Yasso 400s?
BarryW
Has anyone got any opinions on whether the Yasso 800s theory (ie. that if
you can run 800m repeats in 2m50sec, you can run a marathon in 2hr50m) could
be equally applied to 400m repeats and the half-marathon. I currently run
400m repeats in 1m52sec - so I guess I should run a half-marathon in 1hr52m.
Has anyone noticed if this correlation between speedwork and half-marathon
pace holds up in practice.
Barry.
Terry R. McConnell
Remember that Yasso 800s involve a large number of reps and limited
recovery. I don't remember the exact rules, but let's say you have to do
10 800s with 1 minute recovery.
So taking your factor of 2 idea further, "Yasso 200s" would have you do
40x200 with 15 seconds recovery, and use the result as a predictor of
your 10K time. (Let's pretend a marathon is 40K to keep the arithmetic
simple. Please don't remind me of this remark the next time I'm at the
40K point in a marathon!)
If you could do "Yasso 100s" (80x100m with 7.5 seconds recovery) each in under
20 seconds, could you do a 20 minute 5K? During the course of the workout
you would cover 8K in 36:40, which is the equivalent effort of about a
24 minute 5K, so sub 20 under racing conditions does not seem out of the
question.
In light of such reasoning, I'd say that using 400s to predict a 1/2M in
this way seems about equally plausible as the original marathon prediction
scheme.
Why don't you race a 1/2M and report your results here?
--
************************************************************************
Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150
trmc...@syr.edu http://barnyard.syr.edu/~tmc Question Authority?
************************************************************************
IanB
correlation. And it will be different for different people - just like
the 800-marathon correlation. And training for 400 repeats will not get
you your fastest half marathon time - a bit like 800 repeats for a
marathon.
See where I'm going here? I guess you won't know until you've run a
half. You'll get a better idea of your race pace from a 10K race time
and using one of the many predictors on the web.
IanB - I bet it doesn't work for Michael Johnson.
IanB
>
> So taking your factor of 2 idea further, "Yasso 200s" would have you do
> 40x200 with 15 seconds recovery, and use the result as a predictor of
> your 10K time. (Let's pretend a marathon is 40K to keep the arithmetic
> simple. Please don't remind me of this remark the next time I'm at the
> 40K point in a marathon!)
>
> If you could do "Yasso 100s" (80x100m with 7.5 seconds recovery) each in under
> 20 seconds, could you do a 20 minute 5K? During the course of the workout
> you would cover 8K in 36:40, which is the equivalent effort of about a
> 24 minute 5K, so sub 20 under racing conditions does not seem out of the
> question.
>
I could not run either the 200 or 100 session in my 10K or 5K time
equivalent, but then a lot of the effort in short runs is the starting
and stopping so the correlation - if one ever existed - is likely to
slip.
Thinking about it, 20x400 off 30sec would be close to my 1/2 time. But
as I train mainly for the shorter distances and one of Yasso's
assumptions is you are trained for the event in which you are racing
then I guess this is an argument AGAINST a close correlation.
IanB - anyone get the impression I'm not convinced?
Kerry Wilson
Also, I tend to wonder... an 800 (middle distance) has more in common with
a marathon (long distance) than a 400 (short distance) does with a
half-marathon (long distance). It might work, but if it does, I think there
may be some "offsetting penalties" in the mix...
BarryW
Terry R. McConnell <mcco...@hydra.syr.edu> wrote in message
news:39be1...@news.syr.edu...
I'm doing the Amsterdam 1/2M on October 15th. Having not run a half-marathon
for a couple of years and having let my training slide badly (ie. not at
all) for most of the last year, I'm trying to work out what sort of pace I
should plan for. The 1h52m suggested by my 400 repeats doesn't sound too
farfetched... although it would still be faster than my current PB, anyway,
I'll post my time and see how it matches my 400s after the race...
Barry.
dle...@my-deja.com
The Yasso 800 workout gives you 50% active rest. That is, if it
takes you 3:00 to run the 800m, you jog for 3:00 before starting the
next one.
The description of the workout can be found on the RW web page.
I have found this to be a very valuable workout and a good predictive
workout when coupled with a solid marathon training program. That
means doing your long runs, doing enough total miles, and doing other
types of quality along the way. Others don't find it as valuable or
predictive. YMMV.
As for the value of 400s, I don't see why people would move up to
20x400m as someone else suggested. If the race is half the distance,
and the repeat is half the distance, why double the number of repeats.
I think you'd stick with ten repeats.
If you look at the tables in Daniels Running Formula, looking at his
I-pace workout times and the predicted half marathon times for the
same level, you would see that he predicts your half-marathon would be
a bit faster than your 400s. But, I workouts are supposed to include
relatively short rest intervals, and might not be equivalent to Yassos
in some respects.
If you look at R workouts, which are more intense with longer rests,
you will find that the R pace is faster than the predicted 1/2M pace.
While the 800s have had good predictive value for me, looking over older
logs, I find that 400s have not. I've done a dozen 400s with slightly
over 50% rest in an average of 76, but I've run only 82 for the half.
So, while I said above that I didn't see why you'd double the number of
400s from 10 to 20, perhaps that would at least give you a better
predictive value. I know that doing 10 x 800m intensely leaves me tired
for a few days. I imagine that 20 x 400m would be even worse.
Damon
Damon
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Oleg
of prediction for any kind of distance, except maybe for a mile or 800m.
Kerry is right, going from 800-> marathon to 400->half-marathon prediction
is not logical at all, the difference between half-marathon and marathon
is not as great as one between 400 and 800.
And I definitely agree with Ian that any correlation is very, very
accidental.
But I don't think prediction works that well anyways -
both Yasso 800 and "Yasso 400s" (especially if done at 10 reps with
equal rest) will give you numbers way faster than you should be able
to run (at least that's my experience).
10x400 with equal rest is a rather easy workout. Me and one of my training
partners would probably average around 66-68 sec per quarter for a workout
like that. We recently did 12x300 in 49-50 w/ 1min R, and another
one where we did 8x400 in 66-67 w/ about 1:30 R, both being "secondary"
speed workout, and we didn't run them all out.
However, my partner's half-mara times are around 1:12, and mine should
be around 1:16 or so. There's no way I could run half-marathon in 1:07
right now.
Also, our mile times are practically identical,
and that's why I think we can do this workout together. Other people
could probably handle only about 71-72 seconds in a workout like that,
despite having projected half-marathon times faster than mine. For some
of them, the prediction might actually be close enough.
Maybe the predictions could have been improved by making the sessions
more aerobic, but different people will get completely different
results, depending on how much intrinsic speed they have, since
both workouts will have a rather large anaerobic part.
The best way to estimate your time for any distance is to run
at race effort for a distance as close to the desired distance
as possible. Another way to check your fitness level is to run
a time trial over 60-80% of the race distance AT THE RACE PACE.
This should give you a good idea about what to expect during
the race. Yasso 800's are a sham. Relying on prediction from
any Yasso-type workout is asking for trouble.
Oleg.
Robert Grumbine
Oleg <ol...@xray.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>The best way to estimate your time for any distance is to run
>at race effort for a distance as close to the desired distance
>as possible. Another way to check your fitness level is to run
>a time trial over 60-80% of the race distance AT THE RACE PACE.
>This should give you a good idea about what to expect during
>the race. Yasso 800's are a sham. Relying on prediction from
>any Yasso-type workout is asking for trouble.
As we've seen from questions for years, it isn't very
easy to predict 5k times from 800m intervals, or even miles
from 400's. To go to vastly longer distances doesn't seem
a great idea. It may not be a bad negative predictor -- if you can't
do the workout, thenyou won't be able to hold it for race day.
But, we want positive predictors.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
800Man
>I'm doing the Amsterdam 1/2M on October 15th. Having not run a
half-marathon
>for a couple of years and having let my training slide badly (ie. not at
>all) for most of the last year, I'm trying to work out what sort of pace I
>should plan for. The 1h52m suggested by my 400 repeats doesn't sound too
>farfetched... although it would still be faster than my current PB, anyway,
>I'll post my time and see how it matches my 400s after the race...
>
you are convinced by the prediction that you should run 1h52m then you will
do everything strategically to run that time and will have a better chance
at attaining that goal.
Just a thought. :o)
Sylvan Smyth
I think the best thing to do is to race on a regular basis and learn
what a good race feels like. Then you can race without the burden of
worrying about your pace and concentrate on giving your best effort.
If you can't find any races, balls out tempo runs can work, and help
you learn to spread your effort out evenly over a race distance.
Either that or just read Jack Lasso's Running Loop and run to the
numbers he lists for you. After all, he knows you better than you do.
Sylvan Smyth
syl...@islandnet.com
Victoria, BC, Canada
Oleg
IanB <ibar...@europem01.nt.com> wrote:
> Oleg wrote:
>>
>> ... and mine should be ...
>>
> That's the second time you've used that phrase. Have you just not raced
> lately? Or have your races not matched what your training has suggested
> they should?
No, I am racing from time to time - not too often, but enough to know
where I stand in terms of my fitness and projected racing times.
Of course, as one should expect, some races go well, some not as well,
but you get the idea anyways.
This summer for example, one weekend I did two races - a relatively flat
10k on Saturday, but on brutally hot and humid day - I was right on pace
for first 5k, but ended up over a minute slower than what I expected to do
on that course. Needless to say I was quite disspointed, and even questioned
some of the training (very solid training) I'd done over previous month or so.
The next day I raced an very hilly 4-miler in a race called "Summer Steamer".
It was probably just as hot, but somehow I managed to do a lot better than
expected, beating my own best time on that course by about 45 seconds and
finishing just a few seconds behind a teammate who beat me by a minute and a
half the day before.
> That is certainly the case for me this summer. I ran the fastest
> training sessions of my life, and some of the slowest races. I had the
> pace but I couldn't sustain it at all - need a few more 10x800 sessions!
> IanB.
I know exactly how that feels. But you know, it's nice to have good race
experiences, but the solid volume of good training is the only thing that
counts.
I have definitely had a lot of improvement over the past year, even without
any races I could tell I am a lot stronger and faster now.
It's like in this book "Running with buffaloes", when a Colorado U
XC coach Wetmore says to one of the athletes - "You have to be willing
to sacrifice two years - during these two years you should expect no improvementat all, you will only concentrate on training as hard as you can.
You will feel like shit for two years, but after that you will find that
all of a sudden you can run with the big dogs".
(Not an exact quote, but close).
Speaking of XC - any plans for XC season coming up?
--
Oleg
dle...@my-deja.com
> the race. Yasso 800's are a sham. Relying on prediction from
> any Yasso-type workout is asking for trouble.
I think these last two statements are perhaps without merit. What
is the basis for making this assertion?
I have found that the Yasso 800s are not only a valuable workout, but
are also predictive for me. Have you ever used the workouts yourself
as part of serious prep for a marathon? I have, and my predicted
and actual times were within seconds.
The workout itself, especially done solo as I do it, is both physically
and mentally taxing. It is difficult to do ten 800s, trying to be even
and strong the entire way through. Mentally, I feel that helps me late
in the marathon, when my mental desire becomes very important. And, by
doing the workout as part of a solid marathon training program, I
frequently do this workout when I'm somewhat tired and not fresh. This
helps me by forcing me to focus on pace and economy while tired.
Please explain why you call the workout a sham?
I cannot dispute another poster's assertion that the workout might only
be a negative predictor. That is, if I can't do a certain pace in the
800s, it might be a good indicator that I can't do the equivalent pace
in a marathon. I'm sure I could run a short-distance training program
that focused on trackwork, and I would then be able to run ten by 800
a lot faster than I could run a marathon.
But, please explain why you would call this workout a sham? Have you
done any research to refute it? Even on yourself as an experiment of
one?
If you take a good look at the tables in DRF, I think you'll see some
correlation there as well.
IanB
>
> > the race. Yasso 800's are a sham. Relying on prediction from
> > any Yasso-type workout is asking for trouble.
>
> I think these last two statements are perhaps without merit. What
> is the basis for making this assertion?
>
If I may...
The Yasso workout is specifically designed as a marathon predictor, and
it is this aspect which I think lacks credulity. The fact that - for
some people - an 800m time in minutes:seconds matches a marathon time in
hours:minutes can only be a coincidence. The two events are not linked
in any carmic way. Using the workout as a prediction has two potentially
damaging drawbacks:
(1) The prediction is wrong and you run your marathon at the wrong pace
(either too fast or too slow). If you want to predict your marathon
pace, run a half marathon.
(2) You end up training to improve your 800m workout time thinking that
it will improve your marathon time.
As to whether 10x800 with equal time rest is a good workout for a
marathon schedule, you could certainly do a lot worse, but I would have
thought a better marathon workout would have longer runs and shorter
rest.
IanB.
IanB
>
> ... and mine should be ...
>
That's the second time you've used that phrase. Have you just not raced
lately? Or have your races not matched what your training has suggested
they should?
That is certainly the case for me this summer. I ran the fastest
Oleg
even though I would cut down on rest to make it more aerobic, even
if it means doing only 8 instead of 10 - it's the prediction
part that is a sham. One cannot estimate projected race times from the times
it takes to run distances 50 times shorter than race distance.
Like I said already, 800m has a very large anaerobic part to it.
If you have developed any anaerobic speed, or just have some natural speed,
the "prediction" will be way, way off. A somewhat better prediction
would have been 4-5x mile in (2xmarathon time), with 1 minR, but even
that will rely on speed factor a lot. The best predictor for almost any distance?
A "tempo" at the race pace for 60-80% of the distance. Want to find out whether
you can break 2 minutes for 800m? Try running 600m in 1:30. Want to break 35
minutes for 10k? Try running 5 miler in 28 minutes. For marathon - run
half-marathon to 30k at race pace. You will get some idea what to expect.
Out of about a dozen people I train with, the Yasso workout would predict
marathon times at least 15-20 minutes faster than they are able to do in
real life.
Recently I was reading about a workout by El Guerrouj when he did
12 times a quarter with 60 second rest, starting in :52, and ending
in :49's. It sounds very impressive, but don't forget - 55 is about his mile
pace.
According to your modified Yasso prediction, when he moves up to half-marathon
he should have no problems breaking 52 minutes. Watch out, Tergat!
swiftEmma
>
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone got any opinions on whether the Yasso 800s theory (ie. that if
> you can run 800m repeats in 2m50sec, you can run a marathon in 2hr50m)
Sure,
but only if you can also do 10 miles in about an hour.
pete
BarryW
Oleg <ol...@xray.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:8po7iq$bbo$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> Out of about a dozen people I train with, the Yasso workout would predict
> marathon times at least 15-20 minutes faster than they are able to do in
> real life.
One point to make is that the Yasso 800s (if you follow the 10% guideline)
are only suitable for people running at least 50 miles per week. Are the
people for whom the Y800's are not predictive meeting these weekly milages?
IanB
>
> This summer for example, one weekend I did two races - a relatively flat
> 10k on Saturday, but on brutally hot and humid day - I was right on pace
> for first 5k, but ended up over a minute slower than what I expected to do
> on that course. Needless to say I was quite disspointed, and even questioned
> some of the training (very solid training) I'd done over previous month or so.
> The next day I raced an very hilly 4-miler in a race called "Summer Steamer".
> It was probably just as hot, but somehow I managed to do a lot better than
> expected, beating my own best time on that course by about 45 seconds and
> finishing just a few seconds behind a teammate who beat me by a minute and a
> half the day before.
>
I didn't race two days in a row, but I tend to run a hard tempo the day
after a bad race to relieve the frustration. Trouble is, it invariably
adds to the frustration when the tempo confirms I really should be
racing better.
>
> It's like in this book "Running with buffaloes", when a Colorado U
> XC coach Wetmore says to one of the athletes - "You have to be willing
> to sacrifice two years - during these two years you should expect no improvementat all, you will only concentrate on training as hard as you can.
> You will feel like shit for two years, but after that you will find that
> all of a sudden you can run with the big dogs".
> (Not an exact quote, but close).
>
That's a comforting thought. It is 2 years since I moved here, and
joined a new group with a very different training regime to my previous
club(s). I always figured a 2 year adjustment, especially as last year I
still spent a lot of time travelling 'home' so didn't get much
consistancy. I was just hoping for better things because training was
going so well and I had a good winter.
> Speaking of XC - any plans for XC season coming up?
Last winter went pretty well, off basically 5K training with a few
longer runs I placed well in the two main XC races, and they are both
12K. So this winter I want to train more like a 10K runner - which I
think will make me stronger come the summer anyway - and aim to improve
in those two races.
Right now I'm training hard for the Olympics, which means getting plenty
of rest during the day and preparing for sleepless nights.
> --
> Oleg
IanB.
dle...@my-deja.com
Oleg <ol...@xray.harvard.edu> wrote:
> It's not the workout that is the sham, the workout is reasonable,
> even though I would cut down on rest to make it more aerobic, even
> if it means doing only 8 instead of 10 - it's the prediction
> part that is a sham. One cannot estimate projected race times from
the times
> it takes to run distances 50 times shorter than race distance.
Oleg,
We need to just agree to disagree on this issue, but I still have a
few thoughts here. First of all, the workout is not to run one repeat
of 800m, but to run 10. Using your math approximations, we are actually
talking about running 1/5 of the marathon distance, not 1/50th. Until
you add in a warm-up, the active rest, and a cooldown, I'm talking about
taking the fastest five miles of a ten mile effort, and then normalizing
the results to something that is mathematically easy to grasp. This
is not about running 800m all out and then using that to estimate your
marathon time.
And, I continue to stress that this is one workout in an all-around
valid marathon training program. If I do this workout while rested
rather than in the midst of a training program, I can run a faster
equivalent in the workout than I can in a marathon.
> Like I said already, 800m has a very large anaerobic part to it.
> If you have developed any anaerobic speed, or just have some natural
>speed,
I agree that this is true to some extent, but ten repeats takes this
out of the purely anaerobic world.
And, I'll go back to DRF, and if you extrapolate his I-pace workouts
to 800m, you'll see a high degree of correlation there as well,
although the numbers are not dead-on. Are you calling all of his
research a sham as well? Again, I can see that this could easily be
a negative predictor rather than a positive predictor, especially
for those unwilling to do viable marathon training. When training
for a marathon, I will go for weeks without entering a workout or
a race properly tapered or rested. On the day that I run my
marathon, there is no doubt in my mind that I could do 10 x 800
faster (equivalent) than the marathon, because I'm finally rested.
> Recently I was reading about a workout by El Guerrouj when he did
> 12 times a quarter with 60 second rest, starting in :52, and ending
> in :49's. It sounds very impressive, but don't forget - 55 is about
his mile
> pace.
> According to your modified Yasso prediction, when he moves up to half-
marathon
> he should have no problems breaking 52 minutes. Watch out, Tergat!
I was not trying to defend the concept of quarters working for the
half. I commented on that earlier, and said that the numbers didn't
line up in DRF or from my personal experience. I was trying to defend
the predictiveness of the 10 x 800m workout as part of a marathon
training program. That's all.
I will continue to use the workout, because it seems to work for me.
It has been predictive for me in the past, and knowing that helps
me mentally as I approach a marathon. It gives me the confidence to
go out at a pace that I might otherwise be afraid of.
Oleg
> Oleg <ol...@xray.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:8po7iq$bbo$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
>> Out of about a dozen people I train with, the Yasso workout would predict
>> marathon times at least 15-20 minutes faster than they are able to do in
>> real life.
> One point to make is that the Yasso 800s (if you follow the 10% guideline)
> are only suitable for people running at least 50 miles per week. Are the
> people for whom the Y800's are not predictive meeting these weekly milages?
The group consists of people doing 60 to 80 miles a week.
I can't imagine any of them even thinking of using Yasso for prediction
purposes, but if they did, they would have been waaays off.
The problem is - most of those people have reasonable mile speed.
Long recovery used in Yasso makes it easier to make 800's more anaerobic,
so in a way your times will better correlate with your mile times (or
at least 5k times) rather than your marathon times. Now, let's play this
game - I tell you someone's mile time and you try to predict his/her marathon
times.
Then again, if you have no speed and your mile times suck, the Yasso "prediction"
may come close, by pure coincidence.
Of course another way to make the prediction work is to run 800's at the pace
you set to be your desired marathon time. Chances are, you are able to finish
workout with no problems. Will you be tired? Yes. Could you have done it faster?
Depends on your speed, but probably yes. Does the prediction work? No.
Oleg.
Oleg
> I was not trying to defend the concept of quarters working for the
> half. I commented on that earlier, and said that the numbers didn't
> line up in DRF or from my personal experience. I was trying to defend
> the predictiveness of the 10 x 800m workout as part of a marathon
> training program. That's all.
> I will continue to use the workout, because it seems to work for me.
> It has been predictive for me in the past, and knowing that helps
> me mentally as I approach a marathon. It gives me the confidence to
> go out at a pace that I might otherwise be afraid of.
> Damon
Fair enough. Let's take Gebrselassie or Tergat then. What would they do
for 10x800 with equal rest? I don't have any idea. However, what I do
know is how fast they can do 12.5x800 with NO REST. It's called 10,000m
on the track. Gebrselassie holds the world record of 26:22.
Believe it or not, that's 63 seconds per lap pace, or 2:06 per 800m.
Now, let's keep in mind - he is actually running 2k longer than Yasso
workout calls for WITH NO REST!!!
How much faster could he go if someone told him - "Haile, forget the last
2k, and you know what - stop for 2 minutes every 2 laps, will ya?" ?
You tell me.
Oleg.
Robert Grumbine
>In article <8po7iq$bbo$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> Oleg <ol...@xray.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> even though I would cut down on rest to make it more aerobic, even
>> if it means doing only 8 instead of 10 - it's the prediction
>> part that is a sham. One cannot estimate projected race times from
>the times
>> it takes to run distances 50 times shorter than race distance.
>
>
>We need to just agree to disagree on this issue, but I still have a
>few thoughts here. First of all, the workout is not to run one repeat
>of 800m, but to run 10. Using your math approximations, we are actually
>talking about running 1/5 of the marathon distance, not 1/50th. Until
>you add in a warm-up, the active rest, and a cooldown, I'm talking about
>taking the fastest five miles of a ten mile effort, and then normalizing
>the results to something that is mathematically easy to grasp. This
>is not about running 800m all out and then using that to estimate your
>marathon time.
Nor did Oleg make that mistake. He was looking at the fact that
you only run the 'hard' pace for 1/50th of the race distance and
then _recover_. He then suggests that cutting down the recovery
period would be a means of improving the workout for marathon purposes.
Might be, maybe not. Certainly, however, 800's with equal recovery
permit some pretty fast 800's, even if you total up 10 of them.
As you mention Daniels, at a note: I can run the 10x800 workout at
about 30 (equivalent) minutes faster than his table's estimate of my
likely marathon pace based on my 5k, 10k, 10 mile times (iirc). Oleg's
point about 'kind of runner' is important. I'm more a middle distance
runner, so can do this kind of workout (comparatively) much better than
the long race you're using it to predict. (Note for Oleg: You don't
have to be a fast middle distance runner for it to work out.)
Recovery is _very_ important. With enough rest, plenty of people
can run a 4 minute mile. That's only a little under 15 seconds per
100m. Run that, rest 'enough', repeat.
>And, I'll go back to DRF, and if you extrapolate his I-pace workouts
>to 800m, you'll see a high degree of correlation there as well,
>although the numbers are not dead-on. Are you calling all of his
>research a sham as well?
What research is it you're talking about? Daniels has a consistency
table (this time/workout being consistent with this time/workout at some
other distance). Not given (in the talk on the group, I don't have
a copy of the book and have never seen one to be able to buy it) is
what the spread is, how the equivalences were derived, how strong
the correlation really is (what you're doing in making your estimates
is not a correlation), and a number of other things that I'd expect
from research. Well, the book is not a research article, it is guidance
for runners, so I also don't expect it to include those details.