My coach says we should incorporate one workout where we run hills once a week.Is He a fool for this idea?

starmiler wrote:

Didn't Arthur Lydiard recommend hill work? I know Percy Cerutty did.

Maybe if he trained his athletes properly, they could have run reasonable times not some slow 3:37 times that would barely get you to the finals in the NCAAs. And then his star athlete gets smoked by a HS runner and retirees in embarrassment.

As other people have said hills are resistance training. Resistance training builds muscle. Muscle = more weight. More weight = slower runner. Clearly your coach is an idiot.

There's so much footage out there of middle-distance runners doing hill work.

Coe running up a long ramp like road in Sheffield. Ovett training on huge sand dunes ( as famously did Herb Elliott).

In the Super Milers documentary John Walker and Filbert Bayi can be seen running up hills.

And so on...

Hills are valuable, if you don't think so you are too young to know better.

What I've noticed is most of the recent literature regarding training has put a label on everything, you have to train x amount of time on LT, AT BLT, whatever.

Do your VO2 max training etc. There is no reference to running hills because they don't know where to put it, what energy system does it address, that is the problem. So it is left out.

The new coaches follow the book because they don't know what else to do. If it is written it must be true. Give it a few years, when these guys figure out that they don't have to run everything on a track or flat measured surface to get results it will come around. Stop being a slave to the numbers.

It's arbitrary and senseless to claim that a program necessarily ought to include hills unless you are specifically training for an event that includes them. If you're tranimg for a track race they're definitely not needed.

have a clue.. wrote:

Hills are valuable, if you don't think so you are too young to know better.

What I've noticed is most of the recent literature regarding training has put a label on everything, you have to train x amount of time on LT, AT BLT, whatever.

Do your VO2 max training etc. There is no reference to running hills because they don't know where to put it, what energy system does it address, that is the problem. So it is left out.

The new coaches follow the book because they don't know what else to do. If it is written it must be true. Give it a few years, when these guys figure out that they don't have to run everything on a track or flat measured surface to get results it will come around. Stop being a slave to the numbers.

Actually, hill training energy system use will depend on the duration, intensity, number of, and recovery between reps.

Is it just me, or is there an increase in posts about people questioning their coaching? Chances are, if your coach is a runner, and is older than you, chances are that he/she knows more about training than you. Just do what they say.

The only exception would be a coach that is requiring a drastic and immediate increase in mileage (like an immediate increase from 40 to 80 mpw or more), or doing speed work every day. These would be recipes for injury. Otherwise, stop nit-picking over every workout detail and enjoy the privilege of having a coach and running on a team!

Renato Canova wrote:

Casually I went to this thread. You are totally wrong. I use with my athletes, including WR holders like Shaheen, Florence Kiplagat, Moses Mosop, and World Champions as Abel Kirui, Caleb Ndiku, Dorcus Inzikuru (and many, many others) ALWAYS short sprints uphill at max speed. This for athletes of EVERY EVENT, from 800m till Marathon.

The reason is to increase the ability to recruit the higher percentage of fast fibers. It's possible to do it ONLY using the max intensity, and with runners I personally prefer a DYNAMIC WAY with sprints running, than lifting weights near maximal personal possibility, because this is a more STATIC type of training.

Try to look in google in a better way, and you can find a lot of references about sprints uphill.

Wow, thank you Renato. Guys I think this should have ended the thread. Valuable insight as always!

N0 hill niqqa wrote:

It's arbitrary and senseless to claim that a program necessarily ought to include hills unless you are specifically training for an event that includes them. If you're tranimg for a track race they're definitely not needed.

That is absolutely untrue, you don't understand the benefits.

joedirt wrote:

Nice sarcastic Henry Rono reference:

http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/study-all-hill-repeats-improve-5-k-performance

Was about to post the link to this study. Good read although sample size is quite small if I remember correctly.

your coach is dead on. Kenyans tell different stories, but the common denominator is hills. Hills provide all the essentials of a workout that is used in track and road.

As well as developing STRENGTH, you can get a hard alactic or lactic tolerance workout using a hill, without nearly the injury risk of achieving the same efforts on level grounds.

EXAMPLE:

4-8 x 100 at 98-99% on the track is an injury risk. I don't care who you are.

4-8 x 12-15 seconds straight up a hill at the same effort won't get you injured.

I know a guy who has run 2:18, I was asking him what he thought the most key workouts were, he definitely ranked hill workouts as being a key workout that a lot of people leave OUT.

Hills? man, what kinda crazy guy suggests running hill repeats??? yeah your coach is insane.