It's time to redefine hard training. Here comes a thread.

More isn't always harder. Often, it's just more. And often, it's not "hard" enough to elicit what we want out of it.

When athletes say "we had a hard practice today," they usually mean "we did A LOT at practice today."

But hard shouldn't be about volume. It should be about intensity.

When an athlete says "we had a hard practice," I want them to mean "we ran hard," not "we ran a lot."

Doing more of something doesn't automatically make it challenging in the ways we want.

Look. If a child has mastered adding two digit numbers, you don't challenge the child by having them do twice as many two-digit addition problems than the rest of the class.

You give them three and four digit addition problems. You do subtraction. You teach multiplication.

That's because doing more of something that isn't inherently intellectually stimulating doesn't cause adaptation.

Doing MORE training that isn't inherently physically stimulating probably doesn't give us what we want.

Let's rewire our brains to understand that "harder" should mean "more intense."

For sprinters, that means sprinting FAST. Lifting HEAVY. Jumping EXPLOSIVELY. No more mountains of moderation. Push the limits, and go HARD.

I'm not here to argue the merits of tempo work, either. I already know. And a track season has a lot to plan for. I'm talking about max speed here.

You can chase the goal of ultimate speed all you want, but it will outrun you if you're not running fast enough, often enough.

What do you mean when you talk about training hard? Does your definition match your goals? If not, it might be time to reconsider.

Sprint fast to get fast.