Training at high speeds

(Mark) said:

Um... I've been a weight lifter for over 14 years. I can already lift over 700 lbs on the inclined
leg lift -- one leg at a time, easily at a power intensity of 2 feet vertical height per second (or
about 1.5 horsepower PER leg); I've recently logged a 45 foot hill in around 9.5 seconds (which is
nearly 2 horsepower at my weight), and do stair runs 3, 4 and 5 steps at a time.

Punk.

Mark said:

Quoted message said:

and work on your strength and lactate threshold more.

Um... I've been a weight lifter for over 14 years. I can already lift over 700 lbs on the inclined
leg lift -- one leg at a time, easily at a power intensity of 2 feet vertical height per second
(or about 1.5 horsepower PER leg); I've recently logged a 45 foot hill in around 9.5 seconds
(which is nearly 2 horsepower at my weight), and do stair runs 3, 4 and 5 steps at a time.

This hasn't a thing to do with running. Lifting 700 pounds or a car is not the same as running up a
hills for strength. Do you see those scrawny Kenyans pushing stagnant metal?

If you want to run faster add some power/strength runs. Pure speed with an inadequate power base
will produce fast results but plateau real fast and fall way short of your potential. You spent 14
years lifting weights dod you expect running to happen overnight? Your call.

--
Doug Freese [email hidden]

Doug Freese said:

[Strength] hasn't a thing to do with running.

Sh'eah right. It has absolutely everything to do with running fast. The startup on a run (for elite
performance) has a power intensity in the 4-5 HP range, alone; not to say anything for the
follow-thru required to get up to the 25-27 MPH range peak speed.

Quoted message said:

Lifting 700 pounds or a car is not the same as running up a hills for strength. Do you see those
[sic] scrawny Kenyans pushing stagnant metal?

Long muscles are strong muscles too, just as much as bulk.

Try doing a 2 meter stride for an hour. You don't push that kind of stride without strength, period.

Doug Freese said:

This hasn't a thing to do with running. Lifting 700 pounds or a car is not the same as running up
a hills for strength.

Years of experience amply proves the exact opposite and that, in fact, the weight training
supersedes any hill training.

When you get some ACTUAL experience with doing both (at that level), come back and talk to us about
equuivalency. Until then, I'd rather trust the assessment of someone who actually does it on a
regular basis and done so for a long time and knows the equivalency between the two in detail even
by recognition alone.

The actual fact is that lifting 700 lbs or a car translates (i.e. actually DOES and actually DID
translate) into going 50 feet vertical height in under 10 seconds up a 30+% grade, and pushing
stairwells (at 6" steps) as much as 5-6 at a time.

These speeds are coming on the weight training alone.

It's exactly the same muscles, and exactly the same feel and exactly the same thing.

Today's hill routine was a complete non-issue. The strength alone is pushing a 30-35 second 200m
time up a 3% grade on large strides that are way below the anaerobic threshold precisely because
it's nowhere near max capacity precisely, in turn, because of the strength.

Hills don't even feel like anything because of the extra capacity. The huge strides and speed are
actually more effortless in terms of feel as walking up the hill.

Doug Freese said:

You spent 14 years lifting weights dod you expect running [at high speeds, as opposed the decades
of ultra long distance running, hiking, and biking experience that preceded it] to happen [sic]
overnight?

[said in direct response to actual cite of a large list of PR's at a wide range of distances
achieved as a direct and immediate result.]

... which is exactly what's starting to happen, finally. Yesterday's routine was 24 200m runs at a
4:15-4:30 pace in the midst of a 13 mile hike. And the 200's are starting to combine into 400's at
the same pace, the 400's are on negative splits, and I'm going to be toying pretty soon with
combining the 400's into 800's and reducing the rests further between intervals.

See also the thread on "Russian Intervals".

Alfred Einstead said:

Doug Freese said:

This hasn't a thing to do with running. Lifting 700 pounds or a car is not the same as running up
a hills for strength.

Years of experience amply proves the exact opposite and that, in fact, the weight training
supersedes any hill training.

When you get some ACTUAL experience with doing both (at that level), come back and talk to us
about equuivalency. Until then, I'd rather trust the assessment of someone who actually does it on
a regular basis and done so for a long time and knows the equivalency between the two in detail
even by recognition alone.

The actual fact is that lifting 700 lbs or a car translates (i.e. actually DOES and actually DID
translate) into going 50 feet vertical height in under 10 seconds up a 30+% grade, and pushing
stairwells (at 6" steps) as much as 5-6 at a time.

These speeds are coming on the weight training alone.

Blah blah blah - you're talking short distance, and almost everone else is talking middle distance
or longer. Once you get past 400m or so, the strength component, particularly the massive gym
strength component, starts to fall in importance. You need to be strong for a good mile time, but
not ridiculously so. For 5k and up, it's all about what you can manage aerobically.

-Dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
angio.netangio.netOpen ↗ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

Dave Andersen said:

Blah blah blah - you're talking short distance, and almost everone else is talking middle
distance or longer.

I agree.

Quoted message said:

Once you get past 400m or so, the strength component, particularly the massive gym strength
component, starts to fall in importance.

My take was narrowed to to pushing static weights with one's legs and not upper body. If the
strength is not combined with some form of motion, i.e step ups, lunges, step machine, etc., then
they are only of value is you want prettier looking legs. Specificity is the important concept.

Quoted message said:

You need to be strong for a good mile time, but not ridiculously so. For 5k and up, it's all about
what you can manage aerobically.

I'm sure we agree, but just to make sure, the strength that you get from running hills be they short
repeats or long pulls are of the utmost importance for any distance from the sprint to the
multi-day.

--
Doug Freese [email hidden]

In article said:

Doug Freese said:

This hasn't a thing to do with running. Lifting 700 pounds or a car is not the same as running up
a hills for strength.

Years of experience amply proves the exact opposite and that, in fact, the weight training
supersedes any hill training.

When you get some ACTUAL experience with doing both (at that level), come back and talk to us
about equuivalency. Until then,

When *you* have any experience actually running a decent 5k time, as opposed to combining fairly
solid sprints with positively embarrassing distance performances, you will have a leg to stand on.

Quoted message said:

I'd rather trust the assessment of someone who actually does it on a regular basis and done so for
a long time and knows the equivalency between the two in detail even by recognition alone.

The actual fact is that lifting 700 lbs or a car translates (i.e. actually DOES and actually DID
translate) into going 50 feet vertical height in under 10 seconds up a 30+% grade, and pushing
stairwells (at 6" steps) as much as 5-6 at a time.

Now if only you could maintain a respectable pace for more than 10 seconds ...

Quoted message said:

It's exactly the same muscles, and exactly the same feel and exactly the same thing.

Today's hill routine was a complete non-issue. The strength alone is pushing a 30-35 second 200m
time up a 3% grade on large strides that are way below the anaerobic threshold precisely because
it's nowhere near max capacity precisely, in turn, because of the strength.

That's right. You can't run at anything close to your max capacity, unless you do some endurance
work. The 10k record is at around 65 seconds per lap. That is just 5 seconds per lap slower than
4min/mile pace.

Quoted message said:

Hills don't even feel like anything because of the extra capacity.

Unless they are more than 200m long.

Quoted message said:

The huge strides and speed are actually more effortless in terms of feel as walking up the hill.

Until you run for a duration of more than 30 seconds.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that weight training doesn't make a difference. However, there
are a lot of runners who can run a hell of a lot faster than you for a hell of a lot longer, who
can't even do a pullup. That should tell you something.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article said:

Alfred Einstead said:

Doug Freese said:

This hasn't a thing to do with running. Lifting 700 pounds or a car is not the same as running
up a hills for strength.

Years of experience amply proves the exact opposite and that, in fact, the weight training
supersedes any hill training.

When you get some ACTUAL experience with doing both (at that level), come back and talk to us
about equuivalency. Until then, I'd rather trust the assessment of someone who actually does it
on a regular basis and done so for a long time and knows the equivalency between the two in
detail even by recognition alone.

The actual fact is that lifting 700 lbs or a car translates (i.e. actually DOES and actually DID
translate) into going 50 feet vertical height in under 10 seconds up a 30+% grade, and pushing
stairwells (at 6" steps) as much as 5-6 at a time.

These speeds are coming on the weight training alone.

Blah blah blah - you're talking short distance, and almost
everone else is talking middle distance or longer. Once you

This guy is a loon. He's been rambling incoherently about his nutcase theories for a long time, and
none of it alters the fact that he can't maintain a decent 5k pace, despite his fairly impressive
sprint times.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article said:

Doug Freese said:

You spent 14 years lifting weights dod you expect running [at high speeds, as opposed the decades
of ultra long distance running, hiking, and biking experience that preceded it] to happen [sic]
overnight?

[said in direct response to actual cite of a large list of PR's at a wide range of distances
achieved as a direct and immediate result.]

... which is exactly what's starting to happen, finally. Yesterday's routine was 24 200m runs at a
4:15-4:30 pace in the midst of a 13 mile hike.

I tried short intervals at one stage. The result was that I got really good at doing short
intervals. As far as long-range endurance is concerned, it doesn't matter a whole lot that you
can do a lot of 200m repeats in 32-4 seconds if you can't sustain such a pace for more than two
full laps. FWIW, I think the protocol you just outlined is similar to the way I've seen 800m
runners train.

Quoted message said:

And the 200's are starting to combine into 400's at the same pace, the 400's are on negative
splits, and I'm going to be toying pretty soon with combining the 400's into 800's and reducing
the rests further between intervals.

Wow. Do this for a little while and you might actually run a decent 5k.

--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Doug Freese said:

Dave Andersen said:

Blah blah blah - you're talking short distance, and almost everone else is talking middle
distance or longer.

I agree.

Quoted message said:

Once you get past 400m or so, the strength component, particularly the massive gym strength
component, starts to fall in importance.

My take was narrowed to to pushing static weights with one's legs and not upper body. If the
strength is not combined with some form of motion, i.e step ups, lunges, step machine, etc., then
they are only of value is you want prettier looking legs. Specificity is the important concept.

A couple thoughts from my recent readings, which I'm sure you recognize, but posting as they may
separate the "it works" vs "doesn't work". It may depend on your experience and/or strength level
and of course goals. Once a person is able to lift a certain % (maybe like 200% and the %
depended on which lift) of bodyweight, it's more important to focus on power (don't have time to
find the article right now). Many people get carried away with squats and so have overdeveloped
quads then have ham injuries. (that paper hasn't given exercises for hams, but it's supposed to
be in a later issue)

My personal obs: At the World Mountain Running Trophy, *all* people running at the top were taking
normal or small steps - not the equivalent of 5 or 6 steps at a time. The only ones taking large
steps were walking, usually in the bent-over-hands-on-thighs form. The top Italian men just breezed
through there. I've replayed that video *so* many times. I think they train in the Alps. But I don't
know if they do any supplementary weight work. I believe Roberto Ghidoni, the runner that wins the
Iditarod Trail Invitational (1100 mi), trains hauling a huge bale of hay on his back up a mountain
slope. Strength and specificity in one bundle 🙂 Those Italians seem to be doing something right in
their training.

As a beginner on hill running, I am finding strength workouts (toe walking for foot/achilles
strength and balance, 1-legged squat balances, lunges, stability ball, etc - stuff I can do at home
and work in busy schedule, and probably more on the injury prevention scale) *helps* me to run the
longer hills (avg 20+% slopes), but the hills *absolutely* require running to learn to run them,
including some tumbles on the downs and provide more strength than the supplementary work I'm doing.
I suspect somebody like you would get zippo benefits from the strength drills I'm doing.

IMHO, as you indicate, there *is* technique to negotiating steep single-track, that strength
training alone doesn't provide. After I've learned a little bit more from another hill running
session, then I may tweak my strength training regime to focus on the weak spots on that run. But my
biggest strength and endurance gains were from actually running the hills - even 4-min up (probably
20-30% slope) done several times helped immensely on my usual rolling hills that peak at about 2-3
min. But *I* definitely needed the supplementary strength for my achilles. I'm periodized off the
steep stuff right now but focusing on building strength in weak areas (that I now know 1st
hand) and religiously doing the strength drills on the days I don't run.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

In article said:

In article said:

Doug Freese said:

You spent 14 years lifting weights dod you expect running [at high speeds, as opposed the
decades of ultra long distance running, hiking, and biking experience that preceded it] to
happen [sic] overnight?

[said in direct response to actual cite of a large list of PR's at a wide range of distances
achieved as a direct and immediate result.]

... which is exactly what's starting to happen, finally. Yesterday's routine was 24 200m runs at
a 4:15-4:30 pace in the midst of a 13 mile hike.

I tried short intervals at one stage. The result was that I got really good at doing short
intervals. As far as long-range endurance is concerned, it doesn't matter a whole lot that you
can do a lot of 200m repeats in 32-4 seconds if you can't sustain such a pace for more than two
full laps. FWIW, I think the protocol you just outlined is similar to the way I've seen 800m
runners train.

Quoted message said:

And the 200's are starting to combine into 400's at the same pace, the 400's are on negative
splits, and I'm going to be toying pretty soon with combining the 400's into 800's and reducing
the rests further between intervals.

Wow. Do this for a little while and you might actually run a decent 5k.

But he does run a decent 5k. He's happy with it. Ditto his marathon with tremendously positive
splits. etc. Whether you or I would be happy with his relationship between shorter distance times
and longer distance times is a different matter. As Dot quotes, Success means different things to
different people.

Training works. My change of subject line is for this side of the question. When I was in my
coaching class, a point that was mentioned is that training works. Training consisting of 24x200
works, as does training consisting of a steady 5k run.

Whether the training 'works' is not a real question in that respect. The real questions for
coaches and runners are:
a) What does is work _for_?
b) How _well_ does it work towards that goal?

Since I'm a miler, at times, my goal is to get the ratio between my mile time and quarter mile
time as low as possible. Mark's training appears to be effective at keeping his ratio at about 6.
My current one is about 5.3, and represents a far better quarter mile race than mile. So it looks
like his training mode doesn't work towards my goals. Now, if my goal were to improve my quarter
mile time, his approach might be interesting to me since, given my mile time, a 6:1 ratio would
give me a nice quarter mile figure.

In the context, though, of the group, it'd be helpful if Mark, and all of us, remembered that
different people run for different reasons. What's typical of Mark, and satisfies his body and
goals, is pretty different from where most of us are either physically or in goals.
--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this
great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more
abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

But he does run a decent 5k. He's happy with it. Ditto his marathon with tremendously positive
splits. etc. Whether you or I would be happy with his relationship between shorter distance
times and longer distance times is a different matter. As Dot quotes, Success means different
things to different people.

That's fine by me as long as he doesn't pretend that what he's doing is optimal or even close to
optimal for a 5k race or the marathon.

Quoted message said:

Training works. My change of subject line is for this side of the question. When I was in my
coaching class, a point that was mentioned is that training works. Training consisting of 24x200
works, as does training consisting of a steady 5k run.

Whether the training 'works' is not a real question in that respect. The real questions for
coaches and runners are:
a) What does is work _for_?
b) How _well_ does it work towards that goal?

Yes, exactly. And he seems to have an almost religious belief that what serves one goal (say 400m)
automatically serves other goals such as the marathon. I don't share this belief of his.

Quoted message said:

Since I'm a miler, at times, my goal is to get the ratio
between my mile time and quarter mile time as low as possible.

I'd dare suggest that your real goal is to get your mile time as low as possible, and you see
reducing the ratio as a means to that end.

Quoted message said:

Mark's training appears to be effective at keeping his ratio at about 6. My current one is about
5.3, and represents a far better quarter mile race than mile. So it looks like his training mode
doesn't work towards my goals.

His argument, in this thread and others, which I am contesting, is that you don't have to change the
ratio, in fact, if you train specifically for the 400, the ratio will remain constant, and hence the
improvements will transfer directly to your mile times.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Doug Freese said:

Dave Andersen said:

Blah blah blah - you're talking short distance, and almost everone else is talking middle
distance or longer.

I agree.

Quoted message said:

Once you get past 400m or so, the strength component, particularly the massive gym strength
component, starts to fall in importance.

My take was narrowed to to pushing static weights with one's legs and not upper body. If the
strength is not combined with some form of motion, i.e step ups, lunges, step machine, etc., then
they are only of value is you want prettier looking legs. Specificity is the important concept.

Quoted message said:

You need to be strong for a good mile time, but not ridiculously so. For 5k and up, it's all
about what you can manage aerobically.

I'm sure we agree, but just to make sure, the strength that you get from running hills be they
short repeats or long pulls are of the utmost importance for any distance from the sprint to the
multi-day.

Yes. You need to be strong enough at running. But I don't think you need massive weight-room style
hypertrophy for anything but the shortest sprints. For most distance events, you need functional,
specific strength - of the type you get from hills. I'm totally agreed with you (and should have
been more clear that I was blah'ing the leg-pressing a volkswagen component).

-Dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
angio.netangio.netOpen ↗ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

In article said:

In article said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

But he does run a decent 5k. He's happy with it. Ditto his marathon with tremendously positive
splits. etc. Whether you or I would be happy with his relationship between shorter distance
times and longer distance times is a different matter. As Dot quotes, Success means different
things to different people.

That's fine by me as long as he doesn't pretend that what he's doing is optimal or even close to
optimal for a 5k race or the marathon.

I think your training ideas and mine are fairly close, and that neither of us would train anything
like he does. Since he appears to be quite happy with what he's doing, his results, and he's not
getting injured, it's 'optimal' for him in terms of what he cares about. I dare say that if he
were to train on a program that either you or I drew up instead of what he does do, that we could
get him to a faster 5k. But that isn't really his goal.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Training works. My change of subject line is for this side of the question. When I was in my
coaching class, a point that was mentioned is that training works. Training consisting of
24x200 works, as does training consisting of a steady 5k run.

Whether the training 'works' is not a real question in that respect. The real questions for
coaches and runners are:
a) What does is work _for_?
b) How _well_ does it work towards that goal?

Yes, exactly. And he seems to have an almost religious belief that what serves one goal (say 400m)
automatically serves other goals such as the marathon. I don't share this belief of his.

And there's an excellent body of research to support your position. I agree with it too (your
position, that is). 400m is a massively anaerobic event with a bit of aerobics. The marathon is a
massively aerobic event with a trace of anaerobic. Once you get to the level of good general
fitness, you need to specialize towards what you're racing at.

Then again, I set a 200m PR about 2 months after my 50k trail race and had done absolutely no
speed work at anywhere near that pace. Hills are speed, I guess. But I think that if I'd
trained for 200m in the previous months, rather than a trail ultramarathon, I'd have managed
rather faster.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since I'm a miler, at times, my goal is to get the ratio
between my mile time and quarter mile time as low as possible.

I'd dare suggest that your real goal is to get your mile time as low as possible, and you see
reducing the ratio as a means to that end.

:-) Well, my 400m best is a known and fixed number. Reducing
the ratio and reducing the time are equivalent. But you're right, it is the time that I really care
about. If I can make the ratio drop to 4.97 or lower, I'll be very happy indeed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mark's training appears to be effective at keeping his ratio at about 6. My current one is about
5.3, and represents a far better quarter mile race than mile. So it looks like his training mode
doesn't work towards my goals.

His argument, in this thread and others, which I am contesting, is that you don't have to change
the ratio, in fact, if you train specifically for the 400, the ratio will remain constant, and
hence the improvements will transfer directly to your mile times.

Well, per above, his argument is physiologically silly. The mile isn't as different from the 400
as the marathon is, so more of the training does transfer between the two. Still, they're
different races, and the mile is mostly aerobic (ca. 70% iirc, for the elites, more for us slower
folks) vs. the 400 being mostly anaerobic.

One of the more educational workouts we did in my HS track season was when the sprinters and
distance runners did a 200m to 600m and back ladder. Side thing being that the sprinters whined
mightily about having to go all the way around the track (and, for the 600, even continuing for
another half!). The interesting part was watching some of the fastest sprinters and fastest
distance runners hit the 400. Same speed, but the mechanics were quite different. No problem
telling the difference between the miler running a 60 second quarter (or whatever they did) and a
sprinter doing so.

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this
great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more
abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Dave Andersen said:

Yes. You need to be strong enough at running. But I don't think you need massive weight-room
style hypertrophy for anything but the shortest sprints. For most distance events, you need
functional, specific strength - of the type you get from hills. I'm totally agreed with you (and
should have been more clear that I was blah'ing the leg-pressing a volkswagen component).

There are so many threads going on within the thread I somtimes forget where I'm at. 🙂 🙂

--
Doug Freese [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I tried short intervals at one stage. The result was that I got really good at doing short
intervals. As far as long-range endurance is concerned, it doesn't matter a whole lot that you
can do a lot of 200m repeats in 32-4 seconds if you can't sustain such a pace for more than two
full laps. FWIW, I think the protocol you just outlined is similar to the way I've seen 800m
runners train.

Quoted message said:

And the 200's are starting to combine into 400's at the same pace, the 400's are on negative
splits, and I'm going to be toying pretty soon with combining the 400's into 800's and reducing
the rests further between intervals.

Wow. Do this for a little while and you might actually run a decent 5k.

From your point of view, why do you not support his moving into longer and longer runs? Certainly,
better than many of us plodding for hours until we lose form and then get an injury. Doesn't
explosive running would better match the lifter's approach to fitness than plodding?

In article said:

Quoted message said:

I tried short intervals at one stage. The result was that I got really good at doing short
intervals. As far as long-range endurance is concerned, it doesn't matter a whole lot that you
can do a lot of 200m repeats in 32-4 seconds if you can't sustain such a pace for more than two
full laps. FWIW, I think the protocol you just outlined is similar to the way I've seen 800m
runners train.

Quoted message said:

And the 200's are starting to combine into 400's at the same pace, the 400's are on negative
splits, and I'm going to be toying pretty soon with combining the 400's into 800's and reducing
the rests further between intervals.

Wow. Do this for a little while and you might actually run a decent 5k.

From your point of view, why do you not support his moving into longer and longer runs?

I don't understand the question.

Quoted message said:

Certainly, better than many of us plodding for hours until we lose form and then get an injury.

There are a lot of ways to get injuries. "Plodding for hours" is only one of them.

Quoted message said:

Doesn't explosive running would better match the lifter's approach to fitness than plodding?

I don't know what "the lifters approach to fitness" means. I'm a "lifter", but I'm primarily
interested in fast times in distances between 1 mile and 13.1 miles. There are other "lifters" who
are interested in maximum powerlifting totals. Or developing larger muscles. All of these "lifters"
have very different approaches to fitness. Could the "real" "lifter" please step forward ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗