27 Feb 2007 14:41:21
Robert Grumbine
Tuning ladders

In my track workouts, I generally do a single pace throughout.
Question came up recently about doing ladder workouts, and they
seem good for variety and mixing up paces. But ... how do you
select the paces to run at? Suppose we do an 800/1200/1600/1200/800
ladder. What paces are each at? If it's all the same pace,
where (the recovery?) are we making the difference between
the ladder and straight repeats?

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences


27 Feb 2007 14:52:13
MarkH
Re: Tuning ladders

[email protected] (Robert Grumbine) wrote

> In my track workouts, I generally do a single pace throughout.
> Question came up recently about doing ladder workouts, and they
> seem good for variety and mixing up paces. But ... how do you
> select the paces to run at? Suppose we do an
> 800/1200/1600/1200/800 ladder. What paces are each at? If it's
> all the same pace, where (the recovery?) are we making the
> difference between the ladder and straight repeats?

Things people worry about. When I go to the track, I just run as
hard as I can.



27 Feb 2007 15:12:17
Elflord
Re: Tuning ladders

On 2007-02-27, Robert Grumbine <[email protected] > wrote:
> In my track workouts, I generally do a single pace throughout.
> Question came up recently about doing ladder workouts, and they
> seem good for variety and mixing up paces. But ... how do you
> select the paces to run at?

Trial and error.

With descending ladders, one can do each rep at about the usual pace for a rep
that long in an interval workout. If the last reps are short (400m, 200m),
these can usually be run pretty fast.

That means "do it by feel" works pretty well for descending ladders. I haven't
tried an ascending ladder, just don't like the idea.

> Suppose we do an 800/1200/1600/1200/800
> ladder. What paces are each at?

800 @ 3k pace,
1200 @ 5k pace,
1600 @ 5k pace,
1200 @ 3k pace, (by this stage, you'll know how fast to run it)
800 @ mile pace. (ditto)

I'm making this up, but it seems about right.

> If it's all the same pace,

It isn't. Almost everyone will instinctively run the short reps faster.

Cheers,
--
Elflord


27 Feb 2007 08:02:23
runsrealfast
Re: Tuning ladders

On Feb 27, 8:41 am, [email protected] (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> In my track workouts, I generally do a single pace throughout.
> Question came up recently about doing ladder workouts, and they
> seem good for variety and mixing up paces. But ... how do you
> select the paces to run at? Suppose we do an 800/1200/1600/1200/800
> ladder. What paces are each at? If it's all the same pace,
> where (the recovery?) are we making the difference between
> the ladder and straight repeats?

For me really its about maintaining the pace throughout the workout.
Now thats not to say that the shorter repeats don't get ran faster.
Really that question depends on the individual athlete and what the
goals are.

John




27 Feb 2007 18:00:15
D Stumpus
Re: Tuning ladders


"Robert Grumbine" <[email protected] > wrote

> In my track workouts, I generally do a single pace throughout.
> Question came up recently about doing ladder workouts, and they
> seem good for variety and mixing up paces. But ... how do you
> select the paces to run at? Suppose we do an 800/1200/1600/1200/800
> ladder. What paces are each at? If it's all the same pace,
> where (the recovery?) are we making the difference between
> the ladder and straight repeats?

You do it by feel. I learned this from Marty Liquori's out of print book:
"ML's guide for the elite runner". Run each interval as fast as you can so
that you are on the threshold of tying up, but not quite there--just a bit
of leg burn, but you are going just as fast at the end as when you started,
and your stride is still smooth and quick. No straining.

If you do this, you'll find that your 200's will be run at roughly a 4%
faster pace then the 400's, and so on for each doubling of distance. Takes
a bit to learn the feel, but trust me (or don't, try it yourself), it works.

Don't look at your watch during the repeat -- listen to your body (feel your
legs, your stride, and the pain in your gut).

This implies that none of them are all out. That is the way to raise your
aerobic threshold (or Lactic Threshold). You're nudging the lactic
threshold up with each workout. If you run them all out, you end up
training your anerobic (lactic and glycolitic) systems, which is what the
milers and below need to do. If you're a distance runner, you end up having
an unpleasant time at the track, and it doesn't give you the aerobic payoff
that you get running just a tad slower (but still fast).



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



28 Feb 2007 07:04:45
Doug Freese
Re: Tuning ladders

> That means "do it by feel" works pretty well for descending ladders. I
> haven't
> tried an ascending ladder, just don't like the idea.

Just curious, why you don't like the idea. FWIW, back when I played
redliner one of my favorite workouts was 2X400(200 rest), 2x800(400
rest), 1XMile(400n or 800 rest), 2X800, 2X400. I faintly remember my
paces 1:22, 2:50, 6:05. I found workouts like this taught me to judge
pace since I was running 5k-marathon. The hardest part of this workout
is to find the correct paces to hold up and down the ladder. It's not a
workout for one just starting interval workouts.

I think this workout came from a fellow runner that was coached by Mike
Barnow but don't hold my feet to the fire. Since we were doing weekly
workouts we were always trying variations to keep from getting bored,
yet help us reach out goals. One day we did 20X400 alternating 200/400
rest. Excessive but it seemed like a good idea at the time and makes for
great war stories today.

-Doug





28 Feb 2007 14:40:18
Elflord
Re: Tuning ladders

On 2007-02-28, Doug Freese <[email protected] > wrote:
>> That means "do it by feel" works pretty well for descending ladders. I
>> haven't tried an ascending ladder, just don't like the idea.
>
> Just curious, why you don't like the idea.

I don't think there's much point doing the short reps unless you're prepared
to do them at a good pace. But doing that up a ladder is hard.

> FWIW, back when I played
> redliner one of my favorite workouts was 2X400(200 rest), 2x800(400
> rest), 1XMile(400n or 800 rest), 2X800, 2X400. I faintly remember my
> paces 1:22, 2:50, 6:05. I found workouts like this taught me to judge

that's a good match actually. I think if I tried an ascending ladder though,
I'd end up going way too slowly at the start.

> yet help us reach out goals. One day we did 20X400 alternating 200/400
> rest. Excessive but it seemed like a good idea at the time and makes for
> great war stories today.

Apparently 20x400 is or was reasonably popular, but the people doing that are
only spending a little over a minute on each of those quarters. I've never
done over 12 reps of anything in any workout, the monotony kills me beyond that.

Cheers,
--
Elflord


28 Feb 2007 14:57:11
Robert Grumbine
Re: Tuning ladders

In article <[email protected] >,
D Stumpus <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>"Robert Grumbine" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> In my track workouts, I generally do a single pace throughout.
>> Question came up recently about doing ladder workouts, and they
>> seem good for variety and mixing up paces. But ... how do you
>> select the paces to run at? Suppose we do an 800/1200/1600/1200/800
>> ladder. What paces are each at? If it's all the same pace,
>> where (the recovery?) are we making the difference between
>> the ladder and straight repeats?
>
>You do it by feel. I learned this from Marty Liquori's out of print book:
>"ML's guide for the elite runner". Run each interval as fast as you can so
>that you are on the threshold of tying up, but not quite there--just a bit
>of leg burn, but you are going just as fast at the end as when you started,
>and your stride is still smooth and quick. No straining.
>
>If you do this, you'll find that your 200's will be run at roughly a 4%
>faster pace then the 400's, and so on for each doubling of distance. Takes
>a bit to learn the feel, but trust me (or don't, try it yourself), it works.
>
>Don't look at your watch during the repeat -- listen to your body (feel your
>legs, your stride, and the pain in your gut).
>
>This implies that none of them are all out. That is the way to raise your
>aerobic threshold (or Lactic Threshold). You're nudging the lactic
>threshold up with each workout. If you run them all out, you end up
>training your anerobic (lactic and glycolitic) systems, which is what the
>milers and below need to do. If you're a distance runner, you end up having
>an unpleasant time at the track, and it doesn't give you the aerobic payoff
>that you get running just a tad slower (but still fast).

Well, I'm thinking of making the mile be my main distance for this year, so
there are some conflicting goals involved.

But, to try to summarize you, Doug, and Donovan:

The pace is pretty much the pace you'd be running straightforward intervals
at (400 - > mile pace, 800 at 3000 pace, etc.) Your 4% rule corresponds to
one of the proposed relationships between race pace at different distances,
for instance. But the 'pretty much' should be tempered with staying in good
form, as you note.

The recovery is also pretty much about what you'd do for repeated intervals,
just keep the recovery to what it would be for the preceding fast bit. So
a 400m-appropriate after the 400 you run and before the 800, an 800-appropriate
recovery between the 800 and 1200, etc.


Any thoughts about distances/paces to involve? Patterns to use?

For pace variety, I'll probably prefer something like 400/800/1200 at
mile, 3000, 5k pace -- fairly different paces including pretty fast.
(Well, relatively speaking.) But is it a good idea, per your comment
about anaerobic vs. aerobic (or at least VO2-max), to be mixing mile
pace with 5k pace? As a racing idea, it seems good to dip down to
mile pace to develop strength for the finish of races.

The short-long-short pattern is one we used when I was in HS track.
But nothing strikes me as terribly significant about that. long-short-long
(say 1200/800/400/800/1200 instead of 400/800/1200/800/400) seems
valid, and perhaps a good idea if you're trying to emphasize the longer
paces (introduce some miler running, but you're a 5k runner). Could
also see doing a sawtooth, 400/800/1200/400/800/1200. Backing the
400 and 1200 to each other might be good for practicing pace control --
having a big jump.


One reason for all the questions is that this isn't just for
myself. If it were, I'd probably just go experiment now. As it is,
though, it's for track night with my running club. So before
I inflict things on them, I'd like to do more exploring with
others' experience.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences


28 Feb 2007 09:15:49
D Stumpus
Re: Tuning ladders


"Robert Grumbine" <[email protected] > wrote

> The pace is pretty much the pace you'd be running straightforward
> intervals
> at (400 -> mile pace, 800 at 3000 pace, etc.) Your 4% rule corresponds to
> one of the proposed relationships between race pace at different
> distances,
> for instance. But the 'pretty much' should be tempered with staying in
> good
> form, as you note.

> The recovery is also pretty much about what you'd do for repeated
> intervals,
> just keep the recovery to what it would be for the preceding fast bit. So
> a 400m-appropriate after the 400 you run and before the 800, an
> 800-appropriate
> recovery between the 800 and 1200, etc.

Yes. Although Lydiard and Liquori, during the sharpening phase decrease
the recovery and reps and increase the quality. Decreasing the recovery has
the effect of making you run the reps with more LA in your muscles, which I
don't like to do as a distance runner -- LA impairs aerobic performance and
development by changing the PH of the muscles.

> Any thoughts about distances/paces to involve? Patterns to use?
>
> For pace variety, I'll probably prefer something like 400/800/1200 at
> mile, 3000, 5k pace -- fairly different paces including pretty fast.
> (Well, relatively speaking.) But is it a good idea, per your comment
> about anaerobic vs. aerobic (or at least VO2-max), to be mixing mile
> pace with 5k pace? As a racing idea, it seems good to dip down to
> mile pace to develop strength for the finish of races.

Lydiard noted that if you have a very strong finish, you haven't developed
your aerobic systems, and need more speedwork to (counter intuitively)
enable you to hold a higher pace for the race and finish with an emptier
tank (and a faster time).

Ever notice how the slower male runners often have withering kicks, while
the very fit don't?

> The short-long-short pattern is one we used when I was in HS track.
> But nothing strikes me as terribly significant about that.
> long-short-long
> (say 1200/800/400/800/1200 instead of 400/800/1200/800/400) seems
> valid, and perhaps a good idea if you're trying to emphasize the longer
> paces (introduce some miler running, but you're a 5k runner). Could
> also see doing a sawtooth, 400/800/1200/400/800/1200. Backing the
> 400 and 1200 to each other might be good for practicing pace control --
> having a big jump.

I always want to track my progress, so I use a very simple set of non-ladder
workouts which I alternate. I don't know of any reason or research for
ladders, other than relief from boredom. I don't have any problem doing up
to 20x200, or 10x400, so I tend to pick a distance de-jour and hang with
it -- makes it easier to zero in on the proper pace for the distance, and
easier to remember my average pace for x reps of y.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



28 Feb 2007 18:37:12
Robert Grumbine
Re: Tuning ladders

In article <[email protected] >,
D Stumpus <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>"Robert Grumbine" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> The pace is pretty much the pace you'd be running straightforward
>> intervals
>> at (400 -> mile pace, 800 at 3000 pace, etc.) Your 4% rule corresponds to
>> one of the proposed relationships between race pace at different
>> distances,
>> for instance. But the 'pretty much' should be tempered with staying in
>> good
>> form, as you note.
>
>> The recovery is also pretty much about what you'd do for repeated
>> intervals,
>> just keep the recovery to what it would be for the preceding fast bit. So
>> a 400m-appropriate after the 400 you run and before the 800, an
>> 800-appropriate
>> recovery between the 800 and 1200, etc.
>
>Yes. Although Lydiard and Liquori, during the sharpening phase decrease
>the recovery and reps and increase the quality. Decreasing the recovery has
>the effect of making you run the reps with more LA in your muscles, which I
>don't like to do as a distance runner -- LA impairs aerobic performance and
>development by changing the PH of the muscles.

Familiar with the world of 'more lactic acid in your muscles'. I
probably incline too much towards it, hampering my 10k-ish running.

>> Any thoughts about distances/paces to involve? Patterns to use?
>>
>> For pace variety, I'll probably prefer something like 400/800/1200 at
>> mile, 3000, 5k pace -- fairly different paces including pretty fast.
>> (Well, relatively speaking.) But is it a good idea, per your comment
>> about anaerobic vs. aerobic (or at least VO2-max), to be mixing mile
>> pace with 5k pace? As a racing idea, it seems good to dip down to
>> mile pace to develop strength for the finish of races.
>
>Lydiard noted that if you have a very strong finish, you haven't developed
>your aerobic systems, and need more speedwork to (counter intuitively)
>enable you to hold a higher pace for the race and finish with an emptier
>tank (and a faster time).
>
>Ever notice how the slower male runners often have withering kicks, while
>the very fit don't?

Still, Tergat v. Geberselassie showed some pretty good kick speed
in their 10k matchups in the Olympics. But, yes, generally if I have
much to kick with at the end, it's because I wasn't running the rest
of the race fast enough. But then, when I'm out there, I'm essentially
time-trialing, not racing. Racers have somewhat different priorities.

>> The short-long-short pattern is one we used when I was in HS track.
>> But nothing strikes me as terribly significant about that.
>> long-short-long
>> (say 1200/800/400/800/1200 instead of 400/800/1200/800/400) seems
>> valid, and perhaps a good idea if you're trying to emphasize the longer
>> paces (introduce some miler running, but you're a 5k runner). Could
>> also see doing a sawtooth, 400/800/1200/400/800/1200. Backing the
>> 400 and 1200 to each other might be good for practicing pace control --
>> having a big jump.
>
>I always want to track my progress, so I use a very simple set of non-ladder
>workouts which I alternate. I don't know of any reason or research for
>ladders, other than relief from boredom. I don't have any problem doing up
>to 20x200, or 10x400, so I tend to pick a distance de-jour and hang with
>it -- makes it easier to zero in on the proper pace for the distance, and
>easier to remember my average pace for x reps of y.

That's my inclination as well. I might mix up the distances more than you,
but any given day, am pretty well satisfied to take one distance and just
bang it out.

Oh, remember back when I was making claims about 800s being easy
(versus 'Yasso 800s' and the marathon)? I'm still not regularly over
10 miles per week, so realistic marathon time is still range of 6 hours.
But ignoring that and using relatively optimistic projection off a
recent 5k gives a 4:20 marathon. I loafed last week through a 4xmile
with quarter mile walked recovery (about 4:00). I'll call this equivalent
to at least 8x800+equal recovery. Pace was 4:10 per half, easily faster
than could be expected off my body's current notion of speed, and far,
far faster than I could pull off a marathon given current lack of endurance.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences


28 Feb 2007 19:11:54
Elflord
Re: Tuning ladders

On 2007-02-28, Robert Grumbine <[email protected] > wrote:
>>Ever notice how the slower male runners often have withering kicks, while
>>the very fit don't?
>
> Still, Tergat v. Geberselassie showed some pretty good kick speed
> in their 10k matchups in the Olympics. But, yes, generally if I have
> much to kick with at the end, it's because I wasn't running the rest
> of the race fast enough. But then, when I'm out there, I'm essentially
> time-trialing, not racing. Racers have somewhat different priorities.

It's also interesting to note that 10k and 5k world records tend to have
very fast finishing laps.

Cheers,
--
Elflord


28 Feb 2007 19:15:30
Elflord
Re: Tuning ladders

On 2007-02-28, D Stumpus <[email protected] > wrote:

> Lydiard noted that if you have a very strong finish, you haven't developed
> your aerobic systems,

Like Bekele and Defar

> Ever notice how the slower male runners often have withering kicks, while
> the very fit don't?

Now you're being mean. Bekele's not that slow (-;

Cheers,
--
Elflord


28 Feb 2007 11:38:20
Charlie Pendejo
Re: Tuning ladders

Donovan wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Ever notice how the slower male runners often have withering
>> kicks, while the very fit don't?
>
> Now you're being mean. Bekele's not that slow

Aw man, you (and Robert) beat me to the punch.

C'mon Dan, pick on someone your own size. Poor Kenny B, he's only
what, 4'7" and 68 pounds?



28 Feb 2007 13:05:57
D Stumpus
Re: Tuning ladders


"Elflord" <[email protected] > wrote

> Like Bekele and Defar
>
>> Ever notice how the slower male runners often have withering kicks,
>> while
>> the very fit don't?
>
> Now you're being mean. Bekele's not that slow (-;

No fair, you remember me posting about Bekele's withering kick....

I was being too brief: if your finish is better than the rest of the race,
you need more speedwork. If you can run 5 x 4:15/mile then kick in a 24
second last 220, like Bekele, then that's obviously not your problem :-)




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



01 Mar 2007 14:14:37
Robert Grumbine
Re: Tuning ladders

In article <[email protected] >,
Elflord <[email protected] > wrote:
>On 2007-02-28, Robert Grumbine <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Ever notice how the slower male runners often have withering kicks, while
>>>the very fit don't?
>>
>> Still, Tergat v. Geberselassie showed some pretty good kick speed
>> in their 10k matchups in the Olympics. But, yes, generally if I have
>> much to kick with at the end, it's because I wasn't running the rest
>> of the race fast enough. But then, when I'm out there, I'm essentially
>> time-trialing, not racing. Racers have somewhat different priorities.
>
>It's also interesting to note that 10k and 5k world records tend to have
>very fast finishing laps.

Do they? I thought that the last time someone had pulled up WR lap
splits here (maybe Denny Anderson?) they were extremely even, last lap
included.

There's a different thing, iirc. That is, running seems to leave
energy for a 30 second or so kick at the end. From some physio lab
work, as I recall it, if people were put on a lab bike the pace could
be set to something that left them able to complete, but unable to
speed up at the end. But people on a treadmill could always kick
the last 30 seconds, as long as the pace was something they could
finish the first N-30 seconds.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences


01 Mar 2007 15:54:01
Elflord
Re: Tuning ladders

On 2007-03-01, Robert Grumbine <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Elflord <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 2007-02-28, Robert Grumbine <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Ever notice how the slower male runners often have withering kicks, while
>>>>the very fit don't?
>>>
>>> Still, Tergat v. Geberselassie showed some pretty good kick speed
>>> in their 10k matchups in the Olympics. But, yes, generally if I have
>>> much to kick with at the end, it's because I wasn't running the rest
>>> of the race fast enough. But then, when I'm out there, I'm essentially
>>> time-trialing, not racing. Racers have somewhat different priorities.
>>
>>It's also interesting to note that 10k and 5k world records tend to have
>>very fast finishing laps.
>
> Do they? I thought that the last time someone had pulled up WR lap
> splits here (maybe Denny Anderson?) they were extremely even, last lap
> included.
>

That's my impression, for 5k and 10k. Mile is usually more even. Take a look at
Noakes -- he has some nice pace charts that show fast finishing KM. Also, I
watched recent records by Bekele and Defar, both ran very fast last laps.

> There's a different thing, iirc. That is, running seems to leave
> energy for a 30 second or so kick at the end. From some physio lab

I think that has a lot to do with it. They can sit and "coast" just below some
critical BLA level and then leave it all out there in the last minute or so.

Cheers,
--
Elflord


01 Mar 2007 16:12:12
Robert Grumbine
Re: Tuning ladders

In article <[email protected] >,
Elflord <[email protected] > wrote:
>On 2007-03-01, Robert Grumbine <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Elflord <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 2007-02-28, Robert Grumbine <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>Ever notice how the slower male runners often have withering kicks, while
>>>>>the very fit don't?
>>>>
>>>> Still, Tergat v. Geberselassie showed some pretty good kick speed
>>>> in their 10k matchups in the Olympics. But, yes, generally if I have
>>>> much to kick with at the end, it's because I wasn't running the rest
>>>> of the race fast enough. But then, when I'm out there, I'm essentially
>>>> time-trialing, not racing. Racers have somewhat different priorities.
>>>
>>>It's also interesting to note that 10k and 5k world records tend to have
>>>very fast finishing laps.
>>
>> Do they? I thought that the last time someone had pulled up WR lap
>> splits here (maybe Denny Anderson?) they were extremely even, last lap
>> included.
>
>That's my impression, for 5k and 10k. Mile is usually more even. Take a look at
>Noakes -- he has some nice pace charts that show fast finishing KM. Also, I
>watched recent records by Bekele and Defar, both ran very fast last laps.

Ok. Was that 3rd or 4th edition Noakes? I have both handy (now).

>> There's a different thing, iirc. That is, running seems to leave
>> energy for a 30 second or so kick at the end. From some physio lab
>
>I think that has a lot to do with it. They can sit and "coast" just below some
>critical BLA level and then leave it all out there in the last minute or so.

So I'd have been thinking, but this doesn't explain why bikers can't
do the same thing.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences


01 Mar 2007 16:51:18
Elflord
Re: Tuning ladders

On 2007-03-01, Robert Grumbine <[email protected] > wrote:

>>That's my impression, for 5k and 10k. Mile is usually more even. Take a look at
>>Noakes -- he has some nice pace charts that show fast finishing KM. Also, I
>>watched recent records by Bekele and Defar, both ran very fast last laps.
>
> Ok. Was that 3rd or 4th edition Noakes? I have both handy (now).

Think it's the 4th. If you can't find it easily, don't sweat it, I can
provide a page ref after I get home.

>>I think that has a lot to do with it. They can sit and "coast" just below some
>>critical BLA level and then leave it all out there in the last minute or so.
>
> So I'd have been thinking, but this doesn't explain why bikers can't
> do the same thing.

yeah, I know. I suppose that implies the fatigue mechanism is slightly different
in cyclists. Maybe it's slightly more localised.

Cheers,
--
Elflord


01 Mar 2007 13:27:24
D Stumpus
Re: Tuning ladders


"Elflord" <[email protected] > wrote

>> So I'd have been thinking, but this doesn't explain why bikers can't
>> do the same thing.
>
> yeah, I know. I suppose that implies the fatigue mechanism is slightly
> different
> in cyclists. Maybe it's slightly more localised.

That last 20 second burst is the creatine-phosphate pathway, which is always
there at the end.

It's like putting nitro in the gas tank...very high energy, but only for a
little while.

Re cyclists, I've seen a bunch of races (brother is a competitor), and those
guys go nuts at the finish in Criterions, after going very hard for a long
while.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



01 Mar 2007 13:33:50
Charlie Pendejo
Re: Tuning ladders

Robert Grumbine wrote:
> Donovan wrote:
>> It's also interesting to note that 10k and 5k world records tend
>> to have very fast finishing laps.
>
> Do they? I thought that the last time someone had pulled up WR lap
> splits here (maybe Denny Anderson?) they were extremely even, last lap
> included.

Kenny B sure does seem to have an especially fast 400m, though I'm not
well versed in the sport's history and can't say whether some of his
record-holding predecessors weren't comparable in this regard. Here's
(about nine minutes of) video from his 10,000m record:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6roXDygZ3ag