10-12x400 @ 3k with 30s rest

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

It's during the recovery phase the actual training effect occurs.

That's vaguely true but not accurate. Recovery produces adaptations that improve recovery, but only to the degree that it is stressful. Too much recovery results in nothing to adapt to. But too little results in a ragged workout that has no benefit at all. Just enough recovery to get through the workout at the intended pace and effort level is ideal.

Why not try the workout yourself? You'll learn more from that than reading a few more blog posts.

Hi Phil,

Sorry for hijacking your thread with an off topic question. Prior to running, what video game did you play professionally?

I am not really sure that I agree with you. According to Daniels' tables, my lifetime PRs put me into the 70s for VDOTs and for what it's worth in lab tests I had my VO2 max measured in the 70s. Yes, I am sure that elite runners are doing much tougher workouts than I have ever been able to do regardless of their VO2 max (e.g. Derek Clayton). But this is not really the point being debated.

I think that at any level, elite, sub elite, hobby jogger etc there will be some people who can tolerate very tough workouts such as those you are advocating and there will be others who will just break down if they keep repeating those workouts. Maybe there are ways of building up to those workouts and maybe you have to look at the training being done around those workouts but I still think that it is too dogmatic to say that each athlete at a certain level is able to do x intervals at x pace and they will all respond in the same way to the training - I don't think that Tinman thinks that either. I read somewhere that Lydiard did not really bother about timing the speed of the intervals (a story about Richard Taylor one of his 10000m runners), he just watched his athletes run and adjusted accordingly (maybe some readers who knew Lydiard can correct me if this is wrong). This approach to training is most likely the key: try a workout and then adjust the intensity/recovery depending on how you respond.

Look at my post few posts ago where I quoted Cabral talking about elite runners being able to do the workout in question (12x400 @3k pace with low rest 30s-45s).

He provided concrete examples of an 800/1500 specialist (but still a respectable 7:37 3k) not being able to do 12x400@60/61 with 45s rest. But the same guy could do 20-30x400@56-57 with 3 min rest with ease.

Both workouts are undoable for some elites, depending on their strengths and weaknesses. The 800/1500 guy got a very strong anaerobic system and a lot of fast-twitch fibers, so he can run reps very fast BUT he needs a sufficient time to recover and be able to use his anaerobic system again for the next rep.

A 5k/10k specialist, with very strong aerobic system and 7:30 PR could do the 12x400@60 with 30s rest without being overly taxed, but would struggle even with just 10 reps of his mile pace. How? The low rest means he is mostly using his aerobic system for the reps, and since it's strong, it's doable. VO2MAX starts elevated at each rep, and the anaerobic system doesn't get chance to recover.

So it's not a question about who is tougher or who is more used to workouts - it's about individual strengths and muscle fiber physiology. Maybe you were a 800/1500 guy with lots of speed and FT fibers and therefore struggled with workouts that are at around 100% of VO2MAX with such low rest (I do the same).

Tinman actually does believe that it's all about VO2MAX/ability, for example he gives a 20 min 5k guy only 2 miles of 3k-5k paced intervals, a 17 min guy 3 miles and a 14 min guy 4 miles. He has own formulas to calculate how many minutes someone with a given performance level (which is tied to VO2MAX) can handle at CV, or 3k-5k pace. New runners take a long time to recover from efforts, because their VO2MAX is low. Same with older runners. Therefore it makes sense to adjust the training load.

Well.......Perfect training is not about to force your limits, it`s more about just running the paces that are enough to reach your goals. I can say by over 50 years of running experience that a couple of world class workouts you mentioned here are not possible to do e.g that workout you told Cabral said Pinto would have done of 30 x 400m at 59-60 sec with 45 sec rest. I know Eamon Coghlan did 20 x 400m at 59-60 sec but with a 60 sec rest and I even timed the great Moses Tanui when he did a 20 x 400m in St Moritz at 59-62 sec but rest 1-2 min . You should not believe everything you read Phil . With long experience and knowledge about possible workouts you will learn to distinguish what is true and false.

You tell a lot of things about Tinman that just gives him bad publicity. Wake up Phil and start

to follow a real classy coach instead.

10-12x 400m @ 3k with 30 sec rest seems just a little bit too hard

--- maybe cut it down to 8x [or] make the rest 60 sec [or] change the @ pace:

for example,

10-12x 400m @ 5k with 30 sec rest seems hard but doable

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

Han Solo wrote:

Nah, never claim to know more than anyone else actually. If you can find where I make that claim, please feel free to share that. I just enjoy giving Phil a hard time.

I guess having knowledge of training is putting someone down.

Here's what I don't get Solo. You are not impressed by seeing this prescribed by Tinman because Bideau has also been doing this. Bideau is one of the best coaches in the world and you're acting like he's some scrub high school coach. For the record this is not a workout I'd like to do. My body just doesn't seem to do well on these type of paces and outside of strides and hill repeats I don't normally run faster than 10k effort.

What I have read about Bideau he advocates VO2max workouts to be at 92-95 % and not at 3 k pace and more like 5 k pace. He tells the same as Daniels that you get the same effect out from 5 k pace reps as 3 k paced and therefore doesn't need the 3 k pace that also gives increased risk of injury and overload.

just another guy wrote:

10-12x 400m @ 3k with 30 sec rest seems just a little bit too hard

--- maybe cut it down to 8x [or] make the rest 60 sec [or] change the @ pace:

for example,

10-12x 400m @ 5k with 30 sec rest seems hard but doable

Have people here never run 400s @ 5k with short rest? I’m more of a slow twitch guy than fast twitch and I’ve done 12x400 @ 75 with 50m jog rec (in about 20 - 25 sec) when my 3k PR was 9 flat. That was an EASY workout (I was talking and joking with other guys during it). 12x400 with a full 30 sec standing recovery @ 72.5 or so would’ve been tough, but not brutal like people are making it out to be, it wouldn’t have been a race effort for me, even on top of 80+ mile weeks.

You know what did hurt? 8x400 @ 68 with 2 min jog recovery. My mile PR was 4:34 and in workouts, that felt like a sprint to me, at the time. LateRunnerPhil gets things wrong and some things right, and I think he got this one right. I know guys who are 4/8/15 types and they could do 400s at mile pace all day, but that same 400 workout at 3k it 5k pace would’ve been a ball buster for them.

That's where Cabral, Magness, and some others get it right and where coaches like JS, Tinman or Jack Daniels get it wrong. That it's about muscle fiber physiology and use of aerobic/anaerobic system, which are completely different in runners.

Ovett vs Coe

Lopes vs Mamede

Ritz vs Webb

Ingebrigtsen vs Lewandowski

All these runners where competitive with eachother, but had different strengths and muscle fibers (the right side athletes are way more FT than their counterparts).

The fast guys like Mamede or Webb could do mile paced 400s with long rests for ages whereas these aggressive, anaerobic reps were very difficult to do for the runners with mostly ST fibers. But shifting to 3k or 5k paced 400s with short (100m/30-40s) recovery, the tides turn and now it's the FT guys struggling with the high aerobic demand and the inability to recover and use their anaerobic system for each rep like they can do in mile-paced 400s with 3 min rest.

Magness and Cabral individualize their training based on that, something that coaches like Daniels, Tinman or JS neglect. They throw their standard program at any runner and hope for the best results. This works to a large degree because the cornerstones of their programs are set in a way that both types of runners can handle it - Tinman's CV is not really that hard and Daniel's I-pace is more like 5k pace than 3k pace. But when you orchestrate some workouts like 12x400 at 3k pace with 100m rest you get a workout that some runners like NWARunner can handle easily and more FT-based guys die after the 9th rep and would need to dug way deeper than intended just to complete it somehow.

One very good point made earlier in the discussion, which is not so commonly raised, is that an elite runner needs less recovery for the same relative pace. In other words, the fitter a runner is, the more quickly they recover (e.g. the more quickly the heart rate drops during the rest portion of a workout). I.e. an elite runner running 3k pace will likely recover more quickly than a slower runner running 3k pace. Of course there are several factors involved, but this is a solid general principle.

It means that workouts should not be blindly copied; each runner should experiment with rest periods to find what they can do, according to the goal of the workout.

There are completely different schools of thought, like the Verheul/Easy Interval method, which more or less ignore trying to make the workout as tough as possible, and instead focus on quality aerobic development; in particular, always with generous easy running rest between intervals. The Verheul method itself mostly keeps the intervals themselves from being too taxing, but I personally think one can also apply the same principle to running hard intervals sometimes, but keeping generous rest. This allows familiarity with running at a hard pace (improving efficiency, etc), but keeps the overall workout much easier (and longer, thus providing more aerobic benefit).

Good summary in your first paragraph.

For the intervals, I need to disagree. Yes, these workouts are not intended to be "superhero" workouts or "balls to the walls". They are harder than a threshold workout, but it's not supposed to be a race-like effort.

The reason for the short recovery in 12x400 at 3k with 100m rest (30-40s) is simple - it is a VO2MAX workout, and the coaches want VO2MAX to remain elevated. It takes time to get the aerobic system going. In practice, first rep is mostly anaerobic. Second will already start at an elevated VO2MAX, and 3rd rep will already start at a very high % of VO2MAX. This is what coaches like Daniels want - to maximize the time spent at VO2MAX.

If you do 12x400 at 3k with 400m rest (2-3 min), your CP and anaerobic system will recover. So each rep uses a good amount of anaerobic energy, and u might only reach VO2MAX in the last seconds of a rep. Total amount spent at VO2MAX is much lower than with short rest, and it becomes a workout without real purpose (if you want to train anaerobically, better use mile-pace or faster).

This is a workout beneficial for runners focusing on 800-5000. But a high VO2MAX won't help if the threshold/endurance is bad, so this type of workout should only be the icing of the cake and ideally also be combined with some threshold-type of work on the same day.

You write your Tinman to the skies and now suddenly you bring him together with me and Daniels in the same boat?? How is this related ? You just wrote about how individual Tinman`s approach was for elite , 16-17 min guys and so on when it comes to the amount of maxVO2 workouts? The DANCAN system of mine is of course not a standard program that I "throw at any runner and hope for the best results". I have a basic system,yes. But that basic system must be adjusted to the individual runner and not the other way around. How do you think it`s possible to coach sprinters(ladies) to run 11.3 at 100m and marathoners to run 2:07 if I didn`t had an individual adjustment? I don`t coach robots. This talk about FT and ST is subordinate more important factors for the result.One thing that stands clear about FT and ST is that you can get FT to work as ST, but not the other way around.

-The Wizard -

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

The DANCAN system of mine is of course not a standard program that I "throw at any runner and hope for the best results". I have a basic system,yes. But that basic system must be adjusted to the individual runner and not the other way around. How do you think it`s possible to coach sprinters(ladies) to run 11.3 at 100m and marathoners to run 2:07 if I didn`t had an individual adjustment? I don`t coach robots. This talk about FT and ST is subordinate more important factors for the result.One thing that stands clear about FT and ST is that you can get FT to work as ST, but not the other way around.

-The Wizard -

Of course you adjust between sprinters and marathoners. But for distance runners, the staple of your program seems to be:

20x400 at 5k pace with rest down to 120

longer LT intervals at best individual LT pace

How do you differentiate between Lopes and Mamede, both who can run the 10k in 27 min low but Mamede got 47s 400m speed and Lopes 54s 400m speed? Mamede has a strong anaerobic system and lots of FT fibers (that he of course managed to work aerobically over the years, otherwise he wouldn't be able to run 27 low for 10k), whereas Lopes was not strong anaerobically and had a lot of ST fibers. Lopes did his easy runs so fast that no one could even think about hanging with him, that's the power of someone having 90%+ ST.

When you get to work with two talented runners, on the same level in 3k or 5k or 10k but with totally different muscle fiber distribution you will notice how important it becomes to individualize (feel free to list some examples of athletes you coached who were either very FT or ST, since most are in the middle and how you did it).

a good point wrote:

One very good point made earlier in the discussion, which is not so commonly raised, is that an elite runner needs less recovery for the same relative pace. In other words, the fitter a runner is, the more quickly they recover (e.g. the more quickly the heart rate drops during the rest portion of a workout). I.e. an elite runner running 3k pace will likely recover more quickly than a slower runner running 3k pace. Of course there are several factors involved, but this is a solid general principle.

It means that workouts should not be blindly copied; each runner should experiment with rest periods to find what they can do, according to the goal of the workout.

.

I can`t agree with this reasoning.An elite runner doesn`t need less recovery for the same relative pace as for example a hobby jogger who at his/her pace has the exact same pressure on the cardio vascular system. It`s the same principle I have shown before when I compared my best 5 k time and the Olympic silver medalist Suleiman Nyambui`s best 5 k time.He needed exact same rest as me ( about 2 min ) to run his relatively faster pace in the workout 6-8 x 800m , He ran them at 2:06-2:08 and I at my relatively slower pace at 2:16 , but we both had the same pressure on our body systems.

Have YOU done it, McCracken?

It's an interesting example! Note though there could be several aspects to this. E.g.:

1. Nyambiu may have taken more rest than he actually needed, i.e. you might actually have been working harder. How hard one can push oneself is partly psychological; an elite athlete may not be tougher psychologically than a slower athlete.

2. Nyambiu may not have been aerobically fitter than you; the 10-12 second difference may have come from other factors (e.g. better running mechanics).

As I say, it is only a general principle, but I think it is well established in studies that higher fitness in general leads to quicker recovery.

Yes, I understand the reasoning :-). What I was suggesting was simply:

1. A slower runner can probably achieve the same time at vVO2Max with a little longer recovery but each individual runner can experiment with this rather than take a blanket number.

2. With regard to hard intervals with generous easy running rest, the goal would not be to maximise time at VO2Max. Instead, as I wrote, one would be focusing on efficiency, mechanics, cadence, using faster twitch fibres, etc, in the short term, as well as aerobic development longer term. With regard to whether one can improve VO2Max this way as opposed to trying to push it up in the short term with the kinds of workouts being discussed here, that is a complicated question! I will just say that the part of VO2Max that is to do with the heart is unlikely to improve much, the main area it can improve is the part to do with the muscles, and (slow) improvement there is likely with any kind of training which has some intensity.