8 X 500m Strategy

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » November 28th, 2005, 3:57 pm

I did this session today for the first time in quite a while, as I begin to introduce speed work back into my training ready to take in a 2k race sometime in the new year. I completed the session with 3:30 rest between reps, and managed splits of: 1:32.4, 1:32.4, 1:32.4, 1:32.4, 1:32.5, 1:32.5, 1:32.4, 1:31.9 Ave = 1:32.36 Before when I've done this session consistently (one every 3 weeks, cycled with two other speed sessions) I've gone slightly faster each time. Some people like to do it another way, though, and decrease the rest period each time. My aim is to race a 2k at just under 1:32.5 pace later this season, so am I best off getting faster and faster with this rest, or decreasing the rest each time? Why do you do it the way you do?

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » November 28th, 2005, 4:16 pm

hoi pete, I think it is important to do some speedwork faster than 2 k pace. Shortening the resttime will not make that possible and the training wil become something else. Less training your speed and more training your accid lactaat endurence. Combinding both you could do a 10/12 times 300 meters with 60 sec pause. Shortening the distance will make it possible to keep your speed above 2 k pace. henry

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 28th, 2005, 4:18 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Pete Marston @ Nov 28 2005, 11:57 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My aim is to race a 2k at just under 1:32.5 pace later this season, so am I best off getting faster and faster with this rest, or decreasing the rest each time? Why do you do it the way you do? </td></tr></table> Why do you do the VooDoo that you do? I'd generally recommend that 8 x 500M be done with 2 minute rest periods, and work toward having them as even as you did, and use the overall avg pace for your next target. i.e. If you had done these with 2 min rest the next session would begin with a 1:32.3 target, and see if there is something left for an extra punch on the final one. (SR would have to be controlled for to know, "did SPI increase on the final rep?") Why the 2 minute rest period? Well, the adaptation you are looking for is the more rapid processing of lactic acid, and giving yourself more time, instead of less, isn't going to invoke that. The longer rest periods will be good for overall strength building, a different adaptive process.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » November 28th, 2005, 5:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Pete Marston @ Nov 28 2005, 03:57 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My aim is to race a 2k at just under 1:32.5 pace later this season, so am I best off getting faster and faster with this rest, or decreasing the rest each time? </td></tr></table> You like to ask questions that have already been answered, don’t you? What answer are you fishing for? Historically, you like to disagree with me initially and then clandestinely convert to my way of thinking so that it will seem to be your original opinion. Remember this exchange from the UK forum back in 2003? By JA: Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:20 pm Post subject: Shorter Intervals Rest Periods-Lactate toleranceor clearance ________________________________________ A comment by Pete Marston that in his opinion the recoveries for level 1 workouts were too long on the Wolverine Workouts thread made me think By Pete Marston: Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 3:35 pm Post subject: ________________________________________ I think, as you already know, that the short recoveries, and lactate tolerance training (non-active recoveries) are the way to go for 2k training. What good is lactate clearance training really, unless you are doing a 4 x 500m race or something? In a 2k you need to be able to tolerate it more than clear it. IMO. By Mike Caviston: Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:48 pm Post subject: ________________________________________ As a student of physiology, I would suggest the idea of "lactate tolerance" training is every bit as misguided as the idea that there are "free" strokes to be had at the beginning of a 2K. Training has no significant effect on the muscle's ability to buffer lactate, as far as I know. Endurance training will improve lactate clearance, so that at a given workload (say, 2K pace) glycolytic muscle fibers will produce lactate while oxidative fibers will scavenge lactate thereby resulting in a lower post-training lactate level for a given workload. Hence the wisdom of including lots of LSD sessions as part of 2K training… In training, the three most important factors are intensity, intensity and intensity. Anything that compromises intensity reduces the effectiveness of training. By Pete Marston: Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:24 am Post subject: ________________________________________ Thanks for your thought Mike, although I think their are flaws in your thinking. (I would, I train differently) [See origianl thread <a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... highlight=' target='_blank'>HERE</a>] And there was this exchange earlier this year: By Sir Pirate: Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:57 pm Post subject: 500m Intervals at 2K Pace ________________________________________ I have been thinking about 500m interval sessions for a few weeks now and have been wondering what the “general guide” would be for 500m intervals at 2K pace with 1:30 rest, how many do you think the average person should be able to complete before failure? By Pete Marston: Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:41 pm Post subject: ________________________________________ At the moment I'm doing 8 x 500m weekly at the pace I want to do my first 2k next season. I think when I work the rest period down to 1:30 or just under I'll be able to do that pace for a 2k. So I agree with jd, at least 8 intervals at current 2k pace. I'm doing mine at the moment at 1:32.5 pace, and last week with 2:55 rest. By Mike Caviston: Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject: ________________________________________ FWIW, I experimented this past season with a format similar to what Pete describes. I did 8 x 500 every other week, starting @ 1:35 w/ 3:00 recovery and reducing the recovery 10 seconds each time. When I got down to 2:30 recovery I decided I wanted to work with more speed and went back to 3:00 recovery @ 1:34. I again shortened the recovery 10 seconds every other week until I got down to 2:30 again. That brought me up to the European IRC and after I got back from Amsterdam I abandoned the format and went back to gradually working towards the fastest pace I could manage with my standard 3:30 recovery. I had been thinking that doing 8 x 500 in the neighborhood of 1:31 was more speed than I needed for a 6:20ish 2K, but I am now flip-flopping back to my initial strategy. In my experience, what Pete is describing is a good workout, and I don’t think following that strategy seriously cost me any 2K speed, but all-in-all I think faster intervals with more recovery will be more productive for me. [See original thread <a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 17&start=0' target='_blank'>HERE</a>] Now, you have swung over to my way of thinking: <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I did this session today for the first time in quite a while, as I begin to introduce speed work back into my training ready to take in a 2k race sometime in the new year. I completed the session with 3:30 rest between reps </td></tr></table> Still, you are not quite sure. What more information do you need to make a final choice? BTW, this year I have indeed been doing 8 x 500m with a longer, fixed (3:30) rest period – and am much happier with the results vs. a fixed intensity and progressively shorter recovery periods. In particular, I feel my 8 x 500m are now doing a much better job of supporting my 4 x 1K workouts. Mike Caviston

[old] R S T · Post by **[old] R S T** » November 28th, 2005, 5:22 pm

PaulS suggests lower rest intervals. Mike C suggests faster pace. Is there a correct answer (assuming the goal is for a faster 2k time)? Or are they both right? Does it depend on the individual's lactate tolerance? Curious and confused. Richard

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 28th, 2005, 5:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(R S T @ Nov 28 2005, 01:22 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PaulS suggests lower rest intervals. Mike C suggests faster pace. Is there a correct answer (assuming the goal is for a faster 2k time)? Or are they both right? Does it depend on the individual's lactate tolerance? Curious and confused. Richard </td></tr></table> Well, this is why I couldn't actually vote in this poll. And the answer may well be more complicated than the simple choices given. I think it's possible that we might be able to agree that the rest period should be fixed and the pace pushed faster. The exact amount of rest will eventually set the lower limit of the interval pace. i.e. the more rest you take, the more intense each interval can be. Stephen Seiler reported on an experiment where 2k pace could be accomplished for 30 minutes as long as it was done in 30 second intervals alternated with 30 second rest periods. Now of course it won't work for 1 minute intervals alternated with 1 minute rest periods. The situations appear to be more similar than they are. Mike could probably explain exactly why that is, far better than I.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 28th, 2005, 5:51 pm

Pete, I think you should keep the same 3:30 rest or 5:00 start times that you had before. Then use a different workout for the less percentage of pause in between.

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » November 28th, 2005, 6:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ Nov 28 2005, 04:39 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(R S T @ Nov 28 2005, 01:22 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PaulS suggests lower rest intervals. Mike C suggests faster pace. Is there a correct answer (assuming the goal is for a faster 2k time)? Or are they both right? Does it depend on the individual's lactate tolerance? Curious and confused. Richard </td></tr></table> Well, this is why I couldn't actually vote in this poll. And the answer may well be more complicated than the simple choices given. I think it's possible that we might be able to agree that the rest period should be fixed and the pace pushed faster. The exact amount of rest will eventually set the lower limit of the interval pace. i.e. the more rest you take, the more intense each interval can be. Stephen Seiler reported on an experiment where 2k pace could be accomplished for 30 minutes as long as it was done in 30 second intervals alternated with 30 second rest periods. Now of course it won't work for 1 minute intervals alternated with 1 minute rest periods. The situations appear to be more similar than they are. Mike could probably explain exactly why that is, far better than I. </td></tr></table> It gets even more complicated if you start doing things like negative-splitting the intervals, i.e. increasing the pace incrementally either keeping spm constant or else increasing spm. And if you're into heart-rate training, which not everyone is, there's something to be said for using bpm as a proxy for lactate levels and letting it dictate the amount of rest. I personally think that there are many ways to a fast 2k, and a number of plausible ways to do 8 x 500 towards that goal. Moreover, I think that the utility of the workout -- and of any workout -- is best judged not in isolation but as part of a balanced, well-grounded training plan. Paul, I can believe that 2k might be doable for 30' as 30" on/ 30" off. I did a negative-splitted 15' of this the other day averaging 2k pace (1:35.5) and kept my HR well under threshold.

[old] Hal Morgan · Post by **[old] Hal Morgan** » November 28th, 2005, 6:29 pm

I row 500 and one minute rest. I row for the same stroke rate and the same split times. 8-10 sets I row the next set for faster splits at the same stroke rate. 8-10 sets Sometimes I adjust the damper from 10 to 1 for the same stroke rate attempting the same split time. good question thank you for posting it.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 28th, 2005, 7:04 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Sep 11 2005, 04:50 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I invented 8 x 500m </td></tr></table> I did this workout in 1962! Others did it long before me. This workout and similar have been around at least through two turns of the century! What is really funny is that Caviston used to criticise my ideas and now I see he has adopted several of them in his "Wolverine Plan", for example using progressive pace through the reps. What will Mike Caviston "invent" next???

[old] Zac · Post by **[old] Zac** » November 28th, 2005, 7:58 pm

Well, this is why I couldn't actually vote in this poll. And the answer may well be more complicated than the simple choices given. I think it's possible that we might be able to agree that the rest period should be fixed and the pace pushed faster. The exact amount of rest will eventually set the lower limit of the interval pace. i.e. the more rest you take, the more intense each interval can be. Stephen Seiler reported on an experiment where 2k pace could be accomplished for 30 minutes as long as it was done in 30 second intervals alternated with 30 second rest periods. Now of course it won't work for 1 minute intervals alternated with 1 minute rest periods. The situations appear to be more similar than they are. Mike could probably explain exactly why that is, far better than I. [/quote] Paul, The Stephen Seiler experiment you mention; do you take your best 2k pace and shoot for that for 30 seconds? And is the rest active or inactive? Also, in your opinion, would this be a viable workout to throw into one's training routine? I've not been doing this for too long, so any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Zac

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » November 28th, 2005, 8:47 pm

Hagerman's suggested intervals: <a href='http://sports.tjhsst.edu/crew/newsite/r ... /chart.php' target='_blank'>http://sports.tjhsst.edu/crew/newsite/r ... php</a> In your case: rest = 3 times work = 4:30. Actually if we continuously adjust the recovery/work ratio down as the work duration increases a rest of 3:30 seems in keeping with this chart also.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 28th, 2005, 9:08 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Zac @ Nov 28 2005, 03:58 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Well, this is why I couldn't actually vote in this poll. And the answer may well be more complicated than the simple choices given. I think it's possible that we might be able to agree that the rest period should be fixed and the pace pushed faster. The exact amount of rest will eventually set the lower limit of the interval pace. i.e. the more rest you take, the more intense each interval can be. Stephen Seiler reported on an experiment where 2k pace could be accomplished for 30 minutes as long as it was done in 30 second intervals alternated with 30 second rest periods. Now of course it won't work for 1 minute intervals alternated with 1 minute rest periods. The situations appear to be more similar than they are. Mike could probably explain exactly why that is, far better than I. </td></tr></table> Paul, The Stephen Seiler experiment you mention; do you take your best 2k pace and shoot for that for 30 seconds? And is the rest active or inactive? Also, in your opinion, would this be a viable workout to throw into one's training routine? I've not been doing this for too long, so any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Zac </td></tr></table> Since it looks as if I mis-remembered a bit on the 2k reference pace, here is the relevant article. It seems that this was a pace that could be maintained for 9 minutes for that particular athlete. (350watts = 1:40 Pace or 2700m in 9 min, I'd estimate a 6:30 2k for that athlete.) <a href='http://home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm' target='_blank'>Stephen Seiler - Understanding Intervals</a> Still a darn good read after all these years.

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » November 28th, 2005, 10:06 pm

Another perspective <a href='http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0146.htm' target='_blank'>Trimming recoveries in Intervals</a> George

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » November 28th, 2005, 10:57 pm

The work by Fox, Matthews, Bowers, Foss (From the 70's through the 90's) suggests a 1:2 work to recovery ratio for "moderate" interval distances such as 500m. So 3:00 to 4:00 would be what a 6-8 rep 500m session would require according to their work. They sought to technically explain which energy pathways were being trained in an interval format and what the athlete needed to do to balance safety, sustainability and productivity within this physiological dynamic we all know and love (and hate). Cutting the recovery time has been with us since Bannister's famous training for the sub 4:00 run, but I think the more modern concensus is that the fixed rest time/varying work rate is optimal for the effects we are looking for. Personally, I prefer 6x500m. (wimpier or faster, I can't tell).