yeah, fair point, would need more time to tell.DocOctagon wrote:Who knows, it could have been anything. A bad training day, a good training day, accumulated fatigue, more well-rested, more or less calories ---- anything.spemma wrote: thanks, and i appreciate the suggestions.
it was just a curious result to me. i thought max effort 300m + an additional 300m of something loosely looking like running would result in more recovery time needed than 300m max effort on it's own. it's simple maths!
Now if you conpared 300 & 600 sessions consistently over a period of 6 months, then your results could be taken a little more seriously. Comparing a couple 600s to a couple 300s in the span of a week or three is meaningless.
to add detail, i was alternating 600m and 300m sprints in the same workout and the recovery effect persisted through the workout. for example, i did a 300m sprint, followed by 600m, and so on, for 3 reps each, 6 reps total.
my recovery time on each was consistent with my recovery time in prior workouts when i've done the distances separately and didn't intermingle. this was the first time i did the alternating distances in the same workout and it unveiled the obvious recovery difference more clearly than when i trained them separately.