Fartlek Running

john said:

All:

Hi. I have run for years but have never run any real races. I've
decided to train for a 1/2 marathon and found a good training program
at coolrunning.com. One of the runs I need to take is called a
"fartlek." Apparently, it is a slow-fast-recover-repeat type of
sequence.

In the training program, they list Fartlek (4M) with accompanying text
that reads:
"The distance in parentheses below fartlek runs includes a mile each
of warmup and warmdown, in addition to your fartlek sessions."

Does this mean 1M warmup + 4M fartlek + 1M warmdown, or does it mean
1M warmup + 2M fartlek + 1M warmdown (this is week #1 of a 12 week
training program)...

You could do either, but the text looks pretty unambiguous to me. It says
that the 4 mile distance includes the warmup and cooldown, so that means it
would have to be 1+2+1.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

john said:

All:

Hi. I have run for years but have never run any real races. I've
decided to train for a 1/2 marathon and found a good training program
at coolrunning.com. One of the runs I need to take is called a
"fartlek." Apparently, it is a slow-fast-recover-repeat type of
sequence.

In the training program, they list Fartlek (4M) with accompanying text
that reads:
"The distance in parentheses below fartlek runs includes a mile each
of warmup and warmdown, in addition to your fartlek sessions."

Does this mean 1M warmup + 4M fartlek + 1M warmdown, or does it mean
1M warmup + 2M fartlek + 1M warmdown (this is week #1 of a 12 week
training program)...

Thanks,
John

What is the fartlek method?

"Gary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

john said:

All:

Hi. I have run for years but have never run any real races. I've
decided to train for a 1/2 marathon and found a good training program
at coolrunning.com. One of the runs I need to take is called a
"fartlek." Apparently, it is a slow-fast-recover-repeat type of
sequence.

In the training program, they list Fartlek (4M) with accompanying text
that reads:
"The distance in parentheses below fartlek runs includes a mile each
of warmup and warmdown, in addition to your fartlek sessions."

Does this mean 1M warmup + 4M fartlek + 1M warmdown, or does it mean
1M warmup + 2M fartlek + 1M warmdown (this is week #1 of a 12 week
training program)...

Thanks,
John

What is the fartlek method?

Speedplay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fartlek

I first read about fartlek in some running book ~25 years ago, and liked it
because it allows you to do a harder workout by feel, and it also works out
well to do it according to terrain. I often us shorter trail runs for
fartlek workouts, doing some uphills very hard, resting on the downhills, or
blasting longer flatter sections. It can be anything you want. Sometimes I
will put in a few longer 'intervals' of 10+ mins in a fartlek, and sometimes
mix in shorter efforts of 2-5 mins at a higher intensity.

Using a heart rate monitor can help make fartlek sessions more honest, as
many times people will tend to run the harder portions in the 'upper junk
zone' (which is perhaps akin to marathon pace which is really only useful if
done for a more extended time) instead of a bit harder where shorter efforts
will be of more benefit. OTOH, on days when you really feel like running a
monitor is unnecessary and going by feel is fine.

-Tony

Gary said:

What is the fartlek method?

Fartlek is speed play (Swedish word). It's alternating hard and easy
according to feel and the objective of the workout. Note the word "play"
in there. Don't get too hung up on details and effort levels, but some
folks do tend to put some semi-structure on them. Some people will run
"hard" from power pole to power pole then recover on the next span.
Others might do a 3-6 min section hard, recover for a minute (incomplete
recovery) or 10 min or whatever (full recovery) before picking it up
again. I may run "hard" on easy sections of trail and recover on the
twistier (although my agility is improving to the point that I can make
this more tempo-ish and not have to slow down).

"Hard"/"easy" and approximate times can be whatever you want, depending
on your goal for that workout. I may use shorter timing (30-60sec, count
footfalls otherwise I go too long) if I want to focus on accelerations,
high-end aerobic (what Benson refers to as "aerobic speed" and some like
JD refer to as "no-man's land"😉 for the "hard" if I want more cardio
benefits than easy running, or medium efforts to work that zone.
Sometimes if I'm working a hill for the hard part, I may push over the
LT zone, but except for the strength issue, there's not much point for
me in running at that effort right now. For you with shorter distances,
yes, you may want to push over LT.

There's many, esp. Lydiard et al., that believe in working the full
aerobic zone. JD and others do recognize a "no-man's land" but one
runner's junk is another runner's sweet spot. But when I look in books
like Martin and Coe, they include some cardio benefits in those zones
that are more so there than at lower efforts. Granted, the "zones" are
vague and probably vary, but I do think the concept of cardio benefits
varying with different aerobic efforts is valid.

Remember true fartleks are speed play - keep 'em low key mentally.

Dot

--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
world-famous adventurer who was with Byrd in Antarctica

I should have added that the "hard" part could be done at medium efforts
also. The big thing is to alternate between various efforts in an
unstructured manner. And the goal for the day may be to "just run and
have fun."

--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
world-famous adventurer who was with Byrd in Antarctica

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I should have added that the "hard" part could be done at medium efforts
also. The big thing is to alternate between various efforts in an
unstructured manner. And the goal for the day may be to "just run and have
fun."

I concur with the last sentence, which is one reason to do this type of
workout, or really any speedwork I would think, when you feel like running -
that is when you're well rested enough to enjoy the speed and not have to
feel like you're pushing it too hard. Heart rate goes up easily and you get
a thrill from going fast.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
world-famous adventurer who was with Byrd in Antarctica

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

Gary said:

What is the fartlek method?

Fartlek is speed play (Swedish word). It's alternating hard and easy
according to feel and the objective of the workout. Note the word "play"
in there. Don't get too hung up on details and effort levels, but some
folks do tend to put some semi-structure on them. Some people will run
"hard" from power pole to power pole then recover on the next span.

This is also fun to do in a group. Each person takes a turn calling
out a target, say the next fire hydrant or the next blue house. Or the
surprise ones called out just before turning a corner. (Sorry gasp
guys gasp I didn't know there wasn't gasp a blue house gasp on this
gasp block!) 8^)

Quoted message said:

Remember true fartleks are speed play - keep 'em low key mentally.

Dot

--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
world-famous adventurer who was with Byrd in Antarctica

john said:

"The distance in parentheses below fartlek runs includes a mile each
of warmup and warmdown, in addition to your fartlek sessions."

Does this mean 1M warmup + 4M fartlek + 1M warmdown, or does it mean
1M warmup + 2M fartlek + 1M warmdown (this is week #1 of a 12 week
training program)...

The fact that it says "in additition to" would mean to me that it
would be 1M warmup+4M fartlek+1M warmdown.
Let your body decide. If a 4M fartlek feels too much, do the session
1+2+1. In future sessions you could sgradually increase to 1+4+1.

Dalg

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

Gary said:

What is the fartlek method?

Fartlek is speed play (Swedish word). It's alternating hard and easy
according to feel and the objective of the workout. Note the word "play"
in there. Don't get too hung up on details and effort levels, but some
folks do tend to put some semi-structure on them. Some people will run
"hard" from power pole to power pole then recover on the next span.
Others might do a 3-6 min section hard, recover for a minute (incomplete
recovery) or 10 min or whatever (full recovery) before picking it up
again. I may run "hard" on easy sections of trail and recover on the
twistier (although my agility is improving to the point that I can make
this more tempo-ish and not have to slow down).

"Hard"/"easy" and approximate times can be whatever you want, depending
on your goal for that workout. I may use shorter timing (30-60sec, count
footfalls otherwise I go too long) if I want to focus on accelerations,
high-end aerobic (what Benson refers to as "aerobic speed" and some like
JD refer to as "no-man's land"😉 for the "hard" if I want more cardio
benefits than easy running, or medium efforts to work that zone.
Sometimes if I'm working a hill for the hard part, I may push over the
LT zone, but except for the strength issue, there's not much point for
me in running at that effort right now. For you with shorter distances,
yes, you may want to push over LT.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Remember true fartleks are speed play - keep 'em low key mentally.

The latter is the key point, IMHO.

At stages of a Lydiard-style periodisation program, I used to use a
variation on Ron Hill's structured number-stride-fartlek. For example,
approx 1.5 mile warmup, then 100 x double strides (approx. 300m.) at
10k pace, then half the latter jog. Eight or ten of those was a very
effective session. Followed by 1.5 mile warmdown. You could do the
whole lot in a six mile run.

Meant you didn't have to waste them time or mental anguish going to a
track.

Quoted message said:

From memory, Ron Hill's nsf session went something like 20 double

strides, jog, 30, jog, all the way up to 100 and then back down again.

Best regards,

Jon C.