Hi John, the question I asked earlier about your training is not only mine, it is one I have read often on this and other boards. I guess we all realise that Joe’s Phase I was nothing but your own way of getting a runner “ready to train”.
But reading your answer to that question I can see that in later Phases you use what I term, “intermittent runs” or “intermittent workouts” in the examples you give of the specific training you use.
Let me paste them again here:
6 x 800m at 104% of 5k pace with everything from equal time recovery (down to) 1:15-1:30 recovery.
5-6 x 1k at 5k pace with 200m jog recovery in 90 secs
3 x 3k at 95-96% of 5k pace with 800m jog recovery
2 x 5k at 93-94% of 5k pace with 800m jog recovery
8k at 92% of 5k pace
16-20k at 88-90% of 5k pace
I can see that this time the workouts you recommend are related to race pace; 5km race pace in the examples above. This time I don’t see any HR recommendations like you had given in Joe’s thread.
It seems that when you prescribe faster intensity training you use time and distance as the method of defining the intermittent workouts; this is unlike your Phase I thread in which – apart from the 2400m tests – you used the HRM to determine/set the pace of training sessions.
My first question therefore is; do you believe that for fast intermittent workouts – which is what the above sessions really are – it is better to work off of a set pace rather than a set HR?
I also note that you prefer to use 5k PR pace or a percentage of 5k PR pace to set the workouts, rather than to estimate HM pace. I find that curious, coming from a coach like yourself who has a background in sports science.
My second question is; can I assume that you – like me – prefer time and pace intensity or percentages thereof when you set a training target for really intense workouts, rather than some intensity based on physiology?