After Monday's speed session, I felt soreness in my lower back, hams, and in the right proximal ham, which is new, (it had always previously been the left). Nothing serious but it made me think of the two basic rules in the Bill Collins masters training book that strongly guided my entry into masters track:
1. Don't train in spikes
2. Don't run 100% all out in training
What I take #2 to mean is all out top speed like 40m - 100m. Allan recently criticized me for not doing both of the above, but to me, getting to the start line healthy is #1. Allan is the fastest man in the world over 60, but I have run literally more races in one season than he has run in his master career. Also, my injury to race ratio is at least 20X better than his. As I age, I think I need to stick closely to these 2 rules. I've ignored both and they have come back to bite me. Running at 400m race pace is not 100% all out running, so that is fine. It's ridiculous to believe that running a half or 3/4 second off your 100m PR in training shoes is going to adversely affect your top speed development. The strength derived from submaximal tempo training certainly will increase speed. But, then again, I'm not a 100m specialist like Allan.
The newest "fad diet" of training methods is Tony Holler's "Feed the Cats" regime that is basically a training method emphasizing a high percentage of all-out short sprint training. Flying 30s, 60s, etc... Now this can make sense for a high schooler, as he is a HS coach, but NOT for the aging masters. A lot of masters subscribe to this and I see it as risky and of limited effect, especially for anything longer than 100m. Frankly, I find it an attempt at a 'shortcut' to doing the hard intensive tempo interval work that has been proven successful in elites from Michael Johnson to Jeremy Wariner, or anyone who trained under Clyde Hart. Face it, not many masters have the stones to do intensive tempo 200m and 300m repeats, especially week in and week out. However, I do understand that the best speed reserve is top speed, and if you don't have it, it's hard to get it. But at the very least, top short speed work should be used sparingly toward mid and championship season. And, there is a difference between 98% and all out 100%. I've found many times I've run faster at an apparent 98% effort as opposed to 100%. Bottom line is that no masters over 60 is going to run a faster 200m or 400m if all they do is 30s and 60s.
Anyway...
Very cold today, mid 30ºs with gusty winds. Light snow dusting overnight. Quite a change from the low 60ºs yesterday. If the weather were better I might go to the track, but with some lingering soreness, I'm going to pass and do some strength today.
Yesterday, I did a Roarks cove bike climb. Modest pace, just under 25 min. HR stayed under 170 for the whole climb except for 30 sec at the end. It was under 164 for most of the climb despite the fact I was breathing pretty hard at times.
I was given a Cervelo biking kit with pants, shirt, cap by my tenant, so I tried out my first pair of bicycle pants on this ride. I guess they were too big as I was always pulling the padding back up from the rear as it kept getting pushed forward. Probably won't wear them again.
Tomorrow, I am going for my appointment with the oral surgeon. The tooth feels better, almost normal now. I wonder if I should even get the surg
ery? Probably so. Since I will be in town, I'm going to get a blood draw for some of my tests purchased from Ulta.
Yesterday, I ate some boiled hulled barley for variety. It was ok. Nutritionally, oat bran seems superior having less carb and calories, more protein.
About 141 lbs this morning.
Bill`s training works for him, yours works for you. No reason why they should be interchangeable. Horses for courses.
ReplyDeleteI have always though that the core of any runners training is to run about 2xper week close to target race pace over a relevant distance. It seems to work up to about 5K, after that the balance of the 2 components shifts towards the distance part of the equation.
This would suggest Tony H short sprints of 30-60 is more relevant to 100 m racing. There is limited (none ?) evidence for Masters sprinters training this way, certainly not for 400m. I totally get his view that low volume high quality sprints are good for the mindset of many younger athletes. The protocol may work for more experienced runners trying to raise their speed reserve over say a 3 month period.
However, hard tempo repeats over 100-300m at around 400 race pace appears a key part of many successful runners training for 400. So for someone like yourself aiming for just under 60 secs, running at around 15 secs per 100m over these distances appeared to be logical.
Whatever, we need to sprint at close to race pace. There is little correlation between 800m best times and 400m, but plenty with the 200m time.
My own efforts at sprint to middle distance, which were pretty pathetic proved it to me. 200m = 30, 400m = 62, 800m =2.21. Correlation for 400m is all from the 200m time.
“ It's ridiculous to believe that running a half or 3/4 second off your 100m PR in training shoes is going to adversely affect your top speed development.” I’m not sure this is supported by physics. Small increases in speed at high speeds take a significant increase in power output (non linear). Calculating watt differences required to run 13 vs 12 seconds for a 70 kg man yields 42 watts. To put in perspective 42 watt difference in cycling up Roarkes cove road is like comparing your easy climb to your fastest climb. So if you aren’t tapping into that top end power you might not be developing top end speed. Trust physics.
ReplyDeleteWe used to have a similar discussion when I was on a in-line indoor speed skating (think short track ice speed skating). Some coaches would promote using softer wheels in training for more grip and to overcome rolling resistance. But you are slower. Then you go to the meet and use your harder wheel on a fresh urethane track with good grip and faster speeds and your legs lock up from the higher centripetal forces. Meet’s usually were a few days and if you had a second meet the next week legs adapted and you skated better. So for sure in that sport it makes a huge difference but it is amplified by peak force to overcome going around the cones at 20 mph or so.
DeleteRefresher on the sport. You have/had the attributes to be really good in this sport. Tons of fun. https://youtu.be/uuwIF0RyzLA?si=MqDK842TsqZPItX8
DeleteShort speed, 100m and down, is not hugely trainable, certainly not without risk in a M65 sprinter, and not compared to long sprints. The type of training that would produce small gains in 100m top speed for me, are not worth the risk. I don't have great form or long stride, all I have is basically turnover, strength to weight ratio, and a decent start (which I also hardly ever practice). I know my weaknesses and try to work on them. However, I spend very little time on short/top speed work. In '21, same yr I ran 2:18 in an 800, I ran the first 100m race of my year in late July and ran 12.43, which is just 0.26 off my masters PR I had run almost 10 yrs earlier.
DeleteI do think submaximal training, like any type of strength work, will increase top speed. Many masters race the 400 but few have the stones to do the intensive tempo work. I too would rather go out and run flying 30s, instead of 3x300 w/3m
DeleteI think my power analogy was mostly wrong - it would be right with the same equipment but the speed being slowed by energy absorption is the key factor. Force curve on musculoskeletal system probably different. From someone who is afraid to run at all due to injury risk certainly get your point. I’m just picky.
DeleteIt is possible to run with correct technique and maximum effort (100% if so inclined) but still be slower by a fraction of a second in trainers. All other things being equal the force applied is never 100% delivered to the ground for the rebound effect. This is most noticeable in trainers which absorb some of the energy and transfer it to heat form.
ReplyDeleteSpikes with thin soles have less energy loss.
The other factor by which trainers reduce speed is they mitigate against optimum foot strike angle and dorsiflection which slows you down (force vectors).
Sprinting is highly dependant on adequate recovery and not too high a volume at near max v. The benefit of less frequent use of spikes is reduced injury risk, IMHO this can outweigh the benefits of losing a fraction in actual speed.
Cycling is clearly a different mechanism of energy efficiency.
Agree injury risk is probably not worth the small gain. But if young and expect a short career (not doing it for decades) probably necessary for peak performance.
DeleteNice technical explanation of the force vector and rebound impact. I would postulate that peak force on the muscle-skeletal system is higher with the spikes at the same perceived power input, or there is some averaging (over milliseconds) of the force with trainers from the energy absorption. Small effects.
Delete