which first, speed or distance?

ahem

build up to the desired volume and then worry about intensity

First get strong, then get fast.

Exactly the opposite. Get your speed in first, then work on drawing it out for as long as you can. You can't break the 4:00 mile until you can break 60 for a 1/4. This does not mean that you ignore strength work while you work speed, only that the strength work you do should not take away from your speed training. If you can get your 400 down to 48 (still using the sub 4 as an example) and only run 20 miles per week, then start trying to run farther Without Sacrificing Your 48s. If you can run 48 and 70 mpw then that is obviously better, but 70mpw and 56s is obviously worse.

Since you are a middle-distance runner, aerobic development over the long term is not as necessary as if you were a 10k runner. The 800 is still mainly anaerobic, so make sure you can run efficiently (speed work) for as far as possible. The training you do year after year after should gradually get longer and longer and you will develop aa ever increasing base, without ever sacrificing speed.

Do not take a too short-term approach to this by assuming that you are running faster now only because of what you have done over the last few months. Last year's workouts are still with you, the speed work has developed you into an efficient, quick runner whose form can withstand the strain of longer repitions. If you you go too long too soon, you will lose some strength, some power and some efficiency and then next year you will plateau or even regress. So build a little bit every year and always after you brought your speed back up to par.

As for those of you who will surely post and advocate high mileage, I do not disagree with you, the higher the mileage the better. If you can run a 46s and 70mpw you will be better off than a 45s and 20 mpw. What I do not agree with is high mileage before a young runner has gained an efficient and powerful stride. Start racing shorter and faster events and as you progress, race farther and at the same pace.

You've got to be able to run long and slow, to run short and fast.

Both extremes at the same time. Run slow for long distances. Do short alactic sprints. Incorporate LT work as well. Later on, do more specific work, such as VO2 max work and lactic acid tolerance work. You can have your cake and eat it too you know.

right on mattallenjones..

guys like trackhead will try to tell you to run 100mpw, incorporate 60-100m sprints a few times a week and that should maintatin or help speed.

false.

i gurantee you he can't run 48-50sec in the quarter

There's no one way, but I go with the majority on this site including wejo and rojo: Lydiard. To be a great racer at distances of 800 meters and up your success depends on your base. You build a base up with years of consistent high weekly mileage. Pace is not terribly important. Just get the volume. Don't race too often. Begin speed work 8 to 12 weeks prior to racing season. Your gains during speedwork will be proportional to the base you've built up going in.

But I'm sure there are people who disagree.

Wilder wrote:

There's no one way, but I go with the majority on this site including wejo and rojo: Lydiard. To be a great racer at distances of 800 meters and up your success depends on your base. You build a base up with years of consistent high weekly mileage. Pace is not terribly important. Just get the volume. Don't race too often. Begin speed work 8 to 12 weeks prior to racing season. Your gains during speedwork will be proportional to the base you've built up going in.

But I'm sure there are people who disagree.

as mattallen said, your "gains during speedwork" won't help you at all if you don't have any speed in the first place.

It's all relative. Everyone benefits from speed work. That doesn't mean you'll run like Wilson Kipketer, but you will improve if you start with a great base.

jjk wrote:

right on mattallenjones..

guys like trackhead will try to tell you to run 100mpw, incorporate 60-100m sprints a few times a week and that should maintatin or help speed.

false.

i gurantee you he can't run 48-50sec in the quarter

When bumping to a new level of volume, the goal must be to accustomate yourself to the volume and then, once you are used to it, worry about how fast you're running it.

What do you think a week would look like? Look at Geb's week and tell me he's not working.

nothing has to take away from anything. It all depends on how you structure it. If it's an averaged sized bump, there's no reason that all energy systems cannot be touched upon. But if someone is going out of their way to make a BIG bump, then you have give them some time to adjust to it.

More to the point of my previous post, how was Geb's speed? What did he do? Lots of running and 60s everyweek.

Get your body used to running fast, then increase the distance.

The case studies for mileage and 800m success, especially Americans, usually involve guys who have great natural speed and efficiency and then run as far as possible without losing that efficiency. (Scott, and Webb in the mile, Everett and Gray in the 800). I am assuming that most posters, most young Americans, and most decent college runners do not have enough natural speed to become as succesful in their events as they would wish to be. Therefore, speed development while an athlete is younger will have a greater effect on overall running economy while older, enabling a 22 year old to run 70mpw at 5:45pace easily while a less developed athlete may run 6:10pace with difficultly. Thus early speed work enables the mileage to become more effective when it is eventually done.

Running 100mpw or 50mpw is useless unless you already have the natural ability to sprint as fast as is needed for your event. If you can not train for a year and then on your first day back run a 52s 400m in trainers then you probably do not need to ever do speed work to run a good mile. But if you slip to a 62s 400m after a lazy year, then mileage, if used optimally, will only give you a chance to run 64s laps. Without cutting that 400m time down, you just can't run a good 800.

All this being said, 400m time is no solid indicator of anything above a mile. Certainly not above 10k. But just in reference to the original poster, who appears to be a 800m runner, 400m time is just as good of a prediction as an 800m time, the faster it is, the better you will be.

I would say do the Lydiard thing of establishing volume first so that you have the tools to then run at the desired pace.

What quantities of repeats did you do?

Zatopek did 20-40 reps and kicked butt.

Toughness, toughness.

Still more speed. You cannot coach speed.

I think that the two of you are talking about apples and oranges. If I understand both correctly, you, trackhead, are saying that one should focus on volume before focusing on speed within a given training cycle. I do not disagree, and I do not disupte that; however, I believe that what mr. jones is saying is that one should work on speed earlier in one's life, before building up volume, with which I also agree.

People talk about "speedwork" in so many different ways that I'd like to see the term dropped entirely. I do not believe that a young, beginning runner should be doing interval workouts like 8 X 800 meters, but I think it is valuable to learn good fast running technique, and to try to maximize top-end sprinting speed before learning to jog really far.

One who develops good technique that lets him fly early on, at a young age, can spend the rest of his life improving his aerobic conditioning, whereas one who never bothered to learn good technique could probably spend many many years building up to 100 mile weeks, but still not be able to run even a 5 minute mile.

I think the two of you agree more than you think, because one of you is talking about what a mature runner should do in a season, and the other is talking about what a new runner should do in a lifetime. If I understand correctly what the two of you mean, I agree with both.

P.S. MAJ: Do you coach some fast young men somewhere in the Northeast?