S
Sam
Guest
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Cumulus wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Ingrid Kristiansen was a former record holder for the 5k and yet was a
lousy
> >>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?
> >
> >>Sure it's fast, but it's all about endurance. Tell me something -- who
is a
> >>likely to be a better 5k runner, an elite marathoner or an elite 400m
runner ?
> >>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
> with. It is "anaerobic" in terms of technical definitions (above LT in
intensity),
> 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.
>
> > 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
> I was disputing.
>
> >>Even then, you need to be able to not just sprint, but actually sustain
a fast
> >>pace. I've found 1200m repeats very effective -- the distance is short
enough
> >>that one can do them at a good pace (faster than 5k pace), but long
enough that
> >>you can't just sprint through them. I found that the end result of doing
400m
> >>repeats was that I could beat other runners in short interval sessions,
only to
> >>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 ...
>
> > 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,
> I prefer to do a few weeks of 800s before doing 1200s.
>
> >>IMO fartlek is better done in groups or as an "entry level" speed
workout that
> >>one could use in weeks leading up to serious speed training (to me that
means
> >>"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.
>
> > Frankly, I consider much of your advice to be a little too theoretical
and
> > research based, rather than founded on personal experience or
observation.
>
> In this case, I call "********".
>
> Not only do I *understand* it, through *experience*, I get a refresher on
it
> 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
> training, it's been my primary source of interval work, so I've probably
done
> 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
> only gives you precision, it gives you *structure*. When you go to the
track
> with a watch, the track is simply a vast, barren, merciless landscape, and
the
> watch is a brutal taskmaster. You can't fool the track or your watch.
That's
> what makes it so demanding -- the transparency of it all. Track workouts
are
> just brutal.
>
> You can possibly make fartlek as demanding physiologically, but it doesn't
come
> close mentally. If you don't understand this, go outside and do some track
work
> instead of trolling usenet.
>
> > 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
> races week after week, while you're drawing from distant memories from
back
> in "the good old days" when you felt more like a winner and less like a
has-been.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Cumulus wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Ingrid Kristiansen was a former record holder for the 5k and yet was a
lousy
> >>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?
> >
> >>Sure it's fast, but it's all about endurance. Tell me something -- who
is a
> >>likely to be a better 5k runner, an elite marathoner or an elite 400m
runner ?
> >>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
> with. It is "anaerobic" in terms of technical definitions (above LT in
intensity),
> 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.
>
> > 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
> I was disputing.
>
> >>Even then, you need to be able to not just sprint, but actually sustain
a fast
> >>pace. I've found 1200m repeats very effective -- the distance is short
enough
> >>that one can do them at a good pace (faster than 5k pace), but long
enough that
> >>you can't just sprint through them. I found that the end result of doing
400m
> >>repeats was that I could beat other runners in short interval sessions,
only to
> >>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 ...
>
> > 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,
> I prefer to do a few weeks of 800s before doing 1200s.
>
> >>IMO fartlek is better done in groups or as an "entry level" speed
workout that
> >>one could use in weeks leading up to serious speed training (to me that
means
> >>"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.
>
> > Frankly, I consider much of your advice to be a little too theoretical
and
> > research based, rather than founded on personal experience or
observation.
>
> In this case, I call "********".
>
> Not only do I *understand* it, through *experience*, I get a refresher on
it
> 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
> training, it's been my primary source of interval work, so I've probably
done
> 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
> only gives you precision, it gives you *structure*. When you go to the
track
> with a watch, the track is simply a vast, barren, merciless landscape, and
the
> watch is a brutal taskmaster. You can't fool the track or your watch.
That's
> what makes it so demanding -- the transparency of it all. Track workouts
are
> just brutal.
>
> You can possibly make fartlek as demanding physiologically, but it doesn't
come
> close mentally. If you don't understand this, go outside and do some track
work
> instead of trolling usenet.
>
> > 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
> races week after week, while you're drawing from distant memories from
back
> in "the good old days" when you felt more like a winner and less like a
has-been.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/