quote:<HR>Originally posted by flobaby:
Thanks to Nobby (thank you, Nobby 
), I successfully doctored SmartCoach for my first Half and dropped 1 minute per mile over the 16 weeks. I'm using it again for my second half in two months, and hope to lose another 30 sec./mile.
<HR>
Flobaby:
I can't remember what I did for you (what have I done for you lately!?) but 13 minutes improvement for the half; heck, I'll take that credit! Congratulations to your great improvement! And I'm glad what I say here and there actually stayed consistant! ;o)
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fishbowl:
Also, you were absolutely right about the repeats; they are 800 meter repeats with 400 meter jogs. Yesterday, I was scheduled to do 4 of them and with the heat and humidity, I only managed 3 of them. I didn't feel like I had failed the workout at all. Instead I felt like the recoveries weren't long enough for me and coupled with unusually humid conditions, I just couldn't do any more. I definitely feel like I got some benefit but I would love to try shorter repeats.
<HR>
I think this is where this comes from; in this country, high school coaches and runners LOVE doing 400m repeats because it hurts like ****! (best way to puke your lunch on the track) Now about a decade ago or so, people started saying about mile repeats. Some people started calling them LT repeats or whatever some fancy terms. Naturally you don't go as fast so doing the entire mile for recovery jog could be a bit too much--you could get cold by doing so and need to warm-up all over again! So, many did a bit shorter recovery for mile repeats.
Now as we all know, mass marathoning had exploded about a decade or so ago. Now everybody wants to run a marathon just to say they did one. Many of former elite runners, including Hal Higdon (did you guys know he was a **** good runner?), basically watered down their own training for "beginners". So 400s would be too **** fast; mile repeats are too demanding... Well, 800 would do! I saw someone suggesting to someone who runs about 25 miles a week something like 8X800 for "speed" workout! I usually do 5! For people who would run 5~6 miles at a time, 4 miles of "speed" work is, well, tough. And of course, there's Yasso 800s... In the actual terms, Yasso 800s goes as follows: if you CAN do 10X800 COMFORTABLLY, the pace at which you do them, you can switch minutes to hours and seconds to minutes; in other words, if you do 10 of them in 3:30 COMFORTABLY, then you should be ready to run 3:30 marathon. Now most people took it slightly different and use this 10X800 as "speed" training. They pick some bogus number like "I would like to run a 4-hour marathon..." and try to squeeze ten 800m at 4:00. It's actually other way around. Invariably most people get disappointed because more often than not, they're not quite ready and they'll start pushing the pace at 4:00 for first 3 or 4 only to struggle the second half of the set... Moreover, and I've talked this with Bart as well, if you're simply "plodding" those 800s at, say, 5:00 (for a 5-hour marathon runners), it's not quite "speed" training.
I take this type of fast workout in two ways: one is as an indicator for up-coming performance (=if you can do this, then you should be able to expect such-and-such performance); and the other is how that particular workout would influence the up-coming workout or performance. In other words, how fast or how well you'd do that particular workout is secondary; but that workout SHOULD affect the up-coming workout or performace in a positive way. After all, if you do sharpening work, you would expect that you'd get sharpened--may not be in that parituclar workout, but as a result, you'll be sharper next week. That's what workout is all about. In other words, I have no interest whatsoever (okay, it's a bit exaggeration) what kind of times my athletes would run in training unless it's a specific time trial type of workout; but what would happen 2 days later or 5 days later because of that particular workout.
Okay, I digress a lot here. I also like to see success with that type of hard workout. I'd much rather my guys start out less in number/volume; slightly slower than they can easily handle. I would have had you start with, say, 4X400m with 400m recovery in between with no specific time expected (but note how fast you'd run them for the future reference). I mean, this is separate from 120~200s as relaxed striding; but as the beginning of strength work. I would also alternate the distances; 400s one week, 1200s next, then 800s or 600s... This way, you won't compare times from one week to the next; if you do that, you'll start to race your training. I personally like to have plenty of recovery in between because that way you can actually do the fast sections fast. You can make it as tough as possible but invariably speed suffers. If you're, say, 10-minute runner; and you'll be doing 800m in 4:55 and go around the "recovery" 400 in 2:35, then it's more like glorified change-of-pace run than "speed" training. You may laugh but that's exactly what so many people do! Just go out where some group would be doing those "Yasso" 800s and time their "fast" sections and "recovery" sections. There should be a clear purpose for each day's workout and that would have to be performed accordingly. Don't blindly follow 4X800 just because the schedule calls for 4X800. Understand WHY you're doing them.
Okay, I hijacked the thread here... ;o)
Search Cool Running Community
