what is a "4 min ab session" . . . abs as in abdominals, you did crunches or something?
correct. basically - interesting variations on a theme of torture:)
how many weeks does the sessions run, that is, the Coach Bradley training?
I just jumped in. I dont think there is a set period. like a 'spring semester':)
Is it divided into phases? Like base . Intervals ... out just all speed?
Yeah, its basically gut-busting speedwork. Look at JD's training schedule for 800 meter runners. Its all speedwork in every phase! Some carryover for milers.
Works for me.
In a way, it just takes over different functions at different times of the year. Like, for me its strength training now. And also long buildup for early and late spring. And if you want to get faster, you have to regard what you did last month and what you are doing now as the base training platform for what you want to be doing in 2-3 months.
At 63 things become a lot less complicated. You only have a finite time to be able to keep running hard, and you atrophy quickly, so you run as hard as you can without getting injured to stay ready for whatever opportunities come up. To everything there is a season.
huh, interesting. I'd think the principle of periodization, ie. backing off for six weeks, and rebuilding a base, then going through the phases, reaching higher plateaus, would apply to any age . . .
Thanks for asking Bill. I am learning a lot by looking some of this stuff up. Well, I feel like i am doing exactly that, building a base. Only its a base period based on where I want to be, not where i've been...and to maintain the qualities I have built up already.If I was doing speedwork and hard longer intervals 3 or 4 times a week it would be a totally different animal.
There are all kinds of different training options that top masters runners employ. Many top runners in their 50's and 60's seem to just run, run a lot , almost everyday, at a very brisk pace - like several hours a day at 7 min pace for example. Others go through a kaleidoscope of speed, tempo workouts etc. on a regular basis. The common theme is they run a lot, and they run pretty hard in one form or another. But the key is these runners have been training hard for many years, and have found what allows them to build off a plateau level of fitness without going back to square one. You just have to find out what works best for you.
Like I said, look at the base phase of JD's 800 meters program - that will give you a better idea than anything I could say about it!!!!!
there is a great thread on letsrun that deals with this issue.
Weighing in by way of concurring with and reiterating your thoughts Rudi (and that's not a bad thought stream on lets run). From a mental and physical point of view its beneficial to cycle somewhat. The individually-biased question is how much peak to trough ratio is desirable and assuming a sinusoidal fluctuation where is the average level for a given system? Sprinters clearly spend more time on speed elements on an ongoing basis and distance runners need the aerobic base to sustain higher quality efforts aimed at race peaking. All that is pretty much conventional wisdom. For Masters age athletes it does appear beneficial to have the basal systems engaged at a higher steady state level but also to utilize faster leg turnover (ie strides) at all points in the training cycle. Anyone disagree?
thanks BP. that sounds good to me.
I would only disagree with BP by way of noting that you can work speed many different ways, and running may not be a good one. You are much more likely to hurt yourself running fast than cycling fast. I only do strides when I have a LOT of base mileage going. When I'm over 80 miles per week, it's pretty safe. Unfortunately, school is making that a tough threshold to meet, so I find that spin sprints on the bike serve the same purpose with almost no chance of pulling or tearing something in the process.
But it doesn't say that the runners control group did comparable run-intervals....
Don't have access to the full text so I don't know what the exact control conditions were, but I wouldn't have expected the control group to change their training regimen at all. The point of the study was to find whether HIIT on the bike contributes positively to running, not whether a bike HIIT session is equivalent to a running HIIT session. Based on the abstract, the answer is yes. The effect is tied to the rest period duration, so choose R based on goals.
Here is the abstract: http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2015/08...
haven't found any studies yet that compare bike HIIT to run HIIT.
I downloaded from work, emailed to rudy . . .
oh, ok, think i understand it better now, thanks.
the first paragraph is shocking . . . 70% of runners sustain overuse injuries, and increases with 40 mpw .. .
"Training volume is an important variable in the prediction
of running performance (36). However,
a sudden increase in running volume, particularly
with an absolute volume above 40 miles per week,
is one of the strongest independent risk factors associated
with running injuries (20). Seventy percent of runners at
different performance levels are reported to sustain overuse
injuries yearly (26)."
yes the control group did not alter their training . . .
"The remaining group acted as a control (CON) group
which completed pretest and posttest 2 weeks apart while
maintaining their normal training regime but did not complete
I'm surprised there was any effect given only 6x 10 sec "all out" effort with varying degrees of rest, best rest between reps was 80 seconds. that doesn't sound like much at all, I mean 10 sec is nothing. Maybe I just need "verbal encouragement" haha . . .
"High-Intensity Training. At least 48 hours after the last
baseline test, subjects completed their first session of HIT
consisting of 6 x 10-second “all-out” cycling efforts against
a resistance equalling 7.5% of body weight. Rest periods were
prescribed based on the relevant groups (i.e., R30, R80, and
R120) with active recovery in the form of unloaded pedalling
at 60 r$min21 completed in between intervals. Subjects were
weighed in before each session to ensure that accurate resistance
on the flywheel was used throughout the duration of
the training programme. The same training routine was
repeated 5 more times over the next 2 weeks with at least
24 hours between the sessions. Heart rate (HR) (Polar Electro,
Kempele, Finland) and peak power output (PPO) and
mean power output (MPO) (Monark Anaerobic Test Software
version 2.24.2; Monark Exercise AB) were recorded
continuously throughout. All subjects were verbally encouraged
I'm not surprised. Any introduction of structured training is going to have a positive effect, even if it is misguided. I'm not saying HIIT is misguided (I don't think it is), just that all these studies appear to be measuring some specific this or that, but if you look at the literature as a whole, what it screams is: HAVE A PLAN AND DO IT!
As for doing rep work on the bike, what this particular study advocates is not what I was talking about. R work isn't about resistance; that's what weights are for (and, 10 seconds of lifting can make a huge difference in strength). R-work on the bike, generally referred to as spin sprints by competitive cyclists, is almost zero resistance. It can be done on the road or on rollers, but using a fixed trainer defeats the purpose. As with running R-work, it's about getting your technique as smooth as possible by artificially raising the cadence to where any inefficiencies become obvious. I used to do mine at around 150rpm for 30-second efforts, 180 for 10-second bursts. My PR is 215. The world record is 235 (set at a roller race that I attended - that's crazy fast).
Eric , that gives me
Insight to JD R workouts when i get to them , thanks. .. the velodrome track guys really know how to spin ... smooth is fast. Chris hoy ... those guys are amazing .. and gals! Interesting to view R workouts in same light
This discussion thread is closed.