thanks, Charlie, very interesting -especially this last part and it’s spot on!
in order to avoid limitation of cardiac stroke vol, would you recommend a greater focus on “speed” for endurance runners earlier in the season, or anyway, before moving to more specific, race-pacing work?
thanks!
PS still struggling to fully comprehend/incorporate this concept of excluding intermediate speeds from endurance runners’ training and sorry for this again, but if you could just elaborate a bit more on this, once and for all, it would be great! (even in a “speed site” like this one… ); i understand that speed reserve is necessary at all distances of this kind, but…
Pakewi would be better qualified to speak on the endurance aspect, but the division of high/low remains and the proportionate percentage of overall volume devoted to the low intensity work increases with the distance.
My coach has me run 1x1’s as we call them where we run for 10, 15, 20minutes sometimes with one minute run slow and one fast and then one slow and so on.
Does this count as tempo? is this useful for me as a sprinter?
depends on when in the season you are doing it, but in any case, it seems to long to me in terms of both intervals’ and total duration
from improving your aerobic capacity, the focus of the tempo moves to other aspects as the season progresses -look at Charlie’s comments above and/or the eforum
Man that is a big nugget of wisdom. (I’m researching up to help plan my senior year). It’s amazing that this was posted a year ago, and I remember commenting on it :eek: :eek:
Can someone with a better understanding of physiology than me explain this. I assume distance runners want increased stroke volume - would make sense. How does thickening of the cardiac walls reduce this?
Does it literally reduce the volume of blood that can be stored/pumped per stroke? What do we want instead? Hope i don’t sound too naive!
Depending on a long sprinters 200m time (i.e. a 22.5 runner doing them in 26 is ~ 86% intensity), wouldn’t kk’s 6x200 w/2min rec (from the LT thread) fall into the intensive tempo category?
If so, would you consider that session detrimental to long sprinters, or should they be done in limited quantity (i.e. no more than 3 time per cycle)?
Charlie, you referre to these results as coming from distance runners. Do you have new results that pertain specifically to sprinters and can you post them?
As for the term “Non-specific lactate work” what does that mean? Moving away from percentages of best performance what actually constitutes “Non-specific lactic work”?
Most programmes for long sprinters (and many short sprinters) involve gradually building up lactate levels over the course of multiple repetitions by using speeds that by your definition constitute intensive tempo, as opposed to Spec. End. which would dose them up over a single repetition. Even KitKat, in the lactate threshold training thread that you made sticky and suggested as essential reading, prescibes a great deal of intensive tempo. 3x3x300m between 39 and 42 seconds, 6x200 in 23 seconds or better with 2 minutes recovery.
I don’t think i need to out line the coaching philosophies of Jim Bush (who has had more influence over training for the long sprints than anyone i can think of), Clyde Hart or John Smith, (All of whome I think you will aggree have been quite successful) to further my argument, but suffice to say that in terms of intensities prescribed they are diametrically opposed to those that you are suggesting yet I struggle to think of one successful male long sprinter who used a programme that resembles the one that you propose.
I will re-state that lactate work is done in special endurance, which is high intensity.
Intensity is determined by the whole unit of work, not one rep within it. Surely it is obvious that, while 23sec for 200m might be intermediate within a given rest period , when you do 6 in a row with a two minute break it is intermediate for NO ONE.
My entire short-to-long approach is predicated on split-runs for SE throughout Phase One. That said, there comes a time within most programs, especially in the shorter sprints, where SE runs will be carried out under conditions of complete recovery between reps.
You say that the 400 coaches listed are diametrically opposed to “my way” Since you clearly don’t get what “my way” is, how do you know?
BTW, I have some passing familiarity with John Smith and Kit Kat.
Perhaps another way to see it is the intensity that these -apparently intermediate times- represent at a given training period/status… As a general comment rather than one directly relating to KitKat’s -or any other’s- approach.
Thoughts?
Ok, we’re getting somewhere. I guess I don’t know how “your way” goes, but I don’t think im alone on this as the 75% - 95% of best time definitions for intensive tempo that I’m basing my comments on seem to be the standard definition across the site as well as you book. Perhaps a definitive explanation is in order as there must be many confused readers such as myself on here, as illustrated by the post before mine.
I realise you have a great deal of familiarity regard both those coaches and I thought you would regarding JB too, which is why I included them and added that I didn’t need to go into detail.
So it is intensity is based upon the whole session as opposed to the individual reps that make it up?
So if an athlete capable of running 38s for 350m is doing a workout comprised of 3x350 off 5 minutes rest in 45-46s, it is the time of the last rep in the context of the work out that determines whether or not the workout is considered intensive tempo or SE - whether it is non-specific lactic work or specific lactic work?
If this is the case what would constitute intensive tempo?
I know you use split runs to a large degree in lead up to special endurance, but where does KitKats 300m or 200m session fall into this? It doesn’t seem to be a Special End session, upwards of 95% w/ full recovery, and it doesn’t seem to fall into the catagory of split reps as it amounts to 1200m. Whilst it may not be an intermediate workout, it certainly uses intermediate speeds to create quite an “intensive” workout.
One of the theories in endurance running is that :
Low intensity work develops the size of the heart muscle and increases density of mitochondria and capiliaries.
> This increases volume of blood that can be pumped and oxygen absorbed.
Higher intensity work increases the thickness of the cardiac wall.
> This increases the force of the contraction.
An argument is you should develop point 1 first. Premature development of thickness (2) reduces the ability of the heart muscle to increase in size (1).
Therefore use of extensive tempo (low intensity) or continous runs should pre dominate and be prior to extensive tempo.
Short intensive sprints have little affect on cardiac development therefore are outside the scope of these.
Finally, the hi/low policy has a lot of supporters in the endurance world. Showing Charlie`s concepts may extrapolate to longer distances.
I will coment on what I’m trying to convey but I won’t attempt to speak on behalf of other coaches, especially when Kit Kat is here to speak for himself.
The point is to try to explain what I did as a coach and not to argue about the terrific results achieved by the coaches you mentionned and you are free to take what you want from it- or not. I do, however, suspect that, if you were here training with me, I could quickly dispell the myth that there’s no lactic work in my program.
Perhaps there is still a lot of confusion as to intensities.
Intensity must be judges for the individual, based on the execution of the work assigned. While a 100 metre rep in 11 seconds might fall into the intermediate zone by itself, 4x100 at that pace back and forth as a direct turn-around is high intensity.
There are also examples of athletes with performance standards so high that work that would usually be intermediate would be low intensity.
So intensity is measured by your ability to carry out the session prescribed.
That said, eventually you must achieve certain standards in SE that will be single with full recovery.
The ambiguity is how to get to that point in the first place. Split-runs are an extremely effective way to advance work capacity BUT when do you move from that method to individual runs? When does a furtherance of that capacity lead to losses in ability to execute the single runs? It’s a fine line.
A very good example of this is what John told me in 88. He would run SE 350s with 3 to 5 reps by my recollection. He chose the 350 distance because it took above 40sec to complete initially. He agreed with Clyde Hart’s view that 40 sec was an important threshold to stay above. Of course as the SE moved ahead with his high level runners, they started approaching the 40 sec barrier, so he decided to SHORTEN the breaks for a while to keeps the 350s above 40sec (of course this is counter to most progressions). At a point of his choosing, based on experience and peaking considerations, he then spread the breaks out substantially to allow them to achieve their ultimate SE performances- well into the 37s!
These two workouts are extremely different and used during different parts of the year, only because the rest periods are different? Bastante interesante.
But then what significance does pacing have on the overall, if the workout intensity is based purely on the intensity of the whole workout. 100x100m@20 secs VS 10x100m are both the same intensity? @11 secs. Is the pacing of the individual reps just event specific?
An 800m runner would probably run more reps of a longer distance than a 100m runner.
An 800m runner will have a slower best time for distances of 100 - 300m say. Therefore tempo speed of around 70% would also be slower, so yes that does make the speed of the individual reps event specific.
10X100m in 20 secs would surely be extensive tempo. 10X100m in 11 secs sounds like extensive tempo, it also sounds like burn out rate to me.
Why not do them in 20 secs for tempo (low intensity) and say 6x60m for top speed work (high intensity). I think that is what Charlie is trying to say in the concept of using low or high effort, not in between.
Correct me if I am wrong !
For middle/longer distance the volume is greater and speed slower.
); i understand that speed reserve is necessary at all distances of this kind, but…