You could run harder, longer. If the workout was four 200s really, really fast, they wouldn't seem as hard as before. You could cut the rest down from five minutes to three. That's a big difference.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I could produce spurts of speed and after taking up athletics I found myself running quite quickly over 400m.
In 2008, Pistorius was the only guy who could run under 22 seconds at 200 m. So I said I would run as fast as that in London. I practised; I trained.
I've never enjoyed my running more. I also do 200 sit-ups a day, 60 push-ups, and a lot of stretching. I've had some back issues. I think the stretching helps with that.
It's a question of spreading the available energy, aerobic and anaerobic, evenly over four minutes. If you run one part too fast, you pay a price. If you run another part more slowly your overall time is slower.
On the actual competition days, you get about three or four hours of physical exertion - between an hour-long warm-up, recovery in-between runs, the training runs, and then the runs themselves.
People assume that you need to run fast to get to optimum fitness, but the truth is endurance lifting makes you stronger and leaner.
It's very easy to run a good 200 m. after an appalling shot put.
I'm not much of a gym rat; I'd rather be running, but if it enables me to run faster, then I guess I can tough it out.
Even for runners who never make the transition to more sophisticated workouts, easing into speedwork will lead to more enjoyable running.
I know I have to run 20 more minutes if I eat ice cream. Basically, I eat everything, but I just do more training.
No opposing quotes found.