about your strides.

Still, it's not a big deal. It's April. 1500m at 1:46 pace is good running. Frankly he shouldn't even be timing them at this point.

I agree it's too early for it to really matter. Nick isn't washed up yet by a long way. If he hadn't been so self rightous last year he likely would have finalled and everyone would think of him differently to how they do now.

If this was 2 weeks out from the Trials I'd be worried for him.

It's not 1:46 pace though. It is literally 1:48 pace. And that's assuming they were all flat times as in '39.0'

39 + 40 + 40 + 41 + 43 = 203

(203÷15) x 8 = 108.3 (1.d.p)

Really isn't a good workout lol. One to forget.

milethon wrote:

isisj wrote:

How is that an awful workout? 4 of those were at 1:42-43ish pace, the first one was a bit slower.

They were more like 1:44-145 pace... Not every workout is a predictor workout like people think on Letsrun... This was probably just a light race pace workout to get his legs moving a little again before getting into racing season.

40.50 + 1/3(40.50) = 40.50 + 13.50 = 54.00 = 1:48 pace

school before sports, kids

Metric Miler wrote:

TardLoper wrote:

Yes, they have. Try reading.

You don't take four minutes between strides, time them and write that you're "extremely disappointed" about your strides.

Still, it's not a big deal. It's April. 1500m at 1:46 pace is good running. Frankly he shouldn't even be timing them at this point.

I agree it's too early for it to really matter. Nick isn't washed up yet by a long way. If he hadn't been so self rightous last year he likely would have finalled and everyone would think of him differently to how they do now.

If this was 2 weeks out from the Trials I'd be worried for him.

It's not 1:46 pace though. It is literally 1:48 pace. And that's assuming they were all flat times as in '39.0'

39 + 40 + 40 + 41 + 43 = 203

(203÷15) x 8 = 108.3 (1.d.p)

Really isn't a good workout lol. One to forget.

Definitely not a good one, and definitely too early for the numbers to matter.

My first track workout this season I wanted to to do 8x400 at my slow guessed current mile pace (65) but the pace was totally new to my legs after doing nothing like that for months. First 400 in 70 so then I did 8 more working down 68-64. It happens. Not worried. Shouldn't have even timed them. I'd probably go faster tomorrow. Same for Nick.

There is no way wrote:

Stop the BS. If you can 'easily' do 8x800 in 2:22-2:35 off 2min break, but can only race 4:38/9:51, you are the worst racer in the world. More of a 4:10/8:50 level workout.

You think that's an 4:10 mile workout???

Would've been a standard early season workout for the 14:50-15:0X type guys in college. Actually I'm pretty sure we did that exact workout with same times.

2:22-2:35 is a huge range. Running them all at 2:22 is almost certainly better than 9:30 3200 meter shape, but 2:35 may not be sub 10 minute 3200 shape.

Guys, chill. I think he knows what he's doing...

nonlit fam wrote:

Guys, chill. I think he knows what he's doing...

Some of you actually don't read. This is a problem with a lot of posters on this site.

"Very disappointed with this workout. I wanted to go 42 down to 38. Legs felt maxed out at this pace, which isn't even my 800m race pace. Hopefully this settles in and next time I run it better. Can go 38 down to 35 when I'm really fit."

No way could El G do this workout.

Metric Miler wrote:

I agree it's too early for it to really matter. Nick isn't washed up yet by a long way. If he hadn't been so self rightous last year he likely would have finalled and everyone would think of him differently to how they do now.

If this was 2 weeks out from the Trials I'd be worried for him.

It's not 1:46 pace though. It is literally 1:48 pace. And that's assuming they were all flat times as in '39.0'

39 + 40 + 40 + 41 + 43 = 203

(203÷15) x 8 = 108.3 (1.d.p)

Really isn't a good workout lol. One to forget.

You think that's "literally 1:48 pace"? I'm really worried about your math skills. A 300m in 39 seconds is 13 seconds per 100m. That equals 52 for 400m. An 800m at 52 second pace is 1:44. That is literally NOT 1:48 pace.

39 is 52 seconds

40 is 53.3 seconds

41 is 54.6 seconds

Try again calculating the 8th paces for each of those.

............. wrote:

No way could El G do this workout.

Drugged up North African with ridiculous talent and speed endurance who still holds the world record at 1500/mile who trained with an almost equally dedicated stable of training partners... How do you know?

I think it's real plausible.

TardLoper wrote:

more info needed wrote:

No one has posted anything to indicate that these weren't just extended strides done after an easy run.

Yes, they have. Try reading.

The post you're referring to was posted while I was typing my post. Sorry for failing to consider the contents of posts I hadn't yet read when formulating my own post.

questioner of math wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

I agree it's too early for it to really matter. Nick isn't washed up yet by a long way. If he hadn't been so self rightous last year he likely would have finalled and everyone would think of him differently to how they do now.

If this was 2 weeks out from the Trials I'd be worried for him.

It's not 1:46 pace though. It is literally 1:48 pace. And that's assuming they were all flat times as in '39.0'

39 + 40 + 40 + 41 + 43 = 203

(203÷15) x 8 = 108.3 (1.d.p)

Really isn't a good workout lol. One to forget.

You think that's "literally 1:48 pace"? I'm really worried about your math skills. A 300m in 39 seconds is 13 seconds per 100m. That equals 52 for 400m. An 800m at 52 second pace is 1:44. That is literally NOT 1:48 pace.

39 is 52 seconds

40 is 53.3 seconds

41 is 54.6 seconds

Try again calculating the 8th paces for each of those.

Aha OK, is this how we calculate average paces now? Ignore all the reps you don't like?

You cherry picked the fastest rep, I can cherry pick the slowest rep then. 43 is 1:54 pace! But that would be STUPID, wouldn't it?

The mean is 1:48 pace. Fact.

That is a generous average since the reps were of course not all flat times.

Question your own math.