[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1337511829"][quote author="star61" date="1337481831"]Interestingly there is a short discussion on CF.com of Michael Johnson’s training under Hart when he was preparing for Atlanta.
It’s months, every Monday or Tuesday for 10 months. Hart has them spend a month on each number of reps, so in September it’s 4 weeks of 15x200m and in June 5x200m. If I remember correctly he wrote that only a handful have been below 5 reps, MJ has been the only one to get down to 3 reps (3x200m @23 sec on 90 sec recovery) when he prepped for Atlanta.
MJ’s hardest session of this type off of 90secs rest seems to have been 3 reps x 200m, and 23 secs is not even 85% pace. Different strokes I guess.[/quote]
Of course, train slower to race faster. Much different developing a 200m runner with state champion speed and in better shape.
Now are we going 19.32 in practice and then getting 90%? I have made mistakes trying to go prs in practice like some dress rehearsal. Meet times are not practice times, especially tapered olympics! I base my times off of practice times.[/quote]Carl, no coach or athlete I’m aware of on this site, CF.com, or any other site I’m aware of, uses recent practice times to calculate intensity. To DETERMINE what intensity should be used, yes, but when calculating intensity, the value is always calculated from a recent PB. That is also the way intensity is used in the literature. You didn’t mention in your blog that you used practice times, which are slower, to calculate your intensities. Too ambiguous for me.
This thread primarily focused on whether or not 6 x 250 @ 90% with r90 secs is doable and should be considered a ‘staple’ session. I think it was probably assumed by most of the posters and readers that the intensity was calculated off of a recent PB, since that’s the accepted method. If you’re now saying that the typical intensity is more like 85% and the intensity is calculated off of practice times which are a few percent slower than race times, then this is nothing more than a typical, not very fast (low 80% true intensity) intensive tempo session. Had you made that clear earlier, I would have had nothing to say about it.
I would love it if Gabe, Matt, you, or anyone else posted a video clip of a successful session of 6 x 250 @ true 90% intensity (calculated from recent race PB) off of 90 secs rest between reps. The whole session would be less than 11 minutes long. If anyone posts such a video, with no breaks in filming and evidence of recent race times, I will eat crow and send you, and the poster, gift certificates for a nice steak dinner for two at your favorite restaurant!! How would that be for an apology?[/quote]
Read the blog entry again. Using electronic times in practice an comparing them is natural. My question to you is what is the limit? 6 x 250 @ 86%? Glad you talked about the PB comparison myth (I edited the 2002 forum review and was credited on the CF product) and it was included and a lot of the information was out of context or pasted from discussions that didn’t include the hand time comparisons.
One of reasons I am looking at old CF material was the fact I made the mistake of doing tempo on grass trying to do 75% of PB times. After talking not he phone many times (60 hours) and shifting through a lot of amazing advice and “Pope assassination” stories it’s good to see what was done with my own eyes when I visited North Carolina and Toronto.