This is not correct for the period of 94-96 when BK ran his best. He was running 90-100 with a single peak week of maybe 105. After that he increased is mileage up to I believe a peak of 141, partially to train for a 10000....and he got slower. That's what high mileage did for him.
Speed Kills wrote:
This is not correct for the period of 94-96 when BK ran his best. He was running 90-100 with a single peak week of maybe 105. After that he increased is mileage up to I believe a peak of 141, partially to train for a 10000....and he got slower. That's what high mileage did for him.
You are the one not correct. BK had increased his mileage base long before 1996.
if he were training for the 10k, how different would these workouts look for the 8 weeks leading up to a major competition
He increased it from the 60-70 he was running in 1992 up 90-100 in 1994-1996. It wasn't until he went beyond that point that his times decreased.
I wish they would post the entire base phase, etc. training because I am curious, but also to stop people from coming up with conflicting stuff they once read, heard or made up regarding his training. It's the same sort of thing whenever Coe's training comes up -- I wish he would publish an accurate training log that shuts people up.
This totally sums up my arguement that milers do not need 100 damn miles a week.He trained about how he should have 125 miles a week wouldnt have made him any faster.
You are wrong, somewhat.
Bob Kennedy improved his 3k time after the larger 140 mile base, but it was by tenths of a second. His 5000m running was pretty much the usual low 13min and although he didn't run a PR he was as consistent as his 90-110 days.
Bob Kennedy never improved his 5k time by tenths of a second. His time dropped like crazy from '93-'96: 13:11 in '93, 13:02 in '94 and 12:58 in '96. He never improved after that. Supposedly, the jump to 120+ mile weeks with a few weeks at 140 happened in the winter of 1998. He ran 13:03 that summer but never within five seconds of his '96 pr after that summer.
Notice that I said 3k not 5k.
This workout:
1200m (3:05.1)(:60) 400m (:58.5) (4:00)
1200m (3:00.8)(:60) 400m (:58.2) (4:00)
1200m (2:59.1)(:60) 400m (:57.5)
Isn't that hard either.
1200 at bit slower than 5k pace, 1' rest, 400 at mile pace
FOUR MINUTE REST
1200 at 3k pace, 1' rest, 400 at mile pace
FOUR MINUTE REST
1200 at a bit faster than at 3k pace, 1' rest, 400 at mile pace or a bit better
How many of us couldn't do that?
You're right of course. I could do that workout at MY 5000m pace. But what I was saying is that there are a lot of workouts in this summer schedule that a lot of 14 minute 5k runners could do in an absolute sense. For 95% of those workouts I wouldn't have had any trouble staying with him and I haven't broken 14 yet. But once a every 7-10 days or so there is a serious workout that is actually hard. 1200s at 5000 pace and 400s at 1500 pace is not a really difficult workout, but it is in comparison to most of the other sessions he performed. Again, this is why I am arguing about how easy this training must have been for him. This was not the training that got him in sub 13 shape. It was simply the training that freshened him up so enough so that he could get his maximum effort out of himself without loosing too much fitness.
Ahh, I get you completely. If only his off season training was shown.
there are like three articles about his training back when he ran sub-13, try reading them.
G wrote:
This workout:
1200m (3:05.1)(:60) 400m (:58.5) (4:00)
1200m (3:00.8)(:60) 400m (:58.2) (4:00)
1200m (2:59.1)(:60) 400m (:57.5)
Isn't that hard either.
1200 at bit slower than 5k pace, 1' rest, 400 at mile pace
FOUR MINUTE REST
1200 at 3k pace, 1' rest, 400 at mile pace
FOUR MINUTE REST
1200 at a bit faster than at 3k pace, 1' rest, 400 at mile pace or a bit better
How many of us couldn't do that?
YOU COULDN'T DO IT IF YOUR LIFe DEPENDED ON IT. GET REAL.
dota wrote:
Woah, this guy had some pretty low mileage, and to think that he ran a 12:58 off that! Imagine if he had been running 125 mile weeks like Bekele... He might just have had the world record or something close to it!
HEY, BOBBY WAS A NICE GUY BUT I THINK HE WAS ONE OF THE FEW AMERICANS WHO DABBLED WITH THE OLD EPO...HE KNOWS A LOT, BUT AIN'T SAYING DICK......
....-_-
SpeedKills:
Although I'm not sure exactly when he increased his mileage, I am pretty sure that there were factors outside of mileage why his times were slowing down: injuries, car accident, getting older, losing some drive maybe, etc. etc.
I don't know if you guys have read past interviews, but that Winter (or summer) when he was in Australia with Kim McDonald and the Kenyan contingent he said he hit a few 140 mile weeks during his base. FYI
Dirty Harry wrote:
G wrote:This workout:
1200m (3:05.1)(:60) 400m (:58.5) (4:00)
1200m (3:00.8)(:60) 400m (:58.2) (4:00)
1200m (2:59.1)(:60) 400m (:57.5)
Isn't that hard either.
1200 at bit slower than 5k pace, 1' rest, 400 at mile pace
FOUR MINUTE REST
1200 at 3k pace, 1' rest, 400 at mile pace
FOUR MINUTE REST
1200 at a bit faster than at 3k pace, 1' rest, 400 at mile pace or a bit better
How many of us couldn't do that?
YOU COULDN'T DO IT IF YOUR LIFe DEPENDED ON IT. GET REAL.
i'm pretty sure he was just saying that he could do that workout at his own 5k pace, not at BK's pace. i'm pretty sure everybody could do that workout at his own 5k pace, but few could at BK's.
Whatever dude wrote:
This totally sums up my arguement that milers do not need 100 damn miles a week.He trained about how he should have 125 miles a week wouldnt have made him any faster.
Cool, except he was a 3k/5k runner, like he ran in the olympics in '92 and '96, and tried to run in '00.
this stuff makes me hard