Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Distance experts

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Smoke
    replied
    Originally posted by no one
    my take - a very exciting 'prospect', at the very least. Good fortune to you, Smoke, and to your talented athlete.
    Thanks. I think she will run very fast in a few events this year. Very curious about these new workouts and how they translate for her

    Leave a comment:


  • no one
    replied
    my take - a very exciting 'prospect', at the very least. Good fortune to you, Smoke, and to your talented athlete.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Originally posted by Helen S
    I never saw any indication that the afore mentioned woman was "seriously anaerobic" in her workout. Before weighing in on her 800 potential, I need to see a workout in person to gauge effort. I do agree that the 53 400 time is encouraging- so at what point in the season did the 3X8 take place? Was there a cross background? was this the first week or two of her buildup towards indoor? What had she been doing the past few months?
    I do remember having a conversation with the coach from Occidental quite a few years ago about his 2:06 DIII woman. He was moving her up to the 800 from the 400 but did not race her at that distance until her morning heart rate reduction indicated to him she was ready to succeed.

    That 5:00 rest seemed excessive to me for building endurance.
    Was that complete recovery? Heart rates during workout? Resting?
    Too many variable to decide from a distance.
    If you are doing repeat 800s without going anaerobic what is the purpose. Presumably she is running them as almost as fast as she can (or else they tell us nothing much at all). I still think HS girls doing 2:2x should be aboe to do 3x800 in 2:34 w/ 5 minutes rest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoke
    replied
    Thank you all. I must add a laugh in here for some of you.
    Yes I agree you need more info but I will hold that card for the time being. Just wanted a feeler for what the workout could possibly mean to an 800 runner. I got that answer.

    Now some free advice to those of you coaching, stop with over analyzing of details LOL. Heart rate, rest in the morning, etc. These things are the hobgoblins of US distance running. There is a level that is needed but when a coach says he is not racing his athlete until here morning rate is where it should be, we are over doing the process. We are also ignoring the human spirit and ability to compete.

    This woman I am sharing with you guys also ran 1:37 2 weeks ago for a 600 and that is why a few said 2:08-2:10 for an 800 right now. I am thinking she will run faster than that in the spring and if we tackled the event for a season she would break 2 minutes.

    Again I thank you all for the lively conversation, it is beautiful. She is training well, cranking out 300s in 17 pace for 9, cranking a 45 on the ninth one. Just thought I would share since you guys have shared with me. See ya n the summer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Helen S
    replied
    I never saw any indication that the afore mentioned woman was "seriously anaerobic" in her workout. Before weighing in on her 800 potential, I need to see a workout in person to gauge effort. I do agree that the 53 400 time is encouraging- so at what point in the season did the 3X8 take place? Was there a cross background? was this the first week or two of her buildup towards indoor? What had she been doing the past few months?
    I do remember having a conversation with the coach from Occidental quite a few years ago about his 2:06 DIII woman. He was moving her up to the 800 from the 400 but did not race her at that distance until her morning heart rate reduction indicated to him she was ready to succeed.

    That 5:00 rest seemed excessive to me for building endurance.
    Was that complete recovery? Heart rates during workout? Resting?
    Too many variable to decide from a distance.

    Leave a comment:


  • no one
    replied
    I think I can safely say that there is simply not enough ... 'enough' ... information to prognosticate. BUT there sure is some (possibly great) potential here. I know 'Smoke' has a great opportunity here.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Look, a very good HS distance runner (Hasay) is going to get close to running 6x2:34 with NO rest at all, i.e., a low-16 5000. If she can only run three 2:34s with five minutes rest between she shows serious signs of not having a metabolism that works past sprint speeds. To say that 3 x 2:34 is indicative of a 2:04 borders on being ludicrous. With three reps and five minutes rest, the difference between the reps times and on-off times should be a modest number of seconds, ten maybe; 30 seconds is a different world. Please explain how in the world someone that is seriously anaerobic at 2:34 is going to run 2:04?

    Leave a comment:


  • dsrunner
    replied
    If a runner manages 5x 800m in 2:10, but cant run faster than 65 for a single all out lap, the 800m best is going nowhere, despite the unworldly stamina. Stamina only gets you so far.

    If this 53 runner has thighs as wide as lane three that's one thing. But, if she has a leaner 800 type build, and is motivated to try a new event, she can train very moderately to reach 1:30 600m. It's difficult to reach that 600m capability without also hitting 2:10 in the 800m. She also has much more of an upside in the 800m than a runner who can run just 57. < 2:05 is reasonable. < 2 if the build, workouts, and opportunities are there,

    Yes some runners can manage 2:04 without 53 speed, and some runners will manage 53 and die horrible deaths in the 800m. When push comes to shove though, you want to go with the 53 runner ( the fastest runner who can't succeed in the 400m) and put 800m goals out there that will motivate the athlete. That means NCAA qualifier if a collegiate, and a peek at the US, Euro, or world lists if she's a post collegiate.

    The workout given is not spectacular, but it also suggests some endurance potential. Besides, that's about as slow ( and as long) as she ever needs to run.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Originally posted by AS
    Originally posted by 26mi235
    How is someone who is running 2:33/2:34/2:35 suddenly going to knock off 30 seconds just by doing one of them? It seems that you are missing a digit in the tens place.
    But the 53s is the key here. That's good leg speed. With more endurance 2.04 or thereabouts is not out of the question. There are no shortage of 2.04 800m types who lack 53s speed...
    The 400 time matters for the 800 if there is good endurance that carries over to the next metabolic phase. Reference the rather long discussion about Warnier and even the 600 race of stars. What we have so far is an indication that there is currently very little carry over. With good carryover, the incremental lap is around 60 seconds for men and 65 for women. Here there is the implication that the incremental lap is better than for WR types. Yet we see that the 400 is much more likely a better event. I am sorry, but 3 x 2:34 with 5 minutes rest is not an indication of someone able to run 2:0x much less 2:04. 2:04 is equivalent to top 3 HS All-American, and I will bet every one of those All-Americans could run 5 x 2:24 with half as much rest (i.e., 5 x 2:24 with 400 jog).

    Leave a comment:


  • AS
    replied
    Originally posted by 26mi235
    How is someone who is running 2:33/2:34/2:35 suddenly going to knock off 30 seconds just by doing one of them? It seems that you are missing a digit in the tens place.
    But the 53s is the key here. That's good leg speed. With more endurance 2.04 or thereabouts is not out of the question. There are no shortage of 2.04 800m types who lack 53s speed...

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    How is someone who is running 2:33/2:34/2:35 suddenly going to knock off 30 seconds just by doing one of them? It seems that you are missing a digit in the tens place.

    Leave a comment:


  • dsrunner
    replied
    I agree.

    To predict 800 for a 400/800 runner multiply relay split x 2.33.
    If they can't manage that ratio, more miles isn't the answer anyway.

    Your runner should shoot for ~ 2:04 as a seasonal goal. If that's seems
    insurmountable, tell her the real goal is < 1:29 600m. That will buy you some to
    time to work on the confidence side for the 800m.

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    Just something to consider.
    Traditional endurance workouts may not be applicable to a 53 second 400 m. runner, with no Mile time.... i.e., a sprinter moving up in distance.
    It seems that you need to keep in mind the strengths, and gradually move that distance up to 800 m., as compared to a distance runner moving down to 800 m. Reps. between 300 and 600 m., with easy distance running for recovery, should be valuable as you move towards racing season.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Smoke:

    You might also try asking this question on LetsRun; they have a younger audience and more are in the competitive/distance side of things. However, you will have to filter out more junk at times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoke
    replied
    No competitive 800s.

    Appreciate the feedback, believe it or not even with the limited info you guys have helped me get a grip on what I am looking at. I at least know where this can go and where we are headed.
    Thank you

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X