Fartlek is a form of interval training. Any so called science that supports the idea of interval training having value supports the idea of fartlek having value. Lydiard said it was "all a lot of eyewash."
Watched many workout videos of many pro groups that do fartleks (time based) I honestly don't see the point for people at that level many do them on a track which I find even weirder. if you are running a time based work why do it in small loops instead of in larger loops or straight lines
Here is my view what on fartlek's are good at: 1. Good for a runner who would get upset with running slow workouts early in a build for a season or for a workout between seasons. 2. Good if you don't have access to a track or measure trail/loop hence my not understanding doing them on a track and finishing and starting on random places on that track. 3. Good for new runners for them to learn how to run easy and fast and progress slowly in workouts or at least not digress. 4. Good for lazy coaches - I admit this is me really easy to assign a fartlek instead of trusting gps or hoping your athlete has access to a track.
Basically tempos are far better at working on the aerobic side and intervals are great for the anerobic threshold fartleks fall in the worst of both worlds where it's not the benefits of a tempo/aerobic threshold workout with all the breaks of and none of the benefits of anerobic threshold either as the paces tend to be someone between the thresholds or closer to aerobic but with rest instead of no rest. They also give coaches zero gage as to what type of shape the runner is in since it's hard to estimate the shape an athlete is in because they ran 3 min hard 2 min easy or medium. the overall pace isn't very helpful and will be quiet a bit slower than a tempo.
So my point is a pro runner or "a mature runner" should be mature enough to do a tempo or progression run into a tempo and be ok with running "slow" compared to when they are further along in their build and not do any fartleks or just do intervals of measured distance with measured rest (distance) to give themselves and coach realistic expectations of what will happen on race day as they start doing more sub tempo work (track workouts).
One could argue me doing an alt mile workout is a fartlek but: 1. I rarely do those 2. That workout being distance based and longer gives me a better idea of what shape I am in (short reps on a GPS are very inaccurate distance wise)
I personally haven't done a fartlek in a decade and yet have improved consistently because I am totally ok with my tempo pace being 20-30 sec/per mile slower depending where I am in a marathon build or a track season build.
Did I miss something they are good at?
It seems you have a good understanding of what you need and like to do, and one thing you DON'T like to do are Fartlek workouts. That's totally ok. To say Fartlek workouts aren't beneficial is just plain idiotic. In fact, Fartlek workouts are probably one of the MOST beneficial workouts a runner can do. I personally believe they're most beneficial when done off the track in a large park and or bike trail. I usually don't have a set distance and just try to hit various paces for the time I'm running. For example, for a 3-2-1 x 3 session I'll go 3min@10k RP, 2min jog, 2min@5k RP, 1 min jog, 1min @ mile RP (3 x 20 sec accelerations- Fast, Faster and Fastest), 3min jog and repeat x 3. The goal is to hit the paces the best you can, not mandatory, just honest effort. The workout is designed to fit anywhere in your training phase (AM or PM) without taxing your body too much yet still getting a good anaerobic/aerobic workout in.
OP - Congratulations on writing your original post which now holds the distinction of being one of the most classic examples I have ever seen of keep your focus squarely on the things that don't matter that much and completely misunderstanding and misinterpreting the true the science of training for the sport. Your post will become legendary. 92 thumbs-downs vs 4 thumbs up in the first 20 hours - congrats, a record I am sure.
Western running pretty much went into the crapper at about the same time it got fixated on science. Maybe that was just coincidence. But essentially the main reason we all do what we do is because it worked for people who did it.
It's a shame that Ingebrigtsen's running has gone into the crapper for focusing on the science, isn't it? Marius Bakken must've been quite the fool...
A guy here, three or four guys there,doing well is great but does not really offset the overall competitiveness decline we've seen in the west. The world's best runners for maybe the last three decades don't look to science to decide how to train.
OP - Congratulations on writing your original post which now holds the distinction of being one of the most classic examples I have ever seen of keep your focus squarely on the things that don't matter that much and completely misunderstanding and misinterpreting the true the science of training for the sport. Your post will become legendary. 92 thumbs-downs vs 4 thumbs up in the first 20 hours - congrats, a record I am sure.
Was the title clickbait: Absolutely
If you throw out all the other post that were trying to argue about definitions and all the posts that thought that because X person did them was a scientific explanation why you are left with a bunch of people knowingly or unknowingly agreeing with what I posted.
The many of the examples people gave as reasons why they assign them are covered and agreed upon in my original post.. great when you aren't in shape and that athlete would get demotivated by not hitting certain times.. or travel so no track or measured route etc.
Seems like many of the coaches on here are talking from mostly highschool coaching or maybe college coaching perspectives which even the clickbait title excludes those people so I was saying for those athletes it makes sense to do fartlek's. I was trying to be a bit of a troll and get reactions so the 92 thumbs-down doesn't make me feel bad.. unless half the best US marathoners were 100% those thumbs down many of them are people that are slower than me...
Post like yours above don't care to explain why they are useful outside of what I gave in my original post. which shows you rather insult than educate so sure glad you aren't my coach.
I'm not sure what universe you live in, but Fartlek's have lots of benefits that are widely accepted by coaches and across a wide variety of disciplines
1. Fartleks are great for *anyone* getting back into shape, dealing with sickness, etc. Instead of worrying about splits needlessly when coming back, fartleks allow you to begin building toward your targets
2. Fartleks are great for targetting specific HR/Pace zones I've used fartleks training for d1xc, track (racing from 800m-5km) at different points in time, and farleks are phenomenal for their flexibility in being able to run fast. In xc, we'd do some fartleks w/ faster recovery interval to have a bit of tempo value for the effort (keeping average HR/Pace relatively high). In track, we'd have longer, slower rest so we could get sharper (focusing on higher top end speed and fuller recoery).
3. Fartleks are great for different surfaces Fartlek's are great for running/comparing efforts across a number of different surfaces. A lot of times, we'd do fartleks on our cross country course in muddier conditions and the time-focus of fartleks keep you focused on running a certain effort OR we'd do fartleks in lots of hilly areas to normalize effort where the conditions are a bit abnormal.
4. The Fartlek paradigm is essentially how all cycling training programs are set up This is as a means of normalizing power efforts in different conditions (uphill/downhill, into the wind/with the wind, hard surface/slow surface/gravel/mud/etc). For example, a workout like over/unders will have riders at 1 hour of (1 min at XXX watts & 1 min at YYY watts) or an FTP workout might have something like 3 sets of (XXX watts for 10 min, YYY watts for 5 min).
1. I agreed with this point in my original post in that you aren't a mature runner if you think that you will be hitting your best paces after being sick or starting a build. 2. heart rate training misses a lot of maximizing training but that's not really my argument if you want to base a workout on heart rate at least its a metric that has some correlation some days but going back to my original post fine do it based on heart rate but that works with distance intervals too just don't assign paces and go off of heart rate (heart rate < feel < lactic testing). I go off of feel (doesn't work for immature runners) (why fartleks are good for them and why we likely agree on most of this) 3. again it is immature to think that a tempo on a track will be the same as a tempo on dirt, uphill, downhill etc. 4. This is actually a great point as to why I do not like fartleks for running... on the bike you have accurate watt readings in real time.. to truely have that for running you need crazy amount of camera's force pads etc. the watch/pod estimates are not great metrics for that... so in it's place being able to get distance and pace is far better than effort and time. you can estimate from a bike workout based on the watt output your shape.. 2 min hard gives a coach no estimate of how inshape an athlete is or how tired they are from training load. if Kelvin Kiptum said he did 10x5min hard and Hassan did the same workout and you seperated their names from the workout it would seem like they did the same workout and indicated the same fitness which is obviously not true. but add just one more metric to that workout and you can (either pace or distance covered).
Watched many workout videos of many pro groups that do fartleks (time based) I honestly don't see the point for people at that level many do them on a track which I find even weirder. if you are running a time based work why do it in small loops instead of in larger loops or straight lines
Here is my view what on fartlek's are good at: 1. Good for a runner who would get upset with running slow workouts early in a build for a season or for a workout between seasons. 2. Good if you don't have access to a track or measure trail/loop hence my not understanding doing them on a track and finishing and starting on random places on that track. 3. Good for new runners for them to learn how to run easy and fast and progress slowly in workouts or at least not digress. 4. Good for lazy coaches - I admit this is me really easy to assign a fartlek instead of trusting gps or hoping your athlete has access to a track.
Basically tempos are far better at working on the aerobic side and intervals are great for the anerobic threshold fartleks fall in the worst of both worlds where it's not the benefits of a tempo/aerobic threshold workout with all the breaks of and none of the benefits of anerobic threshold either as the paces tend to be someone between the thresholds or closer to aerobic but with rest instead of no rest. They also give coaches zero gage as to what type of shape the runner is in since it's hard to estimate the shape an athlete is in because they ran 3 min hard 2 min easy or medium. the overall pace isn't very helpful and will be quiet a bit slower than a tempo.
So my point is a pro runner or "a mature runner" should be mature enough to do a tempo or progression run into a tempo and be ok with running "slow" compared to when they are further along in their build and not do any fartleks or just do intervals of measured distance with measured rest (distance) to give themselves and coach realistic expectations of what will happen on race day as they start doing more sub tempo work (track workouts).
One could argue me doing an alt mile workout is a fartlek but: 1. I rarely do those 2. That workout being distance based and longer gives me a better idea of what shape I am in (short reps on a GPS are very inaccurate distance wise)
I personally haven't done a fartlek in a decade and yet have improved consistently because I am totally ok with my tempo pace being 20-30 sec/per mile slower depending where I am in a marathon build or a track season build.
Did I miss something they are good at?
It seems you have a good understanding of what you need and like to do, and one thing you DON'T like to do are Fartlek workouts. That's totally ok. To say Fartlek workouts aren't beneficial is just plain idiotic. In fact, Fartlek workouts are probably one of the MOST beneficial workouts a runner can do. I personally believe they're most beneficial when done off the track in a large park and or bike trail. I usually don't have a set distance and just try to hit various paces for the time I'm running. For example, for a 3-2-1 x 3 session I'll go 3min@10k RP, 2min jog, 2min@5k RP, 1 min jog, 1min @ mile RP (3 x 20 sec accelerations- Fast, Faster and Fastest), 3min jog and repeat x 3. The goal is to hit the paces the best you can, not mandatory, just honest effort. The workout is designed to fit anywhere in your training phase (AM or PM) without taxing your body too much yet still getting a good anaerobic/aerobic workout in.
If you assign paces like this I'm ok with the workout because it gives you a gage. My points were around coaches giving these workouts and having no clue the paces the runner is hitting
I don't think you understand what a sub set or superset is... Fartlek is a type of interval training typically based on time. Interval can means a time or a distance based repetitive or iterative run. The time/distance between those intervals can also be set.
A fartlek is an unstructured workout.
If you are running fast for set time periods, and then running easier for other set time periods, then it is structured - and therefore, not a fartlek.
All you've done is a form of interval training, wherein, the interval is a time period, rather than a set distance.
Yes and No.
Fartlek is defined as "Speed-Play". Simply put, "Playing" with various paces (slow and fast) over varying distances. This can be done in a "structured" way with predetermined set times for pace work and recovery (3min on, 2min off, 1min on etc...) for individual or groups, or can be done in a group with each runner taking turns with the up-tempo paces and recovery times at their own discretion. This is a great way to simulate surges during races in which you don't know when or how long each surge will be.
It seems you have a good understanding of what you need and like to do, and one thing you DON'T like to do are Fartlek workouts. That's totally ok. To say Fartlek workouts aren't beneficial is just plain idiotic. In fact, Fartlek workouts are probably one of the MOST beneficial workouts a runner can do. I personally believe they're most beneficial when done off the track in a large park and or bike trail. I usually don't have a set distance and just try to hit various paces for the time I'm running. For example, for a 3-2-1 x 3 session I'll go 3min@10k RP, 2min jog, 2min@5k RP, 1 min jog, 1min @ mile RP (3 x 20 sec accelerations- Fast, Faster and Fastest), 3min jog and repeat x 3. The goal is to hit the paces the best you can, not mandatory, just honest effort. The workout is designed to fit anywhere in your training phase (AM or PM) without taxing your body too much yet still getting a good anaerobic/aerobic workout in.
If you assign paces like this I'm ok with the workout because it gives you a gage. My points were around coaches giving these workouts and having no clue the paces the runner is hitting
why on earth does every workout need to have a specific pace. Run by feel sometimes, you'll learn more about yourself that way
If you assign paces like this I'm ok with the workout because it gives you a gage. My points were around coaches giving these workouts and having no clue the paces the runner is hitting
why on earth does every workout need to have a specific pace. Run by feel sometimes, you'll learn more about yourself that way
It’s really about getting some volume for the muscle fibers you use in high end aerobic running.
There are a number of ways to do this and get largely the same results.
Coaches want to distinguish themselves by assigning paces and proscribing overly complicated workouts.
Personally, I believe the feel approach works better for older runners as it allows you to work into faster paces gradually.
I don't think you understand what a sub set or superset is... Fartlek is a type of interval training typically based on time. Interval can means a time or a distance based repetitive or iterative run. The time/distance between those intervals can also be set.
A fartlek is an unstructured workout.
If you are running fast for set time periods, and then running easier for other set time periods, then it is structured - and therefore, not a fartlek.
All you've done is a form of interval training, wherein, the interval is a time period, rather than a set distance.
It’s an alternating pace run. You go fast for a while and then you go slow for a while. Whether you run to a tree or for a minute makes no difference. It’s the same thing. People get so hung up on ridiculous semantics.
a true fartlek is when you speed up when you feel like it, and slow down when you feel like it. Run exactly how fast you want to at all times.
I have never seen a world record middle or distance event where the winner didn't look like he/she wanted to be running that fast. I've been in many races where I knew for a fact that I didn't want to be running that fast, and regretted ever showing up at the start line.
Training fartlek style helps you know when you want to race, and when you don't.
ooPee, the point you are missing is that running should be fun. Also, stamina or aerobic conditioning does not have a limit. Running without air has extreme limits!
a true fartlek is when you speed up when you feel like it, and slow down when you feel like it. Run exactly how fast you want to at all times.
I have never seen a world record middle or distance event where the winner didn't look like he/she wanted to be running that fast. I've been in many races where I knew for a fact that I didn't want to be running that fast, and regretted ever showing up at the start line.
Training fartlek style helps you know when you want to race, and when you don't.
Yes, it follows Lydiard principles about as closely as possible.
Watched many workout videos of many pro groups that do fartleks (time based) I honestly don't see the point for people at that level many do them on a track which I find even weirder. if you are running a time based work why do it in small loops instead of in larger loops or straight lines
Here is my view what on fartlek's are good at: 1. Good for a runner who would get upset with running slow workouts early in a build for a season or for a workout between seasons. 2. Good if you don't have access to a track or measure trail/loop hence my not understanding doing them on a track and finishing and starting on random places on that track. 3. Good for new runners for them to learn how to run easy and fast and progress slowly in workouts or at least not digress. 4. Good for lazy coaches - I admit this is me really easy to assign a fartlek instead of trusting gps or hoping your athlete has access to a track.
Basically tempos are far better at working on the aerobic side and intervals are great for the anerobic threshold fartleks fall in the worst of both worlds where it's not the benefits of a tempo/aerobic threshold workout with all the breaks of and none of the benefits of anerobic threshold either as the paces tend to be someone between the thresholds or closer to aerobic but with rest instead of no rest. They also give coaches zero gage as to what type of shape the runner is in since it's hard to estimate the shape an athlete is in because they ran 3 min hard 2 min easy or medium. the overall pace isn't very helpful and will be quiet a bit slower than a tempo.
So my point is a pro runner or "a mature runner" should be mature enough to do a tempo or progression run into a tempo and be ok with running "slow" compared to when they are further along in their build and not do any fartleks or just do intervals of measured distance with measured rest (distance) to give themselves and coach realistic expectations of what will happen on race day as they start doing more sub tempo work (track workouts).
One could argue me doing an alt mile workout is a fartlek but: 1. I rarely do those 2. That workout being distance based and longer gives me a better idea of what shape I am in (short reps on a GPS are very inaccurate distance wise)
I personally haven't done a fartlek in a decade and yet have improved consistently because I am totally ok with my tempo pace being 20-30 sec/per mile slower depending where I am in a marathon build or a track season build.
Did I miss something they are good at?
If it is timed it isn't Fartlek.
Yes! We've changed the meaning of some running terms. Fartlek originally was speed play, in the woods, nothing set, no time, just run fast when you want and recover when you want.
Another little known fact is that, when Mihaly Igloi developed interval training the interval was the rest period not the repetition.
Ex, 200 meter intervals meant you were doing repetitions with a 200 meter recovery.
Yes! We've changed the meaning of some running terms. Fartlek originally was speed play, in the woods, nothing set, no time, just run fast when you want and recover when you want.
Another little known fact is that, when Mihaly Igloi developed interval training the interval was the rest period not the repetition.
Ex, 200 meter intervals meant you were doing repetitions with a 200 meter recovery.
It's true that over time the meaning of a word will evolve if people using that word give it meaning or meanings other than the original one. It seems that when most runners today talk about doing intervals they are referring to the length of the fast run which was originally called the repeat. And we seem to have negotiated that process without too much trouble. But the problem with doing the same thing with fartlek is that you're losing the original meaning of the word and in doing so I think you're losing that kind of workout. A session like 10 x 2 minutes with a one minute recovery is surely not as precise as 10 x 800 in 2 minutes with a 200 recovery so it is somewhat unstructured. But it is still not the sort of workout Holmer created and is probably not going to produce the same reaction. Maybe it's time to take a page from the Jews and have "Orthodox Fartlek" and "Reformed Fartlek."
I agree, If you read my posts you would see I talk about going off feel is 2nd only to lactic testing. but the distance of that workout is important so I know what pace I did run so I have an idea of what shape I am in.