IOW, is it simply that the guy who trains shorter/intensely can match the same speed but for a shorter period, while the longer/slower trainer can just go longer?
Here is my best example of volume over speed. I used to run speed twice a week and my favorite was 12x400 with 20 seconds rest. My theory is that I would run my goal race pace and slowly reduce the recovery time. Unfortunately, all I ever did was become good at running 12x400. At best I could hold 75-76 seconds for the splits and I never came close for a 5K to running 15:30.
Then I went from 22 miles a week to over 40 in about 10 weeks and tried the workout again, not having done any speed in that entire time. The first time out I did 16x400 and they were all 72-74. Unfortunately the only race I had to test myself at was a really miserably hilly 4K cross country course that horrible. About 3 weeks later I did run a 4-mile race in 20:40 for about a 45 second improvement over the year before. The aerobic efficiency you gain with the volume let’s you run faster without accumulating lactic acid at the same rate.
Brian Stover, aka the desert dude described speedwork as the “1 percent solution” because you can only get so much out it before you max out. Lydiard said that 4-6 weeks of hard intervals was as much as you could do before you were working counterproductive to your base.
Chad
But see, here’s the thing. That speedwork is almost “sprintwork.” I agree that it’s probably not really all that useful. When I am talking about not running slow, that doesn’t mean going to the extreme and busting out X x 400s. I AM talking about some LT runs, tempo runs, etc.
Not sure I buy into the no-man’s land thing (or AC’s “mushy middle”). Especially for running. Mostly because you just aren’t going to do lots of 2 hour runs anyway, so you might as well make that 0.75-1.5 hour run more intensive than your LSD pace. Even if you run 50 mpw, at 8 mins, that’s still only 6.7 hours/week (for me, more like 8 hrs/week). If you ran those even slower, over say 8 hours (9 for me), that’s not real high volume (for a runner). I doubt many are going to get fast half-marathon runs from 8 hours of only easy LSD.
I have no credentials or accomplishments to prove anything. But my bet is that a good slug of say 75% LSD makes sense, with some tempo and LT work making up the other 25%. But no need for X x 400s.
I had an experience with this on the weekend. I went out to ride with a roadie group - now, I haven’t ridden with a group for about 18mths, and I do most of my rides at AET +/- 5/10 BPM, and usually solo or with one other. I have gotten noticeably faster and stronger in this time.
But on Sunday I rode with the Lance alikes…and I found myself riding much harder than normal, guys were dropping the hammer within the first 20 mins, sprinting at the top of hills etc. Just like a road race, really. But it seemed kind of pointless. The guys who were hammering in minute 20 couldn’t hold my wheel come the 2 hr mark. And I was only riding easy/steady, which wasn’t fast given that I am on the recovery path after injury.
I think for most AG riders/runners, going fast does little for our bodies, but it helps our egos. Most of us are nowhere near as fast/strong as we would like to think we are. For most of us, it is much easier to train fast, than race fast.
perhaps the silence you hear is that folks have figured out that the whole bogus concept of ‘no man’s land’ is right up there with Eddie B’s “eat fast animals to go fast” logic…
At least for cycling NML was basically high zone 3–too hard to be effective for raising LT, but to hard to be endurance training.
Funny, now No Man’s Land has been replaced with “Sweet Spot Traing”–which strangely corresponds with the old “No Man’s Land”. Some are arguing that this is the idea place to train in to raise your threshold??
My question was mostly rhetorical…just want to hear an answer from the “no man’s land” people.
Of course, one could argue that their specific/optimal adaptations occur at slightly weightings than are displayed in the linked chart (so the number of ‘checkmarks’ could shift around a bit) but that would appear to be contradicted by their offering advice/coaching along the same lines as their own personal ‘weighting’. That doesn’t make sense.
roady - I did a good amount of ‘sweet-spot’ riding this year with some really good results. Of course, I’ve had a fairly significant change in body comp and my training has been a little more consistent (although I spend fewer hours per week training than I did last year) so I can’t attribute all my ‘success’ to just one of the changes I’ve made…
But my bet is that a good slug of say 75% LSD makes sense, with some tempo and LT work making up the other 25%. But no need for X x 400s.