"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:In article said:Donovan Rebbechi said:Ingrid Kristiansen was a former record holder for the 5k and yet was a
lousy
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:sprinter.
You'd like me to list the 5k record holders who are good sprinters? And what would that prove?
That we can both make lists?Quoted message said:Sure it's fast, but it's all about endurance. Tell me something -- who
is a
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:likely to be a better 5k runner, an elite marathoner or an elite 400m
runner ?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Could Michael Johnson beat Martin Lel in a 5k ?
You're being disingenuous. We both know it's *easier* to encompass 5k and marathon running than
it is to encompass 400m and 5k running.You argued that the running 5k was "anaerobic". That was the point I took
issue
Quoted message said:with. It is "anaerobic" in terms of technical definitions (above LT in
intensity),
Quoted message said:but not in terms of training requirements.
However, just because one is above LT intensity does not mean it is an anaerobic event? Do you
really think that oxidation does not contribute greatly even at world class 5K paces.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:That wasn't the point. The OP asked for the 'best' way to reach 5k at 16 kph, and noted that he
was already running up to ten miles. I provided a minimum mileage, track based, answer.FWIW, I didn't think your schedule was all that bad, and it wasn't your
schedule
Quoted message said:I was disputing.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Even then, you need to be able to not just sprint, but actually sustain
a fast
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:pace. I've found 1200m repeats very effective -- the distance is short
enough
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:that one can do them at a good pace (faster than 5k pace), but long
enough that
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:you can't just sprint through them. I found that the end result of doing
400m
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:repeats was that I could beat other runners in short interval sessions,
only to
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:have the same runners kick my butt in races.
We're all different, but 400m repeats are a good place for a newbie to start
There's nothing wrong with starting with 400m repeats, but ...
Quoted message said:To suggest that someone only able to sustain a fast pace for 2000m should commence at any other
level would be ridiculous.By this argument, someone who runs 5k at 8:00 pace should start by doing 100m sprints, since they
can only sustain a "fast" pace for about 400m. So I think it's a silly argument.However, I agree that shorter intervals make a good starting point. Longer intervals take getting
used to and beginners are likely to "bomb out" in long interval sessions unless they start with
shorter sessions. For
example,
Quoted message said:I prefer to do a few weeks of 800s before doing 1200s.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:IMO fartlek is better done in groups or as an "entry level" speed
workout that
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:one could use in weeks leading up to serious speed training (to me that
means
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:"track work" or hill work with a training group)
Donny, Donny, Donny, you keep telling me what you believe, rather than what may be useful to
the OP.I was commenting on your post, not giving advice to the OP.
Quoted message said:Frankly, I consider much of your advice to be a little too theoretical
and
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:research based, rather than founded on personal experience or
observation.
Quoted message said:
In this case, I call "[censored]".Not only do I *understand* it, through *experience*, I get a refresher on
it
Quoted message said:every week. I'm not drawing on distant memories of great workouts in the distant past.
I've done my track workout in the last week. Have you ?
I've done fartlek running before, in groups and alone. I've done a lot of
track
Quoted message said:training, it's been my primary source of interval work, so I've probably
done
Quoted message said:more track work than some of the more experienced runners here.
You yourself said track work is "more precise". I'd argue that track work
not
Quoted message said:only gives you precision, it gives you *structure*. When you go to the
track
Quoted message said:with a watch, the track is simply a vast, barren, merciless landscape, and
the
Quoted message said:watch is a brutal taskmaster. You can't fool the track or your watch.
That's
Quoted message said:what makes it so demanding -- the transparency of it all. Track workouts
are
Quoted message said:just brutal.
You can possibly make fartlek as demanding physiologically, but it doesn't
come
Quoted message said:close mentally. If you don't understand this, go outside and do some track
work
Quoted message said:instead of trolling usenet.
Quoted message said:Would you be insulted if I used the phrase 'book learning'?
Why would I be insulted by such an obvious falsehood ?
I'm out there doing the miles, doing my track work, doing my tempos, doing
my
Quoted message said:races week after week, while you're drawing from distant memories from
back
Quoted message said:in "the good old days" when you felt more like a winner and less like a
has-been.
Quoted message said:
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗