Advice on speed training for 100 yard dash and 1.5 mile run



A

Ali Syed

Guest
I would like to get some advice on a running schedule for training for both a 100 yard dash and a
1.5 mile run.

I understand the 2 may be inheritently different (one for speed one for distance) but I am willing
to hear any advice on the matter.

Please also keep in mind that I do weightlifting (4-5 days weekly) and currently run 4-5 days (25-30
minutes on treadmill ) weekly as well.

I am interested in several long term objectives:
1) Running short distances fast ( 100 yards in 10 seconds or less)
2) Running longer distances reasonably well (1.5 miles in less than 10 minutes)
3) Running great distances (5 miles +)

Any advice is appreciated.

Ali
 
In article <[email protected]>, Ali Syed wrote:
> I would like to get some advice on a running schedule for training for both a 100 yard dash and a
> 1.5 mile run.
>
> I understand the 2 may be inheritently different (one for speed one for distance) but I am willing
> to hear any advice on the matter.
>
> Please also keep in mind that I do weightlifting (4-5 days weekly) and currently run 4-5 days (25-
> 30 minutes on treadmill ) weekly as well.
>
> I am interested in several long term objectives:
> 1) Running short distances fast ( 100 yards in 10 seconds or less)
> 2) Running longer distances reasonably well (1.5 miles in less than 10 minutes)
> 3) Running great distances (5 miles +)
>
> Any advice is appreciated.

Can't comment on your sprint goals. As far as your endurance goals (1.5 miles and up) are concerned,
you'd do much better if you did more milage than you're doing now. Doing one long run each week
would be a good start, this would in itself take care of the "running great distances" goal and
bring down your time for 1.5 miles.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
[email protected] (Ali Syed) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I would like to get some advice on a running schedule for training for both a 100 yard dash and a
> 1.5 mile run.
>
> I understand the 2 may be inheritently different (one for speed one for distance) but I am willing
> to hear any advice on the matter.
>
> Please also keep in mind that I do weightlifting (4-5 days weekly) and currently run 4-5 days (25-
> 30 minutes on treadmill ) weekly as well.
>
> I am interested in several long term objectives:
> 1) Running short distances fast ( 100 yards in 10 seconds or less)

This is close to world record pace. Fuggeddabaht it.

> 2) Running longer distances reasonably well (1.5 miles in less than 10 minutes)

This is do-able. If you are running 25-30 mins on the treadmill, what speed are you doing? 1.5 miles
in 10 mins is around 6.40 pace. A maths wiz here will tell you what this equates to in mph/kph,
which you can use to set the treadmill. Remember that if you have to be able to do this on the road
(or somewhere not on the treadmill) you will need to build in the wind resistance factor, so set
your incline to around 1%.

> 3) Running great distances (5 miles +)

That's just a question of practice.

Edward
--
The reading group's reading group: http://www.bookgroup.org.uk
 
In article <[email protected]>, Edward wrote:
> [email protected] (Ali Syed) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> I would like to get some advice on a running schedule for training for both a 100 yard dash and a
>> 1.5 mile run.
>>
>> I understand the 2 may be inheritently different (one for speed one for distance) but I am
>> willing to hear any advice on the matter.
>>
>> Please also keep in mind that I do weightlifting (4-5 days weekly) and currently run 4-5 days (25-
>> 30 minutes on treadmill ) weekly as well.
>>
>> I am interested in several long term objectives:
>> 1) Running short distances fast ( 100 yards in 10 seconds or less)
>
> This is close to world record pace. Fuggeddabaht it.

That's 100 *yards*, or 90 meters. I wouldn't give up so soon.

>> 2) Running longer distances reasonably well (1.5 miles in less than 10 minutes)
>
> This is do-able. If you are running 25-30 mins on the treadmill, what speed are you doing? 1.5
> miles in 10 mins is around 6.40 pace. A maths wiz here will tell you what this equates to in
> mph/kph, which you can use to set the treadmill.

It's 9.0mph. But it's neither necessary nor desirable to do a lot of training at that speed.

> Remember that if you have to be able to do this on the road (or somewhere not on the treadmill)
> you will need to build in the wind resistance factor, so set your incline to around 1%.

Wrong. Setting the incline only addresses one factor. There are other factors that can work in
different directions depending on the course -- heat, and lack of airflow on the treadmill (big
issue if you don't have a fan), treadmill surface vs the course (a treadmill is a faster surface
than any sort of dirt/mud/snow/leafy trail, but slower than a track or pavement), the hilliness of
the course, treadmill calibration, running economy problems some people have on treadmill (could be
non-existent or could be a factor), etc. Addressing "wind resistance" while ignoring all of these
other factors is just plain dumb. Ultimately, the only way you can account for so many factors is to
use the traditional "experiment of one" method.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
> >
> > I am interested in several long term objectives:
> > 1) Running short distances fast ( 100 yards in 10 seconds or less)
>
> This is close to world record pace. Fuggeddabaht it.

Oh...well than a more reasonable goal would be 12 seconds considering I am able to do it now in
14....(the goal may well be a year away I don't know until I try and put an effort into it)

>
> > 2) Running longer distances reasonably well (1.5 miles in less than 10 minutes)
>
> This is do-able. If you are running 25-30 mins on the treadmill, what speed are you doing? 1.5
> miles in 10 mins is around 6.40 pace. A maths wiz here will tell you what this equates to in
> mph/kph, which you can use to set the treadmill. Remember that if you have to be able to do this
> on the road (or somewhere not on the treadmill) you will need to build in the wind resistance
> factor, so set your incline to around 1%.
>
Thanks for the advice....My calculations (no math whiz here either is that I need to essentially use
R=D/T (Where R is rate of speed, D is distance and T is time ).... In this equation than
R=1.5/(10/60) which gives me 9 mph and I must include a 1-2% incline (based on your sound advice...)

Thanks!

Now the actual running will commence...

> > 3) Running great distances (5 miles +)
>
> That's just a question of practice.
>
> Edward
 
[email protected] (Ali Syed) writes:
>I am interested in several long term objectives:
>1) Running short distances fast ( 100 yards in 10 seconds or less)

Well, these are your range of options:

cadence of 4 strides/second: you require a stride of 2.5 meters. cadence of 5 strides/second: a
stride of 2 meters.

Few sprinters run very far outside the 4-5 range.

Note: this is AVERAGE cadence. That includes the ramp up to full speed during the initial
acceleration. So, the peak speed of a world class sprinter is actually 26-27 MPH, which is
11.5 to 12 meters/second; not just 22.5 MPH or 10 meters/second.

So, if you ain't running 100 meters in under 50 steps, forget it. That's the absolute minimum
prerequisite to beat 10 seconds.
 
Ali Syed wrote:
> I am interested in several long term objectives:
> 1) Running short distances fast ( 100 yards in 10 seconds or less)

Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> writes:
>Can't comment on your sprint goals.

Some interesting observations I came across recently regarding footwear.

Putting multiple layers of socks under the shoes dramatically increases the elasticity of the
collision that occurs during each footfall, which helps significantly toward increasing the stride.
In my case, this has bumped up the average for 200m runs from around 2.05 meters to 2.3 meters.

This allowed me to do a 200m run in worn footwear from a standing start at a slow cadence of 3.5
strides/second in about 25 seconds; running it in 88 strides.

More interesting, however, is what happens if you run WITHOUT any shoes; just going on the multiple
layering of socks alone.

The results, doing this on a trial run, needless to say were dramatic. Running takes place almost as
quiet as a cat; hardly any sound made on footfall. The friction is likewise dramatically less (as
seen by a minor slippage on startup). There's very little energy loss due to heat conduction,
because of the insulation brought about by the multiple layering.

The net result was a 100m+100m split of something on the order of 11+14, with a cadence initially at
or above 5 strides/second (possibly as high as
5.5). It's likely the first 100m may have even been under 11.

The slowdown was the result of a complete breakdown, which happened by around 125m, and it took
about 30 minutes afterwards before I could even stand up afterwards. I've never felt that kind of
intensity before.

The difference was like that of running in sand vs. running on concrete. More than anything, it's
the combination of the elasticity, the insulation (try running like that in bare feet and see how
hot your feet get), and most of all: the pliability.

The ideal situation apparently is something similar to what evolution has endowed felines on their
feet (particularly on the undersides) -- something elastic, soft, smooth with a velvety consistency
and pliable.

What about spikes? The extra grab (or traction; i.e., friction) is the very thing that you don't
want. It may help on acceleration, but then the ideal situation would be one where the spikes are
retractible. The advantage you get with them (if any) the first 2 seconds or so of acceleration
doesn't balance the liability they present the final 8-18 seconds of running.

Note also that felines walk and run with their claws retracted.
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Mark) writes:
>[email protected] (Ali Syed) writes:
>>I am interested in several long term objectives:
>>1) Running short distances fast ( 100 yards in 10 seconds or less)
>
>Well, these are your range of options:
>
>cadence of 4 strides/second: you require a stride of 2.5 meters. cadence of 5 strides/second: a
>stride of 2 meters.
[...]
>So, if you ain't running 100 meters in under 50 steps, forget it. That's the absolute minimum
>prerequisite to beat 10 seconds.

Oh, you said yards, not meters. The same thing applies, make appropriate adjustments to the
comments above.
 
I propose socks made from Flubber! Remember Flubber?

Malcontent

On 04 Feb 2004 23:42:53 GMT, [email protected] (TopCounsel) wrote:

>>Putting multiple layers of socks under the shoes dramatically increases the elasticity of the
>>collision that occurs during each footfall, which helps significantly toward increasing the
>>stride. In my case, this has bumped up the average for 200m runs from around 2.05 meters to
>>2.3 meters.
>
>I am not a sprinter, but your comments regarding the elasticity of the collision between your
>footwear and the track (it must be a synthetic track, elastic in and of itself) intrigue me. On
>another current thread ( "My first...") I had wondered aloud about the elasticity of running
>footwear and whether it might be possible to optimize the spring rate for the most bounce (return,
>lift-off, whatever). So far no one has expressed any view other than that elasticity serves only to
>absorb impact and dissipate the energy as heat/friction. And yet, my intuition tells me that trial
>and error should be able to find such optimum materials for different runner-weights and speeds.
>Your empirical experience seems to agree.
>
>But...socks? How can that be the right choice of material to enhance the return? Having run that
>way, can you explain what you're experiencing, or is it a complete mystery to you?
 
[email protected] (Lanceandrew) wrote:
> based on your views

Nobody said anything about "views".

The article you're replying to is talking about RESULTS (i.e. facts); and trying to explain why it's
happened AFTER the fact.

Wednesday, 2 days later, another trial ended up resulting in a stride length of 2.5 meters for 100m
(11.5 seconds) and a 200m time around 22-23 seconds ... with shoes on. And bounding, during
plyometric exercises, going as high as 3 feet in the air.

Today, I'm going to try it with a 4-ply layering; with shoes on first, then with them off second.

It really does feel a hell of a lot different -- and yes, that flubber analogy made further down the
thread was actually one of the first things that came to mind.
 
[email protected] (TopCounsel) wrote:
> But...socks?

No. *Multiple layering* of ordinary athletic tube socks.

> How can that be the right choice of material to enhance the return?

Put on 3 or more pairs, one on top of the other and see. Even walking around the house, you'll feel
a major difference.

> Having run that way, can you explain what you're experiencing, or is it a complete mystery to you?

That's what I've been trying to do in the last article: explain why it happened. It's a mystery.

In terms of feel, merely having on the multiple layers (shoes or not), it almost feels like walking
and running on a trampoline.

You're right about the shoes. I've already noted (and cited here) quite a while back that the
elasticity that's there when the shoes are new will make a difference of up to 0.25 meters in the
stride length. So, generally -- based on data collected (for me) over the past 5 years -- when the
shoes are new, the stride is up around
2.25 - 2.3 meters; as they get worn, the stride drops down to 2.0 - 2.05 meters.

After putting the layering of socks on underneath, suddenly the elasticity came back; and the stride
shot back up to 2.3 meters -- over the past 2-3 weeks now -- and up to 2.5 meters more recently.

It might even be possible to get the stride well past this, up to near 3 meters; maybe with
additional layering. As mentioned before, I'm going to try it with 4 layers: with the shoes on, and
with them off.

Taking the shoes off, added the element of pliability and the cadence shot way the hell up, as well,
last Monday. It was definitely over 5 strides/second. Increase in cadence generally occurs running
without shoes, even barefoot. It's probably the rigidity of the shoes taking away from the bounce-
back and slowing down the cadence.

But with the socks, especially layered, you're also adding to the bounce still further. I only did
one trial so far, and wasn't able to measure the stride because the cadence was too fast (a
conservative estimate was 1.8 meters/stride at 5/second on average the first 100 meters, close to 11
seconds); but I think it should be possible to combine the rapid cadence of going without the shoes,
with the large stride of going with the elasticity. I still don't know how much of the stride is
coming from the shoes, taken in combination with the layering underneath; as opposed to just the
layering itself; so maybe not.
 
[email protected] (TopCounsel) wrote:
> So far no one has expressed any view other than that elasticity serves only to absorb impact and
> dissipate the energy as heat/friction.

Elasticity does not dissipate energy: it CONSERVES it. And, in addition, the layering insulates
against the transfer of heat -- which is whole reason I had on multiple layers in the first place,
and it does that quite well (it's been as low as -10 degrees F around here lately; but the feet
never got cold, even being 3 1/2 hours outside in that weather).

(And going without the shoes, there's very little sound either, and, so, less loss of energy through
the vibrational modes too.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back