Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1970 A Comparison of Continuous Slow Running, Interval, and Pace Training Methods on Running Performance. James Harmon Johnson Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Johnson, James Harmon, "A Comparison of Continuous Slow Running, Interval, and Pace Training Methods on Running Performance." (1970). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 1860. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/1860 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 71-6580 JOHNSON, James Harmon, 1942- A COMPARISON OF CONTINUOUS SLOW RUNNING, INTERVAL, AND PACE TRAINING METHODS ON RUNNING PERFORMANCE. The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Ph.D., 1970 Education, physical University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan A COMPARISON OF CONTINUOUS SLOW RUNNING, INTERVAL, AND PACE TRAINING METHODS ON RUNNING PERFORMANCE A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Health, Physical and Recreation Education byvo James H. Johnson B.S., Louisiana State University, 1965 M.S., Louisiana State University, 1967 August, 1970 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to acknowledge the encouragement and guidance given by Dr. Francis A. Drury and Dr. Jack K. Nelson in the planning and writing of this study. He also wishes to thank the students who served as subjects while enrolled in physical education classes at the University of South Alabama. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.......................................... ii LIST OF TABLES......................................... vi ABSTRACT................................................ vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM................... 3 PURPOSE..................................... 3 DELIMITATIONS....... ....................... 4 LIMITATIONS................. 4 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY...................... 5 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS....................... 5 II. SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE.............. 7 LITERATURE ON OVERDISTANCE AND INTERVAL TRAINING.......................... 7 PACE TRAINING AND RUNNING.................. 17 SUMMARY..................................... 22 III. PROCEDURE...................................... 27 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY...................... 27 SUBJECTS.................................... 28 TESTING AND TRAINING EQUIPMENT............ 29 TESTING PROCEDURE.......................... 30 CHAPTER PAGE TRAINING PROGRAMS............................ 33 STATISTICAL DESIGN........................... 38 IV. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA............. 40 INTRODUCTION................. ................ 40 ANALYSIS OF MEAN GAINS....................... 40 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE....................... 45 ORTHOGONAL COMPARISONS....................... 50 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................ 54 SUMMARY....................................... 54 FINDINGS...................................... 55 DISCUSSION.................................... 56 CONCLUSION.................................... 58 RECOMMENDATIONS.............. ................ 59 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY................................... 61 APPENDIX I. DAILY MILEAGE AND TIME FOR GROUP IRECORDED IN NUMBER OF 440 YARD LAPS..................... 66 II. GROUP II INTERVAL TRAINING WORKOUTS AT 440 YARDS............................ 70 III. GROUP II INTERVAL TRAINING WORKOUTS AT 220 YARDS....................................... 72 IV. GROUP II INTERVAL TRAINING WORKOUTS AT 60 YARDS......................................... 74 V. GROUP II INTERVAL TRAINING WORKOUTS AT 880 YARDS....................................... 76 VI. GROUP III DAILY MILEAGE RECORDED IN NUMBER OF 440 YARD LAPS FOR EACH TIMED PACE... 77 APPENDIX PAGE VII. GROUP I RAW SCORES ON THREE TESTS INITIAL SCORES................................ 85 VIII. GROUP I RAW SCORES ON THREE TESTS INITIAL SCORES................................ 86 IX. GROUP III RAW SCORES ON THREE TESTS INITIAL SCORES................................ 87 X. GROUP IV RAW SCORES ON THREE TESTS FINAL SCORES.................................. 88 XI. GROUP II RAW SCORES ON THREE TESTS FINAL SCORES.................................. 89 XII. GROUP III RAW SCORES ON THREE TESTS FINAL SCORES........................ 90 VITA.................................................... 91 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INITIAL AND FINAL MEAN SCORES FOR THREE GROUPS OF COLLEGE MEN IN RUNNING PERFORMANCE AT TEN MILES PER HOUR....................... 41 II. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INITIAL AND FINAL MEAN SCORES FOR THREE GROUPS OF COLLEGE MEN IN RUNNING PERFORMANCE AT EIGHT AND ONE HALF MILES PER HOUR....... 43 III. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INITIAL AND FINAL MEAN SCORES FOR THREE GROUPS OF COLLEGE MEN IN AVERAGE VELOCITY DURING A MILE RUN............................ 44 IV. ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF TREADMILL RUNNING PERFORMANCE AT TEN MILES PER HOUR OF THREE GROUPS OF COLLEGE MEN........ 46 V. ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF TREADMILL RUNNING PERFORMANCE AT EIGHT AND ONE HALF MILES PER HOUR OF THREE GROUPS OF COLLEGE MEN............................... 48 VI. ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF AVERAGE VELOCITY SCORES FOR A MILE RUN OF THREE GROUPS OF COLLEGE MEN....................... 49 VII. ORTHOGONAL COMPARISONS AMONG THREE GROUPS OF COLLEGE MEN IN TREADMILL PERFORMANCE AT EIGHT AND ONE HALF MILES PER HOUR............................... 52 vi ABSTRACT It was the purpose of this study to compare the effectiveness of slow continuous running, interval training, and pace training methods on improving running performance,, Subjects for the study were 120 college freshmen enrolled in Body Mechanics and Conditioning classes at the University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama. This study was conducted during the fall of 1969. The subjects were tested initially for maximum performance on three tests: 1) a maximum time run on a motor driven treadmill running at a speed of ten miles per hour at zero per cent incline, 2) a maximum time run on a motor driven treadmill at eight and one half miles per hour and zero per cent incline, and 3) a mile run. The two treadmill tests were utilized to approximate a relatively good one mile run for an un­ trained college freshman, and a good two mile run for the same subject. The subjects were placed into one of three training groups according to his physical education class period. Group I, the slow continuous running group, trained at a relatively slow continuous running pace. Group I began training by running twenty minutes each session and progressed to thirty minutes each training session. Group II, the interval training group, trained by intermittently running a certain distance and resting for a scheduled period of time. Group II utilized both fast and slow interval training on alternate days. Fast interval training was confined to distances of either 60 or 220 yard dashes, and slow interval training involved running a set number of either 440 or 880 yard dashes. Group III, the pace group, trained at a predetermined steady pace for a mile run. Each subject would train at this prescribed pace for as long as he could maintain the pace or complete a mile. Each subject ran only once at each training session, and, as soon as each individual finished one mile at the set pace, he would begin training at a faster pace. The subjects trained once a day, three times a week, for eight weeks. Any subject who did not attend all twenty-four training sessions was dropped from the study. All subjects were retested on the identical three tests at the end of the training period. The mean gains between initial and final scores for each test were analyzed for each group by the difference method, a t-test for significance of the difference between correlated means. Analysis of covariance was utilized to compute any differences which existed among the groups on each test. Orthogonal comparisons were then used to calculate the nature of these differences. The main findings of this study were: 1. All three training groups significantly improved performance on all three running tests. 2. The slow continuous training group was significantly better in improving performance on the treadmill run at eight and one half miles per hour than the combined effects of the interval and pace training groups. It was concluded that within the limitations of this study: 1. Slow continuous running, interval training, and pace training methods are highly effective in improving the running performance of college freshmen. 2. Slow continuous running is better than interval and pace training methods for improving performance in the slower paced run. 3. Pace training is a very effective method of training to specifically train a runner for a particular pace and is highly effective from the standpoint of time and from a psychological point of view. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Sporting interests have taken many directions in recent years, but few sports provide