So why do I suggest that 400m intervals are a path to nowhere, besides the literal fact that you end up in the same place you start?  These short intervals to meet the criteria to enhance efficiency at race pace (number 1 above) and the athlete is learning to run at race pace for short distances.  However, the athlete only needs to focus for a short period of time (65-90 seconds).  More importantly, compared with longer intervals the athlete spends less total time at VO2max.  For example, an athlete that runs 75 seconds for the 400m might only be at VO2max for on average 60 seconds each interval (less during the first intervals and more by the last intervals).  This would be a total of 12 minutes at VO2max while covering 4800m.  This might be done on 60 seconds jog recovery.  If the same athlete were to do 6 x 800m (same total of 4800m), he would be at VO2max for an average of 2:15 seconds during each interval (again on average) if he used a 2:00-2:15 recover jog.  This means that the athlete would spend 13 and a half minutes at VO2max over the same 4800m.

It is true that an athlete could spend more time at VO2max during the 12x400m workout by shortening the recovery between intervals and thus getting to VO2max more quickly during each interval.  However, I think that doing longer intervals still retains the advantage of forcing longer periods of mental focus that is critical in a 5k, especially on the roads where there aren't constant splits like on the track.  An additional risk of doing 400m intervals is the tendency to run too quickly (faster than 3k or 5k pace).  Jack Daniels states in Daniel's Running Formula, "Running faster than vVo2max cannot produce a greater aerobic involvement than does running at vVo2max.  The stress of shorter intervals comes from shortening the recoveries, not from running at faster speeds."  I am not saying there are not times when running faster than 5k pace is beneficial but the workout should be designed for a purpose and the pace shouldn't be faster simply because of a short interval and lack of control.

Running 400m intervals at goal 5k pace can be beneficial for an athlete that has not trained at VO2max in a while and is getting back to interval training.  It is a gentler way to ease back into this type of training that repeat 1200s.  However, I suggest these athletes to increase the interval length rather than the pace as they get in shape.  Obviously, an alternative would be to start with longer intervals at a slightly slower pace and then increase the pace as fitness level increases.  I think either way will work but running a bunch of 400m intervals at 5k pace or slightly faster is not an ideal way to improve 5k racing in the long term.

M - Easy 10.5

T - Easy 10.0

W - Tempo 33 minutes at 5:35 pace (10.3 total)

T - Easy Double 6/5.4

F - Easy 5.5

S - 3 mile warmup

5 x 1000 with 400m (~2min) jog b/w

3:05, 3:01, 3:06, 3:05, 3:02

3.5 mile cool down

I felt okay.  Ate too much for breakfast right before the workout and started to throw up at the end of the workout.  Other than than I felt in control.  It was a good second workout for the week, especially considering that this was my highest mileage week post-college.

Details: http://www.logarun.com/calendars/djhocking/2009/7

I think many people who suggest that they follow a Lydiard system are really like those who subscribe to Darwinism. They don't follow the original teachings exactly but rather the advancements that have been made on those teachings but keep the name. Darwin was brilliant but the neo-darwinian synthesis and recent genetic findings have altered our view of how evolution works but some of the general principles espoused are what we hold onto and refer to without looking at the nitty-gritty.

I think Lydiard was the first person to demonstrate success by having athletes (and not just runners) develop a huge aerobic base. That is the part most people remember and think of Lydiard the icon. He once (maybe many times) said that all runners can benefit from marathon training. The only book of his I have is "running to the top" (it's not very good compared to modern books but that is the point of this blog now isn't it). In it, he says, "If you want to do a lot of training or exercise to improve your physical condition without building up waste product, the effort has got to be aerobic." This is under the heading: "Training and not straining." He also railed against modern footwear being the cause of many running injuries. He describes Long Aerobic Running as, "A strong aerobic effort, between jogging and racing - in theory, 70% to 99% of your aerobic capacity to finish in a pleasantly tired state." I think you're right in that now my belief is that it should generally be easier than he suggests to get the benefits of aerobic training without the stress that fatigues your legs and thereby prevents more mileage or adequate workouts.

As for the nuts and bolts, I think you're right that we've improved and refined training methods. You could argue that is why his most talented athletes (Viren) weren't running faster than guys like Rupp, Adam Goucher, Meb, Ritz, and similar level athletes (i.e. ~13:10, 27:00).

I don't know that 4 weeks of specialized hill training as he suggests (with no hill training later) is the best approach. However, I will play devil's advocate and argue that something like that might be necessary rather than integrating more training variety. You suggest that detraining reduces the utility of a hill phase followed by a complete switch to other types of workouts (tempos and intervals). The counter argument is that you might not be able to successfully get from step A to step C without step B (say hills in this case). Or in a more complicated analogy you ultimately want to get to race at step E. You could go from step A to step C but then from step C you can only get to level D to race. However, if you were to progress through the ideal steps of A followed by B, then C and D, then you could race at E. This is all in theory and in reality training and physical adaptation to stress might not be so stepwise. However, we believe in periodization, at least I do, and stimulus needs to be added in a gently increasing manner, so what is to say that there isn't some optimal stimuli that need to come before others for maximal success? So, using the hill example, maybe running the hills allows for increased strength and efficiency and lactate tolerance without the pounding impact of running fast over flat ground. I don't really think that Lydiard was right in this or how he had the hills performed but there could be something to the theory at least. In reality, I think that we're all so far from our maximal (genetic) potential that getting to that level of detail is an unnecessary distraction (from my PhD) and that a few general principles dominate:

1. Do lots of easy, aerobic mileage

2. Slowly add additional stimuli

3. Diversify the stimuli (either by workout or within workouts)

4. Tempos are important as is event specific workouts (running at race pace)

5. Avoid getting away from mileage and aerobic training for very long because that detraining will definitely be detrimental!

6. Rarely push yourself to run hard when you are tired and after you do you need to recover.

7. Recovery is key to improvement but can generally be done while running slowly if already properly trained (i.e. good aerobic base).

I guess those are my thoughts for now. I hope they make sense. That was a huge brain dump.

So then with all the success of the Salazar and Schumacher athletes in the national championships this year I was wondering if Flanagan might be thinking of a similar switch.  Apparently I was way behind on this.  My excuse is that I'm working on my PhD and miss things at times.  While her USATF performance was definitely subpar, the transistion might take some time.  Hopefully she can be ready for World's.  Like Ritz though, I'm not sure that the marathon would be her best event, but again I'll avoid that tangent for now.

So with these all these top-level Americans running for Salazar and Schumacher I got thinking about who the top coaches are and who else can get athletes to that top level and truly reach their maximum potential.  Clearly John Cook has to be in there but I think his personality prevents him from working with some athletes.  Clyde Hart has certainly proven his metal with 400m runners, but who else in the distance scene?  I think the Hanson brothers have a great program but I would argue that they haven't maximized the potential of many of their athletes.  It seems like the athletes under their tutelage run to hard on their easy days and race their workouts, which is probably not the ideal strategy.  Warhurst has had a number of milers make it at the top level (Sullivan, Willis, and Brennen most recently).  I'm not sure how much input he has with Willis or Brennen post-college but they've been quite successful.  John Kellogg did a fantastic job with Weldon Johnson and I agree with his training philosophy so it would be interesting to see him as a professional coach working with some of the most talented athletes.  Joe Vigil and now Terrence Mahon have produced top runners.  Who else?  If you won the genetic lottery who would you pick as your coach?  If I was a marathoner I'd go to Japan and learn how to do it right.  But other than that what do you think?

 Monday, September 01, 2008 

Move over Michael Phelps

Move over Michael Phelps; we have a new Olympic hero. It may seem strange that on the same day that the miraculous Michael Phelps secured his title as Greatest Olympian in History that another American should secure his place in my mind as the Olympic standard. It may be particularly strange since this person did not even make the Olympic final. As a former track athlete who can barely flounder through two continuous laps in the pool, I may have a potential bias. None-the-less, Tyson Gay is my Olympic hero. Saturday August 16, 2008 had been the day Tyson Gay had been dreaming of his entire life. For the past four years Gay had dedicated every moment and every ounce of energy into becoming the Olympic 100m champion. A win that would give him the title of World's Fastest Man.

American sprinters have been known to be particularly jubilant, expressive winners. Some have put a sour taste in foreign (and some domestic) mouths with their shirtless celebrations and trash talking. Gay is none of that. He is stoic during prerace hype and humble in winning. After the race he gives articulate interviews with a smile and thanks the crowd for their support.

And did I mention that he loves his mother. He talks with her nearly every day. Maybe he's too good. Maybe in America we need a little more controversy and melodrama. Maybe even a good tabloid scandal. I hope not. I hope for all of us to see Tyson Gay's smiling face on Wheaties boxes and in commercials for a long time to come.

Unfortunately, we now know he is also a gracious loser. In the Olympic Trials earlier this summer, Gay won the 100m in commanding fashion. He showed the Jamaicans that they would have their hands full at the Olympic games. He set the American record in the semi finals. Then there was a slight tailwind in the finals and he ran faster than any human ever has, with or without a wind. The wind did prevent it from counting as a world record but it appeared to be a sign of things to come. However, it was not to be. In the 200m later that week Gay fell hard to the track with a stained hamstring. He had been the favorite for Olympic gold in the event and now he wouldn't get the chance. It also put his 100m chances in jeopardy. Still he offered no complaints, just optimism that he could be ready for the 100m in the Olympics.

Again, it was not to be. He was able to nurse his hamstring back to health by the Olympics but he had lost too much training time. He didn't look like himself in the heats or quarterfinals but he was making it through the rounds. Finally, in the semi finals the dream came to an end. He ran the best race he could but failed to make it to the finals. Within minutes of finishing he was giving an interview. For the reining World Champion in a sport where only the Olympics excite the public it must have been devastating. I've seen many Olympians break down in tears in less heart wrenching moments. This was probably his best shot at Olympic gold and fulfilling that all-consuming childhood dream. Yet he did not decline the immediate post race interview. Nor did he use it as a platform to make excuses. Tyson Gay told the world that he was 100% now after the injury and that it just wasn't his day. While the hamstring may not currently hurt, clearly he wasn't 100%. For a man who ran 9.68 at the Olympic Trials, 10.07 is a long way off. In a moment when years of hard work just failed to pay off, when the expectations of a nation, and his own expectations, have just been left unfulfilled, Gay refused to make any excuses. He represented the Red, White and Blue the best he could on the track and represented every one of us with even greater dignity off the track. I hope that every young athlete in America sees this interview. Then they will know how to carry themselves as adults and every little boy will know how to be a man.