An 800 metre run is about 50% aerobic. During a 100 metre sprint they are slowing down before the finish line. At about 5-6 seconds a person can run their fastest. Amateurs are 3 rounds and as you continue with an 800 metre run you're slowing down as you go. You're better off doing high intensity intervals for 3 minute rounds imo, you'll achieve far higher intensities of effort and more of it than during an 800 metre run. Often you see boxing considered around 60/40 anaerobic aerobic which is similar to an 800 metre run but if you think about it boxing isn't cyclic in nature like running, it is acyclic so it's more difficult to estimate energy system contributions (it's not continuous like an 800 metre run), you throw flurries of punches that are equivalent to sprints then move around a little bit. You could treat you 3 minute rounds as fartlek training, yell out when you want your boxer to sprint and when to stop and jog slowly. Make it unpredictable like a bout.
You moving your environment, it not moving you, theres different modes of doing it, also Eccentric Stretching Helps.
That explains a lot :roll: Let me guess, your vertical treadmill and a bout of stretching can solve all the worlds problems?
Long distance running is the foundation for all athletics. You speak of long distance running like someone is taking a slow jog. Any serious athlete runs at a fast pace, jogging is completely out of the equation. Boxing requires more Aerobic fitness then Anaerobic fitness. Anaerobic fitness is without a doubt important as well. Hill sprints for example I think are important for building speed and a boxing match requires this but how long does a boxer flurry or throw combinations? Compare this to how long he is throwing single jabs and keeping distance by moving around the ring or chasing an opponent down the ring and you'll see your answer why aerobic fitness takes precedence.
Even if you're running at VO2max that's only around 30% of your peak power. If you run continuously you're not running fast when aerobic metabolism takes over. When you run intervals you get a better aerobic response between intervals than running continuously. Performing repeat sprint intervals builds your anaerobic and aerobic energy systems at the same time and to a far greater extent than continuous running. The more time you spend at over VO2max the more it improves, which is what intervals allow you to do. Also hill sprints don't build speed, they just put stress on your knees and if done too often they alter proper running biomechanics. Long distance running is most certainly not the foundation for all athletics. Even long distance athletes use intervals when they're trying to improve. Long distance by nature is low intensity, no matter how fast you think you're running. You adapt to what you train for, no more and no less. Your body doesn't just one day think "Oh I've put a lot of kilometres in, now I can run faster and at a higher intensity". You have to run fast to be fast. You have to use strength to get stronger.
does any sort of sprinting build speed then? if normal sprints on a flat ground does, then id just sprint uphill once a week and normal sprints.
Amongst other things I work with 3 good triathletes. One in particular had when He 1st came to me, Knee problems. Couldnt Run, We devised a Non impact Hit program for Him, over 10 weeks. He knocked 19 minutes of His PB for this event of the previous year, yes it does work.
That is super risky when it comes to injury, I'd never recommend downhill sprints to anyone unless they were already supremely conditioned and it was only a very slight angle.