1

100/100s on a straight, or 20/20s? (Read 27 times)

Twenty seconds, that is. I think I might have trouble getting to a track for the 100/100s, so I thought I'd submit my adjustment for peer review. Here it is.

I'm not going to find twenty-four landmarks 100m apart, so instead I'll go by time. I can run the distance in about twenty seconds, and since that's an easy number to remember that's what I'll go with. Of course, I don't have a twenty-second interval option on my watch (I don't think...), so I'll count steps. Three steps = one second at a 180 cadence (I'm all pit-patty at around 190ish, but whatever). This makes for a nice waltz count: One-and-a-Two-and-a-Three etc.

Warm up, then begin of course. Run 20 seconds, hitting max speed at 10 seconds and sustain. "Float" down the pace for the next 20 seconds. Repeat x12.

I think this will achieve the same objective as on the track, unless the turning aspect plays an important role I'm missing. What do you think?

Actually, RW gives me time intervals: :17 and :24. Could do that too, I suppose.

I vote for your 20/20sec and  using cadence for timing.  17/24 sounds complicated to keep track of, although there might be a recovery reason to make it 41% longer than the work part. When in doubt, I vote for simplicity!

Actually, I used to use cadence for timing also, but had trouble keeping track of that and what lap I was on. As it turned out, the 20/10 (no, not Tabata since I could never hit that intensity) repeated 8 times just about got me around the soccer field complex, so I just used that to tell when I was done.

"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

I like the cadence idea. 17 seconds is really "flying" for 100m!  I would struggle just to get under 20 seconds, for sure. I think you will want to do the 17/24 if you can manage the numerical complexity. I think the numbers are provided to let you know that the "floats" are not meant to be all that slow. For example, the 24 second "slow" portion for 100m is still a 6:24 pace. Your 17 second portions equate to a 4:32 pace!!  And if you do all 12, you'll be doing this for a total of 1.5 miles!

So, doing :17sec/:24sec (vs. 20/20) gives you 3 fewer seconds on the fast portion, and 4 more seconds on the "slow" portion, which I think is a pretty huge difference!

I hope this is helpful. Let us know what you do.

Drink beer. Mostly ales. Sometimes stouts.

Good points, SubDood. And yeah, that's crazy fast on the fast bits; not sure if I'm going to be able to hit those numbers. Instead of counting the number of sets, I'm going to run on a mile stretch of path and then turn around for another half-mile (if I'm not too busy puking).

The track was open, so I went legit. Totally messed it up, though; I didn't let up around the turns nearly as much as I should have, and only managed eight before the quitting feeling took over. It feels weird to be done with my run for the day so quickly!

The track was open, so I went legit. Totally messed it up, though; I didn't let up around the turns nearly as much as I should have, and only managed eight before the quitting feeling took over. It feels weird to be done with my run for the day so quickly!

It was raining here, so I did my 100/100's on the treadmill -- illegit?

My speeds are not as fast as yours (:19sec/:26sec versus your :17/:24), and even then, I didn't go quite as fast as these numbers suggest. I dialed up 11.7 mph for my fast portions, and 8.5 mph for my slow portions, and changed speeds when the little blinking light on my treadmill moved a quarter of the way around the "track" icon ... I would've needed 11.9 mph and 8.6 mph to be closer to the :19/:26, but I didn't think I could handle that slight increase in speed -- maybe next week.  As it was, I did 11 of the scheduled 12, and was completely exhausted! I've been tired all day, too.

I agree that it's weird finishing so quickly. Hey, you probably ran a sub-5:20 mile doing 8 of those at those paces, right?

Drink beer. Mostly ales. Sometimes stouts.

I was supposed to do my first 100/100 workout today too, but a bad night with my youngest had me sleeping through it. I ended up doing tomorrow's out and back on my treadmill this afternoon and will try the 100/100's tomorrow morning. You guys are making me feel a bit nervous though! Subdood, my times are more in line with yours...but goodness, you guys are like running rockstars on this forum, so if you struggled to hit the times and finish the workout I am crossing my fingers that I can even come close!

I agree that it's weird finishing so quickly. Hey, you probably ran a sub-5:20 mile doing 8 of those at those paces, right?

I think so; I ran four laps in about 5:25, but I stayed in the second and third lanes because of gravel spillover (just because I'm barefoot doesn't mean I'm a masochist). The garmin says about 5:05 for the mile, but that thing is always off on a track. I don't know what my actual 100/100 times were, I was just focusing on the marks and not puking.

The track was much easier than counting would have been, though. I don't think I can count and run that hard at the same time. A treadmill would be most accurate I think, but I hate those things.

The track was much easier than counting would have been, though. I don't think I can count and run that hard at the same time. A treadmill would be most accurate I think, but I hate those things.

The treadmill ... I'm a slave to my various electronic gadgets. I think I am slowly developing a sense of feel for effort/pace/etc., but I'm such a numbers guy ... when my treadmill says 8.5 mph, for example, I KNOW I'm doing 7:00 pace and I don't even have to think about it.  One issue doing the 100/100's on a treadmill is the "lag" time -- when you switch from a slow speed to a fast speed, it takes about 10 seconds to get there, and same thing when decelerating. So it's definitely not ideal. Next week, weather permitting, I will run these outdoors at the park.

... but goodness, you guys are like running rockstars on this forum ...

Seriously christirei? I am lucky enough to get fairly regular sleep (BTW -- how do YOU do it!), and I have some flexibility in my work hours, so my situation is conducive to making some progress. But struggling on these particular workouts doesn't concern me too much -- I wouldn't get nervous or freak out about them, it's just running. For reference, I did not quite reach the RW times for my 100/100's or my 50/50's during my marathon cycle last spring, but I believe they still had their intended training effect nonetheless. If I had pushed hard enough to make those times (and I honestly don't believe I was capable of it), I may have injured myself in the process.

Drink beer. Mostly ales. Sometimes stouts.

Well, did my first 100/100 workout today and it went great. Was able to complete all 12 and I think my paces were fairly close. I wore my garmin but didn't check it while I was running, just focused and ran hard   The last two "floats" I was definitely slowing down some, but I think I kept the sprint the right pace. That is one tough workout, and the mental aspect of making yourself keep running while you just want to stop and lay down is good training too! I might have stalked your logs to make sure that my workout was in line with both of yours, and it seems like I did the workout correctly. My husband got out of bed to check on me because he thought I must be sick or injured to come home so quickly