Random Running Questions

TFBubendorfer

ger664 wrote: »

I can 100% say that indoor rowing is the one exercise, when you cant run that will keep your aerobic endurance intact

But be absolutely sure you're doing it correctly or you can really hurt your back!

Running mad

clear thinking wrote: »

Do a track 5k and you'll pick up 30s for free, or rathfarnham, a net downhill course.

Based on your paces fit in these 3 sessions in a week:

Do a 5x1km session in 4m18s per km with 80 seconds recovery. week on week reduce this to 60s, or 6*800 with 60s recovery at the same pace - 3m24s - maybe alternate these to

Do 10*200m (start with 6, build to 10) fast with recovery the same time as the run, eg. 40s fast run, 40s recovery.

do a 3-5k tempo run at 4m48s per km, or 2*2km at that pace as a change. EG a parkrun in 23.50-24.00.

if a 10k is on the horizon, do a tempo - say 4-5 miles at your 10 mile pace.

Thanks for the reply. I'll give these sessions a go. Do you recommend doing one of the above once a week or all 3?
3 sessions in a week seems a lot of you are only running 5 days a week. Sometimes I would do 2 sessions on Tues and Thurs.

Murph_D

Shakakan wrote: »

Re: Hal Higdon Half Marathon Novice 2

Hi, first HM coming up at the beginning of October (5 weeks away). Running since January. Following HH (ish) and wondering:
- how important is cross training? I've been lax for various reasons but planning to pick it up for the last few weeks (I do cycle 30 mins medium hard each day commuting though).
- the LSR's build up to 19K the week before the race. Is that enough? 3k seems like a bit of a jump in one week. I guess the 19k LSR will take me about 125 mins, while I'm hoping for a 125 minute HM. My longest LSR to date has been 13.5k (two weekends ago, followed by 11.5k last weekend). For the next few weeks the LSRs will be 10k (race, hoping for 55mins), 14.5k, 16, 17.5, 19k then the HM the week after. Not sure if I should increase the LSRs by a mile just to make the last increment a bit less...

I'm a big believer in sticking to the plan, especially the first time around. It's your first HM so it will be tough - every race is tough, really, if you run it at the right pace. The HH novice plans are relatively basic but that's good for a first timer. The adrenaline on the day will get you over the additional 3k, wouldn't worry about that. Trust the plan and enjoy the race! And check out the marathon novice thread for more of this kind of advice - lots of people on there who will be doing a HM for the first time in a few weeks.

clear thinking

Running mad wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I'll give these sessions a go. Do you recommend doing one of the above once a week or all 3?
3 sessions in a week seems a lot of you are only running 5 days a week. Sometimes I would do 2 sessions on Tues and Thurs.

If you are doing one session only then the 5*1k is the one to do.

You could ditch the 200s, but the good thing about the 200s is you will recover pretty quickly. If you're on an ordinary run lash in a few fast strides instead. if that suits you better.

And try to do a second session at the tempo pace - 10k - 10 mile so that would just be two out of 5 days -you could alternate the suggested paces.

SmallTeapot

I have a really basic question, so feel slightly embarrassed asking it here But the internet results I have found thus far don't really answer my query conclusively.

So I completed a race with some friends recently. We were all given a 'race time' result and a 'chip time result'. We are trying to figure out which is the true result as to how fast we completed the race....(I want to know how I rank compared to the others )

My 'race result' and my 'chip result' differ by about 2 mins. I'm unsure as to which one to pick which shows how fast my individual run actually was...

Would really appreciate if anyone could explain the difference between the 2 are.

Thanks

Firedance

SmallTeapot wrote: »

I have a really basic question, so feel slightly embarrassed asking it here But the internet results I have found thus far don't really answer my query conclusively.

So I completed a race with some friends recently. We were all given a 'race time' result and a 'chip time result'. We are trying to figure out which is the true result as to how fast we completed the race....(I want to know how I rank compared to the others )

My 'race result' and my 'chip result' differ by about 2 mins. I'm unsure as to which one to pick which shows how fast my individual run actually was...

Would really appreciate if anyone could explain the difference between the 2 are.

Thanks

your chip time is the time it took from when you crossed the start line to crossing the finish line, if your gun time is 2 mins slower it just means 2 mins had gone by from the race start to you crossing over the start line, does that make sense? The closer you are to the elite athletes the less the difference between the two times.

SmallTeapot

Firedance wrote: »

your chip time is the time it took from when you crossed the start line to crossing the finish line, if your gun time is 2 mins slower it just means 2 mins had gone by from the race start to you crossing over the start line, does that make sense? The closer you are to the elite athletes the less the difference between the two times.

Yes, it does - thanks Firedance :P Another quick q - how come some races rank participants by gun time? Is it just for elite runners to compare with others in the same category at the start line?

Firedance

SmallTeapot wrote: »

Yes, it does - thanks Firedance :P Another quick q - how come some races rank participants by gun time? Is it just for elite runners to compare with others in the same category at the start line?

ooh I don't know the answer to that I'm afraid but possibly, someone else might have a better idea

Wottle

SmallTeapot wrote: »

Yes, it does - thanks Firedance :P Another quick q - how come some races rank participants by gun time? Is it just for elite runners to compare with others in the same category at the start line?

Gun time is what counts for racing purposes/positions. Chip timing is just for your own benefit.

28064212

SmallTeapot wrote: »

how come some races rank participants by gun time?

Because that's the official result. The person who crosses the finish line first is the winner, regardless of chip times. If runner A wins a 5k in 15 minute gun time, and runner B finishes second in 15:15 gun time, it doesn't matter if B started 30 seconds later than A, A is still the winner

SmallTeapot

Thanks Wottle & 28064212 for the clarification.

So chip time is used for determining individual personal bests (i.e. how long it takes me to run a 5k, 10k etc.), and gun/race time for my individual rank in the race....

Am I correct with the above logic......? As in if I want to rate myself against my friends, we should compare chip times?



Thanks for answering my novice questions.....

28064212

SmallTeapot wrote: »

Am I correct with the above logic......? As in if I want to rate myself against my friends, we should compare chip times

Yep, that's right

adrian522

There was a bit of controversy in 2008 in SF where one of the mass start athletes tried to claim a victory despite starting 20 mins after the elites.

A similar event occurred at the 2008 Nike Women’s Marathon in San Francisco where Arien O’Connell ran 2:55:11, ahead of the Elite winner in 3:06! The “Elite” group were given a 20-minute head start.

Race officials actually implied she was to blame by not seeding herself as an “elite” runner. Sorry, when your PR is 3:08 for a women, that’s hardly an Elite! Duh!

_Tombstone_

Should You Measure Your Running in Minutes or Miles?

_Tombstone_

The role of vitamin D in athletic performance

Singer

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Should You Measure Your Running in Minutes or Miles?

Thanks for this link - the LifeHacker Vitals blog has some really good content and I hadn't seen it before. I've come across LifeHacker before, but a load of it is pretty trivial (story on the front page today: "Hide a Wi-Fi Access Point Inside a Pocket Book for Stealthy File Sharing" :rolleyes: ).

ger664

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

The role of vitamin D in athletic performance

Whatever about performance it is critical in muscle/bone recovery. Something to do with the absorption of magnesium and calcium. I was out with a number of reoccurring injuries years ago, someone wisely told me to get it checked. It was on the floor something like 11 got a booster injection in the ass (sore), injuries cleared up within 3 months. I don't think the soluble pills you get from the chemist will do you any good if its gone under 25.

Bungy Girl

Question for anyone familiar with this training schedule. I plan to use it for 10 weeks with the Jingle Bells 5K as the goal race at the end of it. Should I following the base building part for 8 weeks then the race phase for 2 weeks, or give the race phase a bit longer, such as 4 weeks ? It doesn't seem clear from the text but maybe I'm missing something.

dublin runner

Bungy Girl wrote:

. I plan to use it for 10 weeks with the Jingle Bells 5K as the goal race at the end of it. Should I following the base building part for 8 weeks then the race phase for 2 weeks, or give the race phase a bit longer, such as 4 weeks ? It doesn't seem clear from the text but maybe I'm missing something.

No, it's not very clear. A two-week race specific phase is very short. Depending on your base, I would work backwards from the race date, planning to do an 8-week 5k specific training. I think that race is a little over 12 weeks away. If so, you could do a 4 week base phase before the 8-week specific phase. If you feel you need some more base polar work, simply increase it by a week or two. It depends on where you are coming from. You need to be strong to do a 5k block. There's no point if you lack the decent foundation required.

There are loads of excellent plans out there so have a look at a few before settling on one.

Bungy Girl

dublin runner wrote: »

No, it's not very clear. A two-week race specific phase is very short. Depending on your base, I would work backwards from the race date, planning to do an 8-week 5k specific training. I think that race is a little over 12 weeks away. If so, you could do a 4 week base phase before the 8-week specific phase. If you feel you need some more base polar work, simply increase it by a week or two. It depends on where you are coming from. You need to be strong to do a 5k block. There's no point if you lack the decent foundation required.

There are loads of excellent plans out there so have a look at a few before settling on one.

Thanks very much for the input! I've just come off a base building block and have the half marathon on the 19th, so the plan was to have an easy week and then get stuck into a 10 week programme for 5K. I'd say my foundation is good enough now, but to be honest the thoughts of 20 x 400m at 5K pace is giving me collywobbles :eek:. I'll search around a bit more, as you suggest, and see if there's something a bit less intimidating. Cheers.

Myles Splitz

Bungy Girl wrote: »

Thanks very much for the input! I've just come off a base building block and have the half marathon on the 19th, so the plan was to have an easy week and then get stuck into a 10 week programme for 5K. I'd say my foundation is good enough now, but to be honest the thoughts of 20 x 400m at 5K pace is giving me collywobbles :eek:. I'll search around a bit more, as you suggest, and see if there's something a bit less intimidating. Cheers.

Funny enough I have posted that training plan more than once here as a reference. The basis is very solid and I have had plenty of success with the principles it is based on but you need to tailor it to suit your needs.

20x400 is a hugely different session for a 17 min 60 mpw person than it is a 22 min 20 mpw.

A very general guide would be:

-Instead of 400m distance work between 60-75 sec @ 5k pace with recovery of 30-45 secs

-Instead of 20 go with roughly 3 intervals per 10 mpw ran

(if your running less than 20 then would advise to continue building aerobic fitness with a steady run instead of interval session)

The problem is that base building here is not actually base building, its general prep so 6-8 weeks of this with 2-4 weeks of the other phase will get you in good nick.

The article itself is one of the better ones around in my opinion but you can't just follow it to the letter you need to read and fully understand the material and who is writting it. Always look to the authors running performances and break it down in terms of how it would translate to their training.

For example Magill is a 15 min 5k runner running 60-70 mpw as a master so

20*400m @ 5k pace w/ 100m jog recovery equates to

20*72 secs @ 5k pace w/ approx 30 sec recovery

for a 20 min 5k runner running 30 mpw you will get roughly same benefits based on background from

10-12*300m @ 5k pace w/ 30-45 second recovery

dna_leri

Bungy Girl wrote: »

Thanks very much for the input! I've just come off a base building block and have the half marathon on the 19th, so the plan was to have an easy week and then get stuck into a 10 week programme for 5K. I'd say my foundation is good enough now, but to be honest the thoughts of 20 x 400m at 5K pace is giving me collywobbles :eek:. I'll search around a bit more, as you suggest, and see if there's something a bit less intimidating. Cheers.

Definitely have a look around for some other training plans.

Pete Magill is a good runner but his training plans are not for everyone. You are right to be skeptical of 20x400m at 5K effort with 100m jog recovery. To me that's not realistic.

See this thread for more info:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96346977

Includes link to Steve Magness 5K training plan:
http://www.slideshare.net/sjm1368/evolution-of-training
In his pre-comp phase he does 3x4x400 at 5K pace w/ 30s rest 4 min b/t sets. In comp phase he will move to some longer reps e.g. 2x(800,1K,400)

dublin runner

dna_leri wrote: »

Includes link to Steve Magness 5K training plan:
http://www.slideshare.net/sjm1368/evolution-of-training
In his pre-comp phase he does 3x4x400 at 5K pace w/ 30s rest 4 min b/t sets. In comp phase he will move to some longer reps e.g. 2x(800,1K,400)

Agreed. The 20x400m ~100m recovery (@ true 5k pace) is quite unrealistic for most people. Those Magness sessions are a lot more approachable and importantly, easier to deal with mentally. Bloody tough though!

Bungy Girl

Thanks all for the info, very useful. I'll have a read of everything this evening and see what suits best. I want to improve, but not kill myself :eek:, so will take everything on board. I'd be a 21:xx FVet runner looking to go sub 21 and after the recent base building block, I can do 40-50 mpw comfortably.

Battery Kinzie

I've a question re: how ambitious one (specifically, me) should be.

I started running as something to do when the weather was getting nicer around May and then around start of July I got into it more (running about 15-25k a week; 2 5ks during the week and a longer run on the weekend).

My top 3 runs distance wise are 16k (90 minutes), 12k(60 minutes) and 10k(48 minutes). I only did the 16k there the other day and after it I started to consider doing the Clontarf HM on 21st November (10 weeks tomorrow). What sort of training should I do if I were to do it and what sort of time should I be aiming for? I'd have two times in my head, one ambitious one and one I should be able for, so I was thinking 1:40 and 2:00. How realistic is the 1:40? For training I was thinking just 3 of the weekdays doing a mixture of intervals and beach/hill running and then the odd parkrun on Saturday and a longer slow run on Sunday.

Also, I guess exercises like situps and the plank should be done daily to help? Haven't been doing anything like that these last few months but I must start.

Or, is it all a bit rushed considering I'll have only been running for a total of 7 months by the time it comes around, and only 4 of them were when I started to take an interest in how I was doing and started to 'train' more than to it out of pleasure.

Thanks!

Krusty_Clown

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

I've a question re: how ambitious one (specifically, me) should be.

I started running as something to do when the weather was getting nicer around May and then around start of July I got into it more (running about 15-25k a week; 2 5ks during the week and a longer run on the weekend).

My top 3 runs distance wise are 16k (90 minutes), 12k(60 minutes) and 10k(48 minutes). I only did the 16k there the other day and after it I started to consider doing the Clontarf HM on 21st November (10 weeks tomorrow). What sort of training should I do if I were to do it and what sort of time should I be aiming for? I'd have two times in my head, one ambitious one and one I should be able for, so I was thinking 1:40 and 2:00. How realistic is the 1:40? For training I was thinking just 3 of the weekdays doing a mixture of intervals and beach/hill running and then the odd parkrun on Saturday and a longer slow run on Sunday.

Also, I guess exercises like situps and the plank should be done daily to help? Haven't been doing anything like that these last few months but I must start.

Or, is it all a bit rushed considering I'll have only been running for a total of 7 months by the time it comes around, and only 4 of them were when I started to take an interest in how I was doing and started to 'train' more than to it out of pleasure.

Thanks!

If you're covering 16k in 90 minutes (comfortably?), then yes, you should most certainly be capable of running a half in 9-10 weeks. Best thing to do is look at Hal Higdon's Novice 2 plan, and see if you'd be comfortable jumping in at the appropriate week (based on how many weeks you have left). 1:40 is probably a bit aggressive, given your current times (are these training times or race performances?).

I wouldn't worry about planks and sit-ups, unless you've been doing them all along. Any gains at this point will be marginal. Better to focus on staying injury free, through appropriate stretching after your runs, and then incorporate the core work for your next goal (when it's planned a little better).

Battery Kinzie

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If you're covering 16k in 90 minutes (comfortably?), then yes, you should most certainly be capable of running a half in 9-10 weeks. Best thing to do is look at Hal Higdon's Novice 2 plan, and see if you'd be comfortable jumping in at the appropriate week (based on how many weeks you have left). 1:40 is probably a bit aggressive, given your current times (are these training times or race performances?).

I wouldn't worry about planks and sit-ups, unless you've been doing them all along. Any gains at this point will be marginal. Better to focus on staying injury free, through appropriate stretching after your runs, and then incorporate the core work for your next goal (when it's planned a little better).

I wouldn't say I did the 16k comfortably, I had a sore enough ankle half way through because I ran on sand for one kilometer and I very slightly went over my ankle. I think I could've done the extra 5k in a half hour, making it about 2 hours for a HM, but I'm not 100% sure.

Being honest, most of those times were probably faster than what I should be doing considering I had intended them to be slow. I have trouble going out and consistently keeping my pace slow, but I'm gonna improve on this. I wasn't exactly killing myself either, but for the 16k at least, I was pretty tired at the end (I didn't have any food or water in fairness and it was warm). I didn't need to walk for any part of it, and my splits were quite consistent.

One problem I'm having is that when I google something, the amount of information is mad, and a lot of it is contradictory. Some HM plans tell you to do completely different stuff from another one. I found the same when I was starting, some places tell you you must do X while another site says X is a waste of time. I find that very frustrating!

I did have hopes of getting my 5k time to below 20 minutes (currently 21) soon enough, but the fact that the next Clontarf HM after the coming one isn't until July (when I'll hopefully be travelling) makes me think this one is the one to do if I want to do one.

Oh, and I've never done an organised race before. In fact, I've never ran with someone else before. I plan to do a few parkruns over the coming weeks and seeing how I get on. If I do decide to do the HM, should these be run at race 5k pace, or at a slower pace and incorporated into my HM training? I.e., could improving my 5k time and training for a HM be done in conjunction?

Thanks a lot!

Krusty_Clown

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

I did have hopes of getting my 5k time to below 20 minutes (currently 21) soon enough, but the fact that the next Clontarf HM after the coming one isn't until July (when I'll hopefully be travelling) makes me think this one is the one to do if I want to do one.

Oh, and I've never done an organised race before. In fact, I've never ran with someone else before. I plan to do a few parkruns over the coming weeks and seeing how I get on. If I do decide to do the HM, should these be run at race 5k pace, or at a slower pace and incorporated into my HM training? I.e., could improving my 5k time and training for a HM be done in conjunction?

To be honest, you'd benefit more from following a structured plan, rather than anything else. You need to reign in those long runs and save the speed for speed days (like the Parkruns). If you look at the plan I linked to, it's got two tune-up races (5k and 10k), but it also has quite a few 'pace runs' which you could also do as part of a Parkrun (running closer to your planned half-marathon pace). You can move the training days around to suit your needs.

A 21 minute 5k suggests that you should be capable of a 1:37 half marathon, but to be honest, unless you are capable of getting the appropriate structure in place, you might be better off putting off the half marathon until next year. If you think you have the discipline to jump into a structured plan now (and stick with it for the next 9-10 weeks until race day) then go for it and come race day, you might surprise yourself and cruise under 1:40. But if you continue to run the long runs too fast, you can expect those ankle pains and tiredness to continue, as you're trying to force a pace, without having made the necessary adaptations. The structured half marathon plan will undoubtedly have a positive impact on your 5k times too.

Battery Kinzie

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

To be honest, you'd benefit more from following a structured plan, rather than anything else. You need to reign in those long runs and save the speed for speed days (like the Parkruns). If you look at the plan I linked to, it's got two tune-up races (5k and 10k), but it also has quite a few 'pace runs' which you could also do as part of a Parkrun (running closer to your planned half-marathon pace). You can move the training days around to suit your needs.

A 21 minute 5k suggests that you should be capable of a 1:37 half marathon, but to be honest, unless you are capable of getting the appropriate structure in place, you might be better off putting off the half marathon until next year. If you think you have the discipline to jump into a structured plan now (and stick with it for the next 9-10 weeks until race day) then go for it and come race day, you might surprise yourself and cruise under 1:40. But if you continue to run the long runs too fast, you can expect those ankle pains and tiredness to continue, as you're trying to force a pace, without having made the necessary adaptations. The structured half marathon plan will undoubtedly have a positive impact on your 5k times too.

Yeah, you're right, I've been a bit stupid with my training. I usually go out and depending how I feel after a kilometer I decide whether to do 5k or a longer run so I clearly need more structure.

I had a look at that novice 2 plan and I reckon I'd be able for it, thanks a lot for the link. I'll give it a bit more thought and planning before I decide. Cheers.

SoCal Pete

Hi all! - Don't normally participate in threads that touch upon my writing, coaching, training, etc. But happened across this one while doing a search for another article I'd written (yes, I sometimes use my own old articles for research, LOL!). Regarding the 5K training outlined in "Solving the 5K Puzzle," a few things:

1) Articles in magazines don't always represent the complete thought-process of the author. We have word limits, specifications from the editor (e.g., "Give me two weeks of race-specific preparation"), etc. So what you often get is a kind of generic approach to training, rather than an in-depth, week-by-week, training schedule.

2) A few of you on this thread got it right. It isn't so much doing "16 x 400" or "20 x 400" that's important. It's doing multiple reps that last slightly longer than 1 minute at 5K effort. And the short rest interval for those track workouts is imperative, as you'll see below.

3) The use of "5K effort" is NOT actually based upon the ultimate goal of racing a 5K. That's a coincidence. And it's why I focus on 5K "effort" rather than pace. In fact, this is a more cautious approach to getting the benefits of VO2 max work, which would equate to more of a 3K (or less) effort. But what I've found is that when people try to train at actual VO2 max effort, they usually train too hard, leading to burnout. So since 5K effort represents roughly 90-95% VO2 max, you get most of the benefits while having far less chance of overtraining.

4) Now, back to the 16-20 x 400m, with 100m recovery workout. You'll note that that particular workout isn't recommended until AFTER you've done the progression of road/trail sessions (5 x 2 min, 5 x 3 min, etc.). Those workouts have the goal of getting you to run the most minutes at near-VO2 max as possible (that's the goal of any repetition workout--to get more work at the desired effort level than you could get running in a single unbroken effort). Since it takes approximately 2 minutes for your body to reach V02 max during a repetition (following a longer rest interval), you can only count the minutes you add up AFTER the first two minutes of each rep. In other words, you get 1 minute of VO2 max work for a 3 minute interval, but you get 3 minutes of VO2 max work for a 5 minute interval. With that being the case, your final road/trail workout--5 x 5 minutes--would give you 25 minutes at 5K effort plus 15 minutes at near-VO2 max work. (Actually, I've changed my tune since writing that article, and never take my runners past the 4 x 5 minute sessions anymore, but that's still 20 minutes at 5K effort plus 12 minutes at near-VO2 max.)

With the road/trail work behind you, doing 16 x 400 or 20 x 400 is actually a very doable next progression in your training, while at the same time providing more near-VO2 max work! Let me explain. First, you've already run between 20-25 minutes at 5K effort before you ever get on the track. So your muscles and connective tissue are trained for the physiological pounding of the track workout. Second, you can't add more repetitions to your road/trail workout without putting TOO great a strain on those same muscles/CT. So, third, the ONLY way to increase the amount of near-VO2 max work in your workout is to cut down the rest. And you can't just cut it down a little. You have to cut it down a LOT. That's because you'll stay at near-VO2 max for 15-20 seconds after finishing a repetition. But then you begin to drop from that plateau fairly quickly. By a minute or two, you're back near square one. So the trick is to start your next repetition before you've dropped too far, so that you bounce right back up to near-VO2 max. A 100m jog recovery that takes 30-45 seconds serves that purpose. It'll take 15-20 seconds to get back to near-VO2 max in your next rep, meaning you'll get 55-60 seconds of near-VO2 max work per rep, plus the 15-20 seconds post-rep while your values stay high, giving you a total of 70-80 seconds of near-VO2 max work for each rep. (It's like Billat's 30-30 workout on steroids, LOL!)

If you start with 16 x 400 (or whatever adjustment in distance brings your rep to 70-80 seconds), you'll now run for about the SAME OR LESS total time at 5K effort than you did during your last session of road/trail reps, plus you'll get 16-18+ minutes at near-VO2 max work (note, it takes a couple reps to get up to near-VO2 max, just like it takes the first 2 minutes of a longer repetition to do so). Up it to 20 x 400 (or equivalent), and you're getting an enormous amount of work at that effort!

5) The idea that this workout is too hard for most competitive runners doesn't really hold water. A 5K itself is 12.5 x 400 at 5K effort with ZERO rest recovery. If you can't go 3.5 x 400 further, when you're getting a slow 100m jog after each 400, then you're probably (absolutely) not ready for a 5K at that pace. My experience is that runners who have a hard time with this workout try to run their 400s too fast (they treat it like a 1500m/Mile workout rather than strictly adhering to 5K effort). OR they try the workout as a starting point, rather than doing the 6-8 weeks of road/trail work that should have preceded it.

6) Of course, if you're goal isn't to be super-competitive (and the article in Running Times was specifically intended for competitive runners), then you can still get a great workout at 12 x 400m at 5K effort, with 100m recovery. But be forewarned that if you add a long rest (e.g., 400m jog or 3 minutes) after the first 4 reps, you won't get almost any work at near-VO2 max, as you'll be spending the first 2-3 reps of each 4-rep set just getting up to speed.

Wow, didn't mean to go on this long, LOL! Sorry, I love this stuff, and it's in my blood!

If you're interested, you can find more in my book, BUILD YOUR RUNNING BODY, on Amazon or in almost all brick and mortar bookstores. And I've got another one, THE BORN AGAIN RUNNER, coming out next spring.

Good luck!

Pete