I've just returned from a week of warm weather training in Queensland.
The shorts and sandals attire was luxurious after experiencing late
winter snow and freezing temperatures in Canberra. While I was in Hervey
Bay I raced the Parkrun 5k (starting at the earlier time of 7.00 AM to
beat the heat!). Happily, I ran a little faster than I have been
recently — 23:44, finishing 34th in the field of 198 and 1st
VM60-64. My fastest 5k of 2017 remains the 23:32 run at the Tuggeranong
Parkrun in March. I was happier with the Hervey Bay result because
expectations were low while warming up with ordinary feeling legs. I
thought anything under 25 minutes would be a pass mark.
I lined up a little way back from the front and it was a few hundred
metres before the crowd thinned out. Before the start some pacers were
introduced, one being John Street to pace '24 minutes' (John's VM75-79
record is a very impressive 21:02). Around the 1k sign I caught up to
John and his small group which included a couple of youngsters. My
Garmin split afterwards showed 4:37 at 1k. I followed John's group to
the turn with the pace feeling okay. After the turn a couple of runners
went ahead so I chased them all the way to the finish. Remaining splits
were 4:47, 4:45, 4:50 and 4:45 so it had been a fairly evenly run race.
John finished in 23:54.
I'm still fine-tuning the Verheul Method of training. My legs seem to
have changed physically — being happy running in the range of
4:00 to 4:40 per km pace for most of the short intervals. It's becoming
natural to run at those speeds and steady running at my former 'general'
running pace (5:45 to 6:00 per km) feels awkward. I think I'll
experiment with a mid-week run of an hour or so of even paced running so
a steady effort remains as natural as reactive faster running. At the
moment I'm walking my recoveries (rather than jogging). My thinking is
that I don't want the legs to become 'confused' with what they're being
trained to do — run lightly and reactively at 5k race pace.
What is the ideal distance for Verheul intervals? I'm liking 250 metres.
Typically that distance takes me one minute, ten seconds to run
(4:40/km pace), short enough that I can remain aerobic and concentrate
on form and reactivity for the full distance of the interval while not
so long that I become tired. It's very easy however, to dip into
anaerobic energy stores when running 'fast' over such short distances.
My natural inclination is to run on the fast side, closer to 4 minute km
pace. I think for the Verheul Method to be effective the temptation to
'overspeed' needs to be avoided at all costs. Running a large volume of
intervals tempers enthusiasm for speed but there's probably a 'just
right' volume for each runner. Yesterday I ran 20 x 250m, which felt
okay, but there's a danger of running tired and losing reactive form
towards the latter stages of large volume interval sessions. I'll continue to experiment and let you know how things go.
Shortly after the start of the Hervey Bay Parkrun 5k
The 1k long Urangan Pier made a good warm-up location
6 comments:
Well done in the Hervey Bay 5K. Great pictures. The Vanhuel training appears to be suiting you well, though I agree that it is wise to introduce a little greater variety in your training. Distance running requires many different aspects of fitness. These different aspects are probably best trained by several different types of session, each of which is designed to train some specific aspects of fitness to a greater degree than can feasibly be achieved any one type of session. With only one type of session there is a risk of relying too heavily on the aspect of your fitness that best matches that session, while allowing other aspects do fitness to decline.
Thanks Canute for your comment. I've become enthusiastic for the defining 'short aerobic intervals' aspect of Verheul training because of changes to how my legs feel when running (lighter and springier, not running with a shuffling stride and feeling like a 5k race is an all out sprint). I'll be monitoring my aerobic fitness and endurance to make sure those aspects don't decline.
Very positive. I enjoy your blogs. Nifty Nev.
Thanks for reading Nev.
Hey mate. I reckon that as ageing becomes more of an issue, so too would the benefits of Verheul training. Sure, there are fitness gains but more importantly there are gains in suppleness and good running biomechanics which have massive benefits to those wanting to prolong their running life. Very interested to see how you get on. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Mark. Ageing is so gradual that changes are hard to notice! Especially how one's stride changes to become shorter and less responsive. I'm hopeful that Verheul training will improve my stride and biomechanics. It's a work in progress and I want to figure out how to hold 'aerobic form' while improving the stride at the same time. Tricky.
Post a Comment