I was supposed to do some speed work on Tuesday, however the mild issues w/ the hip and quad caused us to call an audible and do a volume speed session instead. (400s @ 68)
There are still a few sore spots here and there, so I needed to be careful, but I was feeling good enough to do my first real speed work of the season. Today's workout was a few 400s at a quick pace w/ near full recoveries. JT being as clever as she is, decided to 'extend' my warm up just a tad to make sure I wouldn't be able to really go out and hit it on the 400s. What we didn't want to have happen was me overdoing it on the 4's and potentially straining a muscle somewhere, so the idea was to pre-fatigue the legs to keep this from happening. This warm up 'extension' came in the form of a 5:15 mile that I was to do prior to the quarters. "Yeah", I said, "that ought to do the trick".
The target for the session was as follows:
Mile warm up
2 x 200m
Mile @ 5:15
7-minute rest
3 x 400m @ 62-63 w/ near full recoveries (about 7-minutes)
** I was to switch over from the flats to the spikes for the last two 400s
I nearly nailed the session. Once again I didn't bother to time the 200s. Just ramped the pace up - went at speed for about 100m and then ramped it back down. I was a little lax early on w/ the mile (2:38 first half), but I closed w/ a 2:36 to come in at 5:14. Clearly this was a little tougher than my usual warm up - let's not turn this into the standard deal, shall we!?
The first 400m came in at 62.3 I then switched over to my spikes for the first time in, well, way too long. Ah the feeling of being back in spikes - you feel like a duck when walking in them, but boy they're nice to have when moving around an all-weather oval - 400 #2: 61.1
After #2 I think the adrenaline was wearing off as I started to feel some of the soreness from before. In addition, my legs were already getting tired. (this should improve drastically after a few legit speed sessions) I knew I had just run my fastest 400 for today, and all I wanted out of #3 was to go under 63. The session was going pretty well, and if I could just hit a 62.x w/ all the work I'd put in thus far, I'd feel like it would be an excellent opening speed session.
After the first 200 I knew I was a little slow, but I was surprised to see that it was almost 32. "Yikes, this is a problem I need to pick it up". I was happy in that I did negative split this last guy, but I came in just over the wire in 63.1 - oh well, motivation for next time.
Overall, a good session. I got to experience some faster paces again in something longer than a 200m for the first time in a long time. I also got back into the spikes which is always nice. Lastly, I walked off the track no worse off physically than I walked on. I think I've got about a week for the rest of this soreness to subside and then I should be back to 100%.
Good luck to Rick in London tomorrow!!
Training:
Wed, 4/22: Appointment w/ CMT - no running
Thurs, 4/23: 5-miles @ 7:02 (sore)
AM Lifting (upper-B, abs) stretching, rolling
Fri, 4/24: 5-miles @ 6:53 (feeling a little better)
AM Lifting (upper-A, abs) stretching, rolling
Sat, 4/25: 3 x 400m 62-23, after standard w/u plus 5:15 mile to pre-fatigue the legs.
2x200m - untimed, Mile-5:14, 400s (62.3, 61.1, 63.1)
2 comments:
Good session Mike.
That won't be the standard deal - next time she'll get you to run 2 x 1 mile before the 400s ;)
So, do you reckon the spikes are worth about a second?
Yeah that's all I need! If I had to do two of those, I might need a nap before the 400s! : )
I guess 1 second is about right, but it's tough for me to say. Clearly the spikes are a little lighter and they obviously grip better, but I don't have any side-by-side data to say what the difference actually is.
In the 400s on Saturday, I came through the 200 in about the same time on reps #1 and #2. I purposely slowed on the 2nd 200 on #1 because I knew I had two more to do.
On #2 I didn't slow on the 2nd 200 (maybe that's why I ran the better time), however I ran that rep w/ more fatigue.
Could I have clocked a 61 on #2 if I stayed in the flats? I'm going to guess 'no' - so yeah, let's call it a second difference. (No I won't win any awards for my 'scientific method' on this one!)
Post a Comment