speedwork question

In article <[email hidden]>,
Lyndon <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Your goals don't match up very well. From the endurance
side, the standard correlation from 5K pace to mile pace is
89%; For miole pace to 400 pace, it is 87%. From the speed
side, it goes like this:

To digress a second: Are those correlations of meters per
second (actual pace)? Or is it correlation of the
deviations from some reference relation? If it's the
former, the correlations really aren't telling us much.
The thing being, the correlation is biased high if
reference values aren't removed. All it says in that case
is that people who run faster at one distance tend to run
faster at another, which we hardly needed the regression
for. If it's a correlation that a person 10% faster than
median at 400m is also 10% faster at the mile, then this
is interesting (to me).

Quoted message said:

23. (200m) => 50.0 (400m) => 1:50 (800m) => 3:58 (mile)

A runner at the median of speed/endurance needs to run
17:30 for 5K AND 65 seconds for 400m to run a 5:00 mile. If
one of these is on the fast side, the other can be relaxed.

Interesting -- puts the median relation as being 5k = 16
times the 400m (with some rounding). My ratio was 19.5.
While I believe I've got more room for improvement at the
5k, it's still only to, maybe, 17.7. In other words, in
terms of racing a mile, I'm a stronger anaerobic runner
than aerobic.

Relevance to general training: Most of us will fall one
side or the other of the median. You can then either try
to build from your strength and suffer the weakness, or
you can attack the weakness and rely on the strength. For
me as a strong anaerobic miler (relatively speaking),
build from strength would mean to focus somewhat more on
building the anaerobic side -- high speed workouts, and
drag myself through the aerobically-limited aspect of the
race. Attack the weakness would be to do relatively fewer
anaerobic workouts, and hammer the VO2max-type workouts.
Then on race day, count on the speed to be there.

The above may have something to do with my suggestions to
the friend I mentioned focussing on the anaerobic aspects
of racing the mile.

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and
amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo
Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less
appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a
more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Lyndon <[email hidden]> wrote:

Relevance to general training: Most of us will fall one
side or the other of the median. You can then either try
to build from your strength and suffer the weakness, or
you can attack the weakness and rely on the strength.
For me as a strong anaerobic miler (relatively
speaking), build from strength would mean to focus
somewhat more on building the anaerobic side -- high
speed workouts, and drag myself through the aerobically-
limited aspect of the race. Attack the weakness would be
to do relatively fewer anaerobic workouts, and hammer
the VO2max-type workouts. Then on race day, count on the
speed to be there.

The above may have something to do with my suggestions
to the friend I mentioned focussing on the anaerobic
aspects of racing the mile.

Even the mile at the world class level is more aerobic
than anaerobic in terms of energy contribution. That is
why many milers have been known to put in 80 to 100
mile weeks. It is amazing how many people think the
mile (and even the 800) is more anaerobic than aerobic.
Not that I would not do anaerobic capacity work, but
only takes 4 to 6 weeks to optimize anaerobic work
capacity (and it sticks around for about as long).

Quoted message said:

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs
and amateur

activities notes and links.

Quoted message said:

Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite
matters with too

much

Quoted message said:

evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less
appreciated than

they

Quoted message said:

would be had they been presented in a more abstruse
manner." Two New

Sciences

[email hidden] (TopCounsel) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Well, I must say, for someone like me who does run this
type of workout, but has never been properly coached in
doing so, you guys put on a pretty good clinic in
repeats/intervals and their hows & whys. Thanks to
Donovan, Dan and Bob G.! I always feel like I'm such an
ignoramus when planning and running repeats (well, then
and at other times, too.....)

So as a former swimmer who has begun running to support
other sports (ultimate)...I guess I'm surprised that no one
has brought up negative splits.

In swimming most speedwork focuses on descending (times)
through the set or so-called negative splits.

When I head out to the track I have always taken this
same approach.

So for me a speed workout of 6x400's (low mileage base - 15
mpw w/ lots of other cross-training)...my times will be 100,
96, 92, 90, 89 &
88.

Is this wrong? Is this better? Does this matter in running?
Would there be specific reasons to use negative splits?

As an ultimate player, one of my goals is to be fast to make
quick "cuts". My speedwork is training for this goal -
should I be worrying about negative splits?

I'm curious as negative splits are some what of a religion
in swimming when it comes to speedwork...

In article said:

[email hidden] (TopCounsel) wrote in message news:<20040330173501.21720.00000399@mb-
m13.aol.com>...

Quoted message said:

Well, I must say, for someone like me who does run this
type of workout, but has never been properly coached in
doing so, you guys put on a pretty good clinic in
repeats/intervals and their hows & whys. Thanks to
Donovan, Dan and Bob G.! I always feel like I'm such an
ignoramus when planning and running repeats (well, then
and at other times, too.....)

So as a former swimmer who has begun running to support
other sports (ultimate)...I guess I'm surprised that no
one has brought up negative splits.

In swimming most speedwork focuses on descending (times)
through the set or so-called negative splits.

Not so in running. I've heard of some runners who do
this though.

IMO it doesn't make much sense physiologically.

Quoted message said:

When I head out to the track I have always taken this same
approach.

So for me a speed workout of 6x400's (low mileage base -
15 mpw w/ lots of other cross-training)...my times will be
100, 96, 92, 90, 89 &
88.

Is this wrong?

Not really.

Quoted message said:

Is this better?

Not really.

Quoted message said:

Does this matter in running? Would

Not really. The first two are like a warmup, the last 4 are
all within an acceptable range. Doing the first one a little
slowly is generally a good idea (especially with short
repeats like 400s). You can always do one more if it turns
out to be way too slow.

Quoted message said:

there be specific reasons to use negative splits?

Might be good psychologically. Learning to hold back in
training may be useful for pacing in a race. Positive splits
in training won't hurt but in a race they may.

Quoted message said:

As an ultimate player, one of my goals is to be fast to
make quick "cuts". My speedwork is training for this goal
- should I be worrying about negative splits?

No.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Lyndon said:

It wasn't my comment above, but I'll answer it this way.
In the year

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Steve Scott set the AR in the mile, he averaged 77
miles/wk and ran his

first

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"anaerobic" workout on the track in the third week of
the season.

That's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

right--he ran track intervals and/or hill repeats in 50
of the 52 weeks

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the year. And, yes, I do have a copy of his
training log.

The idea that you train for the mile by running 80-100
miles and only

4-6

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weeks of intervals is simply a joke. Even Lydiard had
people doing a

lot

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more than that.

I've read or at least glanced at Lydiard's writing in the
bookshop. People often associate Lydiard with running 100
miles a week slowly and doing no speed work, but this
viewpoint does not seem to be supported by anything

he's

Quoted message said:

written. In fact the basic outline of a Lydiard program is
a four phase periodisation much like Daniels. There are no
doubt differences, but

Lydiards

Quoted message said:

emphasis on training volume tends to be overstated.
Perhaps the fact that

he

Quoted message said:

had 800/mile runners like Snell do high milage made his
methods seem

somewhat

Quoted message said:

more controversial than they would were they applied to a
10k runner.

Since you're somewhat familiar with Lydiard (I'm not),
what are the

important

Quoted message said:

differences between Daniels and Lydiard training ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Too me there is not much except that Jack makes his a
little more specific and scientific sounding. Lydiard kept
things pretty simple and open ended. Basically you did allz
youz could do.

Becca wrote:

....

Quoted message said:

So for me a speed workout of 6x400's (low mileage base -
15 mpw w/ lots of other cross-training)...my times will be
100, 96, 92, 90, 89 &
88.

....

Quoted message said:

As an ultimate player, one of my goals is to be fast to
make quick "cuts". My speedwork is training for this goal
- should I be worrying about negative splits?

Are you doing additional training also for the quick changes
in direction, that most normal running training might not
provide? Footwork drills?

Quoted message said:

I'm curious as negative splits are some what of a religion
in swimming when it comes to speedwork...

Many runners try to do even, sometimes negative, splits,
esp. on races - but not necessarily a progression like
you've indicated, although I have seen that suggested for
some drills. Positive splits usually indicate a person went
too hard - unless they were intending to build early fatigue
then survive for training effect.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Based on my observations, for ultimate you need to be doing
much shorter, higher intensity efforts. Do you ever run all
out for 400m in ultimate? Being sport specific it seems like
20m sprints would be better.

I would see doing "microintervals" of 30 sec all out, then
30 sec of nothing or light jogging. Seems more like what you
are doing.

Also, ultimate is a highly aerobic sport since you are
recovering from the hard efforts by aerobic means so having
an optimized aerobic system will be beneficial. "Dot"
<dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message news:ODqbc.24592$He5.465813@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Quoted message said:

Becca wrote:

....

Quoted message said:

So for me a speed workout of 6x400's (low mileage base -
15 mpw w/ lots of other cross-training)...my times will
be 100, 96, 92, 90, 89 &
88.

....

Quoted message said:

As an ultimate player, one of my goals is to be fast to
make quick "cuts". My speedwork is training for this
goal - should I be worrying about negative splits?

Are you doing additional training also for the quick
changes in direction, that most normal running training
might not provide? Footwork drills?

Quoted message said:

I'm curious as negative splits are some what of a
religion in swimming when it comes to speedwork...

Many runners try to do even, sometimes negative, splits,
esp. on races - but not necessarily a progression like
you've indicated, although I have seen that suggested for
some drills. Positive splits usually indicate a person
went too hard - unless they were intending to build early
fatigue then survive for training effect.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

In article said:

Since I have done a lit review on anaerobic capacity in my
previous job, I can assure you that the research is quite
solid that 4 to 6 weeks will optimize anaerobic work
capacity. It could be that the other intervals were aimed
at other energy systems and functions.

I have also noticed that many runners think they are
running anaerobic workouts when actually they are doing
quite aerobic workouts. For instance, 20x200 in 25 sec
with 30 sec rest is NOT an anaerobic workout, it is in
fact a VO2max workout (see Astrand for reference and
Billat as well). However, runners will swear it is an
anaerobic workout.

Part of the problem is confusion in terminology.

There is
(1) "anaerobic" in the sense of "above LT".
(2) "anaerobic" in the sense of training that systematically
targets anaerobic components of fitness.

Daniels and Lydiard programs do (1) for the majority of
the program, but (2) is largely deferred until the last
4-6 weeks.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sam said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <20040401135152.23829.00000113@mb-
m26.aol.com>, Lyndon <[email hidden]> wrote:

Relevance to general training: Most of us will fall one
side or the other of the median. You can then either
try to build from your strength and suffer the
weakness, or you can attack the weakness and rely on
the strength. For me as a strong anaerobic miler
(relatively speaking), build from strength would mean
to focus somewhat more on building the anaerobic side
-- high speed workouts, and drag myself through the aerobically-
limited aspect of the race. Attack the weakness would
be to do relatively fewer anaerobic workouts, and
hammer the VO2max-type workouts. Then on race day,
count on the speed to be there.

The above may have something to do with my suggestions
to the friend I mentioned focussing on the anaerobic
aspects of racing the mile.

Even the mile at the world class level is more aerobic
than anaerobic in terms of energy contribution. That
is why many milers have been known to put in 80 to 100
mile weeks. It is amazing how many people think the
mile (and even the 800) is more anaerobic than
aerobic. Not that I would not do anaerobic capacity
work, but only takes 4 to 6 weeks to optimize
anaerobic work capacity (and it sticks around for
about as long).

No argument (though I thought, by way of Seilor's site,
that it was more like 8-10 weeks for anaerobic capacity).

The drift I was trying to make was one of how you nudge a
basically good training program. A basically good training
program for a mile will still have a substantial aerobic
component because, as you say, even for elites the mile is
mostly aerobic, 70% for them if I remember correctly. More
so for those of us taking appreciably more than 4 minutes.

The 'nudging' is that from that basically good program,
you might choose to emphasize the aerobic a little bit
more, or the anaerobic. Certainly not to replace one with
the other.

The other part is that for someone coming down from a good
5k program, they probably have a good aerobic training
base, and it is the anaerobic side of training and racing
a mile that will shock them.
--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and
amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo
Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less
appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a
more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences