View Full Version : Approaches to training
Approaches to training
One 10K under my belt but still consider myself a newbie.
The next challenge I have set for myself is to complete a 10
mile race in 3 months time. My assumption is that I should
continue as I have done, gradually increasing duration of my
thrice-weekly runs, up to the 10 miles in August.
Looking for other approaches a common feature of structured
training plans is the occasional speed session, or short
bursts of higher intensity, e.g. fartlek.
My question is, for someone like me whose sole goal is
to complete the course at as steady a pace as I can
sustain, does such a variation in pace and preparation
yield any benefit ?
In article <78b6bedb.0405100236.7a520906@posting.google.com>, TarfHead wrote:
> One 10K under my belt but still consider myself a
> newbie. The next challenge I have set for myself is to
> complete a 10 mile race in 3 months time. My assumption
> is that I should continue as I have done, gradually
> increasing duration of my thrice-weekly runs, up to the
> 10 miles in August.
Not necessary to run this long with every run. One long run
a week is enough. You'd be better off doing a combination of
increasing the length of one of your runs (if you can do 8
miles in training you're good to go for the race) and add
additional training runs during the week.
> Looking for other approaches a common feature of
> structured training plans is the occasional speed session,
> or short bursts of higher intensity, e.g. fartlek.
>
> My question is, for someone like me whose sole goal is to
> complete the course at as steady a pace as I can sustain,
> does such a variation in pace and preparation yield any
> benefit ?
Not really. Better to just build up your weekly long run and
add milage for now. Where speed work comes in is if you want
to run a race faster. For example, you could add gradually
introduce speed work after the 10 mile race then try another
10k race. The combination of the endurance you've built up
during 10 mile training and the newly added speed work
should greatly improve your 10k times.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
feargalf@hotmail.com (TarfHead) wrote in message news:<78b6bedb.0405100236.7a520906@posting.google.com>...
> One 10K under my belt but still consider myself a
> newbie. The next challenge I have set for myself is to
> complete a 10 mile race in 3 months time. My assumption
> is that I should continue as I have done, gradually
> increasing duration of my thrice-weekly runs, up to the
> 10 miles in August.
>
> Looking for other approaches a common feature of
> structured training plans is the occasional speed session,
> or short bursts of higher intensity, e.g. fartlek.
>
> My question is, for someone like me whose sole goal is to
> complete the course at as steady a pace as I can sustain,
> does such a variation in pace and preparation yield any
> benefit ?
Take in mind, I am not a cerified trainer. Just someone who
has been running for several years. I generally try to
encourage new runners to build slowly to a 3 to 5 mile
regular run, and then just hang out for a little while at
current pace and length to allow your body to adjust. I feel
it takes a good 6 months to year for the bones, tendons and
various other things to really adapt to this new lifestyle.
After, you have the first year under you belt, then you are
really prepare for some serious training.
If you normally run 5-6 miles run on a average - completing
a 10 miler will be no problem. Throwing in a long slow run 8
- 10 miler once a week is about normal for the first year.
Again, this is just my opinion. The main thing is to prevent
injurys and approach running as a life long habit.
Take care -Rob
You are all a bunch of total turkeys who know absolutely
nothing about running and in a way that is really good
because it means I will always lower the boom on you all and
whip your asses.
You can run all the speed work in the world and it won't
lower your 10K or 10 mile times to the level that it could
be lowered.
What you all need is someone to take you through a few
weeks of appropriate training to show you how rapidly
your times could come down. Someone to set you on the
right pattern because you are all on the completely
wrong pattern and are doing nothing but spinning your
wheels and plodding and just wasting your time doing the
wrong things.
What you all hope to achieve in a year could easily be
achieved in a few weeks but if you are too dumb and
inexperienced then your progress will only move at the
snails pace that you run.
And if I look at you and see that you're overweight, I
won't even bother. I'll insist you have liposuction
because nothing will work right if you are an average
height and 180 or more pounds. If you can't lose the
weight, don't even bother, go into swimming then because
you will not be able to run long distance.
feargalf@hotmail.com (TarfHead) wrote in message
news:<78b6bedb.0405100236.7a520906@posting.google.com>...
> One 10K under my belt but still consider myself a
> newbie. The next challenge I have set for myself is to
> complete a 10 mile race in 3 months time. My assumption
> is that I should continue as I have done, gradually
> increasing duration of my thrice-weekly runs, up to the
> 10 miles in August.
>
> Looking for other approaches a common feature of
> structured training plans is the occasional speed session,
> or short bursts of higher intensity, e.g. fartlek.
>
> My question is, for someone like me whose sole goal is to
> complete the course at as steady a pace as I can sustain,
> does such a variation in pace and preparation yield any
> benefit ?
I would suggest looking at the various half marathon
training programs on the web, pick one and follow it. You
might shorten the longest run a bit, but otherwise a half
marathon program would work well.
A weekly "speed" session is a great way to improve fitness.
If you are only running 3x per week, I would recommend more
frequent runs.
"TarfHead" <feargalf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78b6bedb.0405100236.7a520906@posting.google.com...
> One 10K under my belt but still consider myself a
> newbie. The next challenge I have set for myself is to
> complete a 10 mile race in 3 months time. My assumption
> is that I should continue as I have done, gradually
> increasing duration of my thrice-weekly runs, up to the
> 10 miles in August.
>
> Looking for other approaches a common feature of
> structured training plans is the occasional speed session,
> or short bursts of higher intensity, e.g. fartlek.
>
> My question is, for someone like me whose sole goal is to
> complete the course at as steady a pace as I can sustain,
> does such a variation in pace and preparation yield any
> benefit ?
TarfHead wrote:
> One 10K under my belt but still consider myself a
> newbie. The next challenge I have set for myself is to
> complete a 10 mile race in 3 months time. My assumption
> is that I should continue as I have done, gradually
> increasing duration of my thrice-weekly runs, up to the
> 10 miles in August.
That will work.
>
> Looking for other approaches a common feature of
> structured training plans is the occasional speed session,
> or short bursts of higher intensity, e.g. fartlek.
>
> My question is, for someone like me whose sole goal is to
> complete the course at as steady a pace as I can sustain,
> does such a variation in pace and preparation yield any
> benefit ?
This will work too, as would some other "comfortably
hard" or "hard"
sess-
ions.
Some
ways
of
doing
them
have
diff-
erent
bene-
fits
than
othe-
rs.
When
you
incr-
ease
effo-
rt in
a fa-
rtlek
(at
least
if
you
do
them
enou-
gh to
have
an
fect-
numb-
er of
times
depe-
nds
on
how
athl-
ete
resp-
onds
to
that
type
trai-
ning,
etc),
you
are
incr-
easi-
ng
heart
rate,
and I
beli-
eve
the
bene-
fits
are
incr-
ease
in
blood
plas-
ma
volu-
me,
numb-
er of
capi-
llar-
ies,
mito-
chon-
dria
in
order
to
proc-
ess
more
O2 at
one
time.
You
may
not
race
at
that
high-
er
inte-
nsit-
y,
but
the
card-
io
bene-
fits
will
help.
Any higher effort will provide those benefits more so than
lower efforts (at least that's my understanding) - running
or biking on hills, snowshoe running, etc. May not be going
faster but still get raised effort. Neuromuscular effects
may be different with these different activities.
Not sure how the training plans you're looking at refer to
fartleks. Some just suggest picking some landmark and
running to it at harder effort, then backing off,
alternating, etc. Others teach it by heart rate - hard up
to a certain level, then back down. I preferred to hold it
at the higher level (just below VT/LT where talking starts
to degenerate) for a while before I backed off. A benefit
of this is that you get to recognize effort level better.
Then if you ever become addicted to running hilly trails,
you've got a leg up on running hills at constant effort
(variable pace).
Fartleks could also be taken above VT/LT if you want to
increase your LT, giving you more aerobic capacity (higher
hr) in which to run your race. And they can also be used as
VO2max sessions, just depending on how hard you make the
hard part. The benefit is in the cardio improvement, whether
you run at that effort in a race or not. But true fartleks
are supposed to be "speed play", so the intention is to keep
it unstructured.
Dot
--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>In article
><78b6bedb.0405100236.7a520906@posting.google.com>, TarfHead
wrote:
>> One 10K under my belt but still consider myself a newbie.
>> The next challenge I have set for myself is to complete a
>> 10 mile race in 3 months time. My assumption is that I
>> should continue as I have done, gradually increasing
>> duration of my thrice-weekly runs, up to the 10 miles in
>> August.
>
>Not necessary to run this long with every run. One long run
>a week is
enough.
>You'd be better off doing a combination of increasing the
>length of one of your runs (if you can do 8 miles in
>training you're good to go for the
race)
>and add additional training runs during the week.
>
>> Looking for other approaches a common feature of
>> structured training plans is the occasional speed
>> session, or short bursts of higher intensity, e.g.
>> fartlek.
>>
>> My question is, for someone like me whose sole goal is to
>> complete the course at as steady a pace as I can sustain,
>> does such a variation in pace and preparation yield any
>> benefit ?
>
>Not really. Better to just build up your weekly long run
>and add milage for now. Where speed work comes in is if you
>want to run a race faster. For example, you could add
>gradually introduce speed work after the 10 mile
race
>then try another 10k race. The combination of the endurance
>you've built up during 10 mile training and the newly added
>speed work should greatly
improve
>your 10k times.
Donovan gives great advice here. I would only add that some
people prefer adding a fartlek run into their week rather
than doing a formal speedwork session. More formal speedwork
will probably make you faster than just doing fartlek, but I
find running a farlek much more enjoyable. Fartlek works
well in rolling or hilly terrain.
- Tony
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
"macelroy" <macelroy1@winnings.com> wrote in message
news:1fdc560b.0405101537.34334dec@posting.google.com...
> You are all a bunch of total turkeys who know
> absolutely nothing
about
> running and in a way that is really good because it
> means I will always lower the boom on you all and whip
> your asses.
You should be doing stand-up comedy and getting paid for
your Humor. Your handle could be MacLipoSucks and use
titillating words like "fartlek." The third and fourth
graders will giggle with delight.
--
Doug Freese "Training is not scientifically tested, It's
just trial and error."
Dr. David Costill dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com (remove the NOBS)
In article <XkMnc.42765$wY.5300@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, qTrader wrote:
>
> Donovan gives great advice here. I would only add that
> some people prefer adding a fartlek run into their week
> rather than doing a formal speedwork session. More formal
> speedwork will probably make you faster than just doing
> fartlek, but I find running a farlek much more enjoyable.
> Fartlek works well in rolling or hilly terrain.
I agree with this -- fartlek (and also strides) are
enjoyable, low stress ways to introduce speed work. One of
the earlier errors in the way I thought about training was
that I believed that beginners should never do speed work.
I still believe that pure base building makes sense
physiologically, but also recognise that it's important to
make training enjoyable. The low stress approach to speed
work keeps workouts interesting, provides many of the
benefits of speed work, and creates a good entry point to
more serious training (if that is desired). As a beginner,
one will improve quite rapidly even with fairly limited
stress, so this tilts the balance in favour of easier
speed work.
On a related note, sometimes when I'm at the local track,
there are a lot of kids playing there. When they see me
running past, they try to "race" me -- usually for about 50m
or so. After all, running much longer than that is mentally
and physically very tiring/stressful, so they stop. Then
they go back to walking for a little while, then run a round
a little. I think these kids are on to something with their
approach to training -- I suppose I inspire them, but they
do return the favour. Maybe they understand something that
many of us older folks have forgotten.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc9v5nd.5ov.abuse@panix2.panix.com>...
> In article <XkMnc.42765$wY.5300@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
> qTrader wrote:
> >
>
> > Donovan gives great advice here. I would only add that
> > some people prefer adding a fartlek
Donovan doesn't even know what fartlek is, he just
likes saying
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote in
news:slrnc9v5nd.5ov.abuse@panix2.panix.com:
> On a related note, sometimes when I'm at the local track,
> there are a lot of kids playing there. When they see me
> running past, they try to "race" me -- usually for about
> 50m or so. After all, running much longer than that is
> mentally and physically very tiring/stressful, so they
> stop. Then they go back to walking for a little while,
> then run a round a little. I think these kids are on to
> something with their approach to training -- I suppose I
> inspire them, but they do return the favour. Maybe they
> understand something that many of us older folks have
> forgotten.
How true. Frequently when I'm finishing a long run and
heading up my own street, a few of the neighbor kids will
spot me and race me to my home as I go by. Of course I'm
all too happy to let them win. Little do the know that
I've just finished running 15 miles. But they don't need
to know that. ;-)
Phil M.
--
"Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be
everlasting." -fortune cookie
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc9v5nd.5ov.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <XkMnc.42765$wY.5300@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
> qTrader wrote:
> >
>
> > Donovan gives great advice here. I would only add that
> > some people
prefer
> > adding a fartlek run into their week rather than doing a
> > formal
speedwork
> > session. More formal speedwork will probably make you
> > faster than just doing fartlek, but I find running a
> > farlek much more enjoyable. Fartlek works well in
> > rolling or hilly terrain.
>
> I agree with this -- fartlek (and also strides) are
> enjoyable, low stress
ways
> to introduce speed work. One of the earlier errors in the
> way I thought
about
> training was that I believed that beginners should never
> do speed work. I
still
> believe that pure base building makes sense
> physiologically, but also
recognise
> that it's important to make training enjoyable. The low
> stress approach to
speed
> work keeps workouts interesting, provides many of the
> benefits of speed
work,
> and creates a good entry point to more serious training
> (if that is
desired). As
> a beginner, one will improve quite rapidly even with
> fairly limited
stress, so
> this tilts the balance in favour of easier speed work.
>
> On a related note, sometimes when I'm at the local track,
> there are a lot
of
> kids playing there. When they see me running past, they
> try to "race"
me --
> usually for about 50m or so. After all, running much
> longer than that is mentally and physically very
> tiring/stressful, so they stop. Then they go
back
> to walking for a little while, then run a round a little.
> I think these
kids
> are on to something with their approach to training -- I
> suppose I inspire
them,
> but they do return the favour. Maybe they understand
> something that many
of us
> older folks have forgotten.
Depending on the age of the kids, they may be low on a
specific enzyme that aids in aerobic metabolism
(phosphofructosekinase, PFK). Young kids are often good
at running hard and then needing to recovery.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
>And if I look at you and see that you're overweight, I
>won't even bother. I'll
insist you have liposuction because nothing will work right
if you are an average height and 180 or more pounds.
Mac, your seemingly endless fascination with liposuction is
odd. Is this your current idea of the training techniques of
the elites? Is liposuction going to be the next "tip" we see
on the cover of Runner's World? Perhaps you can freelance a
submission -- they seem bound and determined to print
absolute garbage over there -- and you seem just the bloke
to provide it.
Well, if you can't stop stuffing your mouth then the fat has
to be removed surgically because you are never going to burn
more calories than you eat. I see way too many fat runners
out there.
topcounsel@aol.com (TopCounsel) wrote in message news:<20040510203037.23031.00000704@mb-
m25.aol.com>...
> >And if I look at you and see that you're overweight, I
> >won't even bother. I'll
> insist you have liposuction because nothing will work
> right if you are an average height and 180 or more pounds.
>
> Mac, your seemingly endless fascination with liposuction
> is odd. Is this your current idea of the training
> techniques of the elites? Is liposuction going to be the
> next "tip" we see on the cover of Runner's World? Perhaps
> you can freelance a submission -- they seem bound and
> determined to print absolute garbage over there -- and you
> seem just the bloke to provide it.
Dot,
That's not the right approach. It's fine to know and talk
about the scientific benefits but it has nothing to do
with running faster. Running faster is all about the
statistics of getting from point A to point B faster.
It's more about mathematics and statistics and the clock.
If you know and analyze the scientific benefits so what.
That doesn't necesarily mean you are going to run faster.
And by the way, you quoted Bernd Heinrich. I ran with
Bernd Heinrich when I lived in Maine. I also ran with
numerous other national and world class runners in my day
including Shorter, Bachelor, Prefontaine, Quax and even
the Powerbar founder who died of heart damage not heart
attack blocked arteries as everyone incorrectly reports.
I got around the country a lot in my day competing
everywhere.
I also ran with numerous other potential class runners
who never made it big because they never understood
running and training. They had the potential to run world
class times but when you train incorrectly all the time
then all you will get are poor results and injuries. Just
because a person is talented doesn't mean they will run
well. Often the only way they can get to the top is
through a world class coach or through the experience of
a world class runner. It's a real shame to see so many
talented runners not reach their potential when they
easily could with the right direction.
And then I have to come here and read about the lowest
form of training systems that I ever saw that people are
having trouble with that I used to think were inferior to
me in junior high school. That's all on top of which
people gleefully talk these training systems like God
himself gave it to them. It's unbelievable.
Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message news:<Hg%nc.41947$Ut1.1205344@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> TarfHead wrote:
> > One 10K under my belt but still consider myself a
> > newbie. The next challenge I have set for myself is to
> > complete a 10 mile race in 3 months time. My assumption
> > is that I should continue as I have done, gradually
> > increasing duration of my thrice-weekly runs, up to the
> > 10 miles in August.
>
> That will work.
>
> >
> > Looking for other approaches a common feature of
> > structured training plans is the occasional speed
> > session, or short bursts of higher intensity, e.g.
> > fartlek.
> >
> > My question is, for someone like me whose sole goal is
> > to complete the course at as steady a pace as I can
> > sustain, does such a variation in pace and preparation
> > yield any benefit ?
>
> This will work too, as would some other "comfortably hard"
> or "hard"
>
>
>
> se-
> ss-
> io-
> ns.
> So-
> me
> wa-
> ys
> of
> do-
> ing
> th-
> em
> ha-
> ve
> di-
> ff-
> er-
> ent
> be-
> ne-
> fi-
> ts
> th-
> an
> ot-
> he-
> rs.
> Wh-
> en
> you
> in-
> cr-
> ea-
> se
> ef-
> fo-
> rt
> in
> a
> fa-
> rt-
> lek
> (at
> le-
> ast
> if
> you
> do
> th-
> em
> en-
> ou-
> gh
> to
> ha-
> ve
> an
> ct-
> nu-
> mb-
> er
> of
> ti-
> mes
> de-
> pe-
> nds
> on
> how
> at-
> hl-
> ete
> re-
> sp-
> on-
> ds
> to
> th-
> at
> ty-
> pe
> tr-
> ai-
> ni-
> ng,
> et-
> c),
> you
> are
> in-
> cr-
> ea-
> si-
> ng
> he-
> art
> ra-
> te,
> and
> I
> be-
> li-
> eve
> the
> be-
> ne-
> fi-
> ts
> are
> in-
> cr-
> ea-
> se
> in
> bl-
> ood
> pl-
> as-
> ma
> vo-
> lu-
> me,
> nu-
> mb-
> er
> of
> ca-
> pi-
> ll-
> ar-
> ie-
> s,
> mi-
> to-
> ch-
> on-
> dr-
> ia
> in
> or-
> der
> to
> pr-
> oc-
> ess
> mo-
> re
> O2
> at
> one
> ti-
> me.
> You
> may
> not
> ra-
> ce
> at
> th-
> at
> hi-
> gh-
> er
> in-
> te-
> ns-
> it-
> y,
> but
> the
> ca-
> rd-
> io
> be-
> ne-
> fi-
> ts
> wi-
> ll
> he-
> lp.
>
> Any higher effort will provide those benefits more so than
> lower efforts (at least that's my understanding) - running
> or biking on hills, snowshoe running, etc. May not be
> going faster but still get raised effort. Neuromuscular
> effects may be different with these different activities.
>
>
> Not sure how the training plans you're looking at refer to
> fartleks. Some just suggest picking some landmark and
> running to it at harder effort, then backing off,
> alternating, etc. Others teach it by heart rate - hard up
> to a certain level, then back down. I preferred to hold it
> at the higher level (just below VT/LT where talking starts
> to degenerate) for a while before I backed off. A benefit
> of this is that you get to recognize effort level better.
> Then if you ever become addicted to running hilly trails,
> you've got a leg up on running hills at constant effort
> (variable pace).
>
> Fartleks could also be taken above VT/LT if you want to
> increase your LT, giving you more aerobic capacity (higher
> hr) in which to run your race. And they can also be used
> as VO2max sessions, just depending on how hard you make
> the hard part. The benefit is in the cardio improvement,
> whether you run at that effort in a race or not. But true
> fartleks are supposed to be "speed play", so the intention
> is to keep it unstructured.
>
> Dot
"Dot" <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message
news:Hg%nc.41947$Ut1.1205344@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> TarfHead wrote:
> > One 10K under my belt but still consider myself a
> > newbie. The next challenge I have set for myself is to
> > complete a 10 mile race in 3 months time. My assumption
> > is that I should continue as I have done, gradually
> > increasing duration of my thrice-weekly runs, up to the
> > 10 miles in August.
>
> That will work.
>
> >
> > Looking for other approaches a common feature of
> > structured training plans is the occasional speed
> > session, or short bursts of higher intensity, e.g.
> > fartlek.
> >
> > My question is, for someone like me whose sole goal is
> > to complete the course at as steady a pace as I can
> > sustain, does such a variation in pace and preparation
> > yield any benefit ?
>
> This will work too, as would some other "comfortably hard"
> or "hard"
>
>
>
> se-
> ss-
> io-
> ns.
> So-
> me
> wa-
> ys
> of
> do-
> ing
> th-
> em
> ha-
> ve
> di-
> ff-
> er-
> ent
> be-
> ne-
> fi-
> ts
> th-
> an
> ot-
> he-
> rs.
> Wh-
> en
> you
> in-
> cr-
> ea-
> se
> ef-
> fo-
> rt
> in
> a
> fa-
> rt-
> lek
> (at
> le-
> ast
> if
> you
> do
> th-
> em
> en-
> ou-
> gh
> to
> ha-
> ve
> an
> ct-
> nu-
> mb-
> er
> of
> ti-
> mes
> de-
> pe-
> nds
> on
> how
> at-
> hl-
> ete
> re-
> sp-
> on-
> ds
> to
> th-
> at
> ty-
> pe
> tr-
> ai-
> ni-
> ng,
> et-
> c),
> you
> are
> in-
> cr-
> ea-
> si-
> ng
> he-
> art
> ra-
> te,
> and
> I
> be-
> li-
> eve
> the
> be-
> ne-
> fi-
> ts
> are
> in-
> cr-
> ea-
> se
> in
> bl-
> ood
> pl-
> as-
> ma
> vo-
> lu-
> me,
> nu-
> mb-
> er
> of
> ca-
> pi-
> ll-
> ar-
> ie-
> s,
> mi-
> to-
> ch-
> on-
> dr-
> ia
> in
> or-
> der
> to
> pr-
> oc-
> ess
> mo-
> re
> O2
> at
> one
> ti-
> me.
> You
> may
> not
> ra-
> ce
> at
> th-
> at
> hi-
> gh-
> er
> in-
> te-
> ns-
> it-
> y,
> but
> the
> ca-
> rd-
> io
> be-
> ne-
> fi-
> ts
> wi-
> ll
> he-
> lp.
>
> Any higher effort will provide those benefits more so than
> lower efforts (at least that's my understanding) - running
> or biking on hills, snowshoe running, etc. May not be
> going faster but still get raised effort. Neuromuscular
> effects may be different with these different activities.
>
>
> Not sure how the training plans you're looking at refer to
> fartleks. Some just suggest picking some landmark and
> running to it at harder effort, then backing off,
> alternating, etc. Others teach it by heart rate - hard up
> to a certain level, then back down. I preferred to hold it
> at the higher level (just below VT/LT where talking starts
> to degenerate) for a while before I backed off. A benefit
> of this is that you get to recognize effort level better.
> Then if you ever become addicted to running hilly trails,
> you've got a leg up on running hills at constant effort
> (variable pace).
>
> Fartleks could also be taken above VT/LT if you want to
> increase your LT, giving you more aerobic capacity (higher
> hr) in which to run your race. And they can also be used
> as VO2max sessions, just depending on how hard you make
> the hard part. The benefit is in the cardio improvement,
> whether you run at that effort in a race or not. But true
> fartleks are supposed to be "speed play", so the intention
> is to keep it unstructured.
>
Also shortening the recovery duration can change the
nature of a workout. A great VO2max workout is 30 sec
all out, 30 sec rest. Go as long as you can.
> Dot
>
> --
> "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
> Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
macelroy wrote:
> Dot,
>
> That's not the right approach. It's fine to know and
> talk about the scientific benefits but it has nothing
> to do with running faster. Running faster is all about
> the statistics of getting from point A to point B
> faster. It's more about mathematics and statistics and
> the clock. If you know and analyze the scientific
> benefits so what. That doesn't necesarily mean you are
> going to run faster.
>
> And by the way, you quoted Bernd Heinrich. I ran with
> Bernd Heinrich when I lived in Maine. I also ran with
> numerous other national and world class runners in my
> day including Shorter, Bachelor, Prefontaine, Quax and
> even the Powerbar founder who died of heart damage not
> heart attack blocked arteries as everyone incorrectly
> reports. I got around the country a lot in my day
> competing everywhere.
Really? If you'd run with all those people seems we'd have
heard of you in the running community. Who are you? Where
can we find some verified information on your running and
training activities?
Just a link please?
> Really? If you'd run with all those people seems we'd have
> heard of you in the running community. Who are you? Where
> can we find some verified information on your running and
> training activities?
>
> Just a link please?
Don't hold your breath. He's just a troll, here for our
amusement.
Phil M.
--
"Get outta here. You're killin' me."
> Really? If you'd run with all those people seems we'd have
> heard of you in the running community. Who are you? Where
> can we find some verified information on your running and
> training activities?
>
> Just a link please?
Don't hold your breath. He's just a troll, here for our
amusement.
Phil M.
--
"Get outta here. You're killin' me."
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
