Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
ab
Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 12:40PM Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Is it better to do a tempo run for say 25 minutes and faster (ie: 5:30 pace for a 16:00 5k runner) or 45 minutes and slower (ie: 5:50). Would it be better to incorporate both each week, or is one superior?

Thanks!
Kamikaze
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 12:48PM - in reply to ab Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
If you are concentrating on 5k there is 2 kinds of runs that would help.

Threshhold run = 4 miler @ 5:30 pace

Tempo run = 8-10 miler 6:00 - 6:15 pace

I like to do one of each weekly, and later in the season can substitute shorter repeats like 4 by 1 mile or 8 by 800 for the threshhold.
tinman
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 2:39PM - in reply to ab Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Response to question regarding the use of long or short threshold runs for a 5k preparation:

16:00 current best for 5k = 5:09.6/mile

Training Paces for endurance development...

4.0 mmol = 5:33 /mile
3.0 mmol = 5:44
2.5 mmol = 5:56 or MP (Marathon Pace)
1.0 mmol = 6:53

Use the 4 mmol for shorter tempo runs, the 3 mmol for medium length tempo runs, the 2.5 mmol for long tempo-endurance runs, and the 1 mmol for aerobic maintenance and recovery distance runs.

As a rule-of-thumb, shorter tempo runs are 20-30 minutes long, medium length tempo runs are 40-60 minutes long, and long tempo runs are 70-80 minutes. 2.5 to 4.0 mmol is the range or zone for greatest endurance development for distance runners.
pp
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 3:04PM - in reply to tinman Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
tinman, what do you consider short, medium, lomg tempo runs?
tinman
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 3:09PM - in reply to pp Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Shorter-Length Tempo Runs = 20-30 minutes
Medium-Length Tempo Runs = 40-60 minutes
Longer-Length Tempo Runs = 70-80 minutes
asdf
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 4:47PM - in reply to Kamikaze Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Kamikaze wrote:

If you are concentrating on 5k there is 2 kinds of runs that would help.

Threshhold run = 4 miler @ 5:30 pace

Tempo run = 8-10 miler 6:00 - 6:15 pace

I like to do one of each weekly, and later in the season can substitute shorter repeats like 4 by 1 mile or 8 by 800 for the threshhold.


If you're training for a 5k, is the longer tempo run really necessary? Can't you get enough of that in a long run and just do the 4 miler weekly?
jozast
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 4:50PM - in reply to ab Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
run 4 x 2 miles @ 5:40/mi up to 6:10/mi much better then what you think is true. 5:30/mi too fast. Also another great workout 4 x 5 miles in 6:10/mi pace with 5 minutes rest.
jozast
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 4:53PM - in reply to tinman Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
tinman very good, U know your stuff.
dumb
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 6:00PM - in reply to tinman Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
what were the calculations that gave you those figures (the paces, I mean)?
trackhead
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 6:08PM - in reply to asdf Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

asdf wrote:
If you're training for a 5k, is the longer tempo run really necessary? Can't you get enough of that in a long run and just do the 4 miler weekly?


Gebrselassie has a weekly 15km-30km long LT run (marathon pace) and no one has topped his times at 5k.
tinman
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 6:10PM - in reply to jozast Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Thanks for the compliment. It is nice to have positive feedback.

I agree with you that slower, longer tempo runs are highly valuable and not a waste of time for 5k runners. I consider any pace within the 2.5-4 mmol range effective at producing threshold and endurance changes. I believe that some persons who lack stamina (ability to hold pace) need to do more work at the longer tempo pace or the medium-lenth tempo pace) Doing faster training doesn't necessarily equate to faster racing. Just the opposite occurs for some persons. Renato Canova can verify the importance of moderately paced longer runs at the tempos I have suggested. The tempos are not new. Many great marathoners and 10k runners have used them in decades past. Frank Shorter ran his 20 miler every Sunday with the second 10 miles at marathon race pace (2.5 mmol pace). Kanouchi runs many faster long runs in the 2.5-3 mmol range). Many Italian runners, both marathoners and 10k-5k runners do faster long runs at marathon pace or half marathon pace and find wonderful carryover to shorter racing stamina. It does virtually no good to run fast intervals if your stamina is sub-par. And, running a lot of easy miles per week (even if it is 100 or more) doesn't mean that your stamina is good enough to race at your best. You may run a 120 easy miles per week and run 20 fast 400s or 10 half mile reps at a good speed yet still fail to race to your potential in the 5k and 10k. Stamina from longer tempo and medium tempo runs can bridge the gap. Lydiard recognized the gap 50 years ago and had his runners, even half milers, do 10k tempo runs at 7/8th effort (about 10 seconds per mile slower than race pace).

The mathematical correlates I used to derive the lactic acid levels (measured in mmols) I wrote about were as follows:

5k pace divided by .93 = Lactate Threshold (4 mmol)
5k pace divided by .90 = 3 mmol (half marathon pace, app.)
5k pace divided by .87 = 2.5 mmol (marathon race pace)
5k pace divided by .75 = 1 mmol (aerobic maintenance pace)
trackhead
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 6:34PM - in reply to tinman Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
tinman,

Intersting numbers. I like them. I'll hold onto to them. According to these estimates, Gebrselassie is capable of 2:02:46.6
tinman
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 7:26PM - in reply to trackhead Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Trackhead, you are right that, according the formula I presented, Geb could have run under 2:03 for the marathon based on his 12:39 personal best. A consideration too is the surface that Geb ran his 5k on (a flat, bouncy track). If the Berlin or Chicago Marathons were absolutely flat and made of track-like bouncy material, then I think a minute or more would drop off the current marathon best right away.

Also, I support your claim that Geb runs a fast 15-30km weekly at marathon pace. Such a run fits well with our assertion that long tempo runs at marathon pace (5k pace divided by .87) are valuable for increasing stamina for all racing distances: 5k-10k or even below.

Long tempo runs are not important just in the base phase of preparation. I think we agree on this point. Many successful runners from the mile onward have used tempo runs frequently as a means of improving or maintaining stamina necessary for racing success. The key physiology of tempo runs is simple: sustained high effort but not to exhaustion builds stamina. I consider longer, slow intervals and long fartleks to be in the same category: stamina builders.

Sidebar: Why do most 400m runners have trouble running the 800m or 1500m? Is it because of a lack of speed? Is it a lack of ability to tolerate and buffer lactic acid? Or...is it a lack of stamina? Tempo runs, fast continous runs, time trials, fast steady state runs, or whatever the term of the day is used to label runs of medium to long range at paces from 10km to 42 km are one key ingredient to reaching racing potential for middle and long distance runners.
trackhead
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/30/2003 7:46PM - in reply to tinman Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Tinman,

The M-Pace running is crucial. The Ray/Benson prgm I use employs weekly 50min of approx. marathon (85-87% MHR) for runners down to 800m specialists.

This just furthers the idea that most everyone who is really good is pretty much doing the same thing.
Think again
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/31/2003 12:45AM - in reply to trackhead Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Tinman,
You do realize your numbers are somewhat flawed, especially for women.

According to your 87% of 5k theory, Paula should only be capable of 2.21 with her 14.31 5k PR. This would be some way short of her actual 2.15.

Of course if you want to call her an outlier... go ahead. But I'd be very confident that a number of women would not fit those numbers. I'd be keen to see how people like Deena, Joanie, Rosa Mota, Priscilla Welch shape up... All better than you predict, I wager.
tinman
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/31/2003 5:40AM - in reply to Think again Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
The formulas are accurate as far as predicting threshold (approx 4 mmol), 3mmol, and 2.5 mmol relative to current 5k racing ability, regardless of gender. You have a valid point though about considering whether the formulas are gender specific. They are performance specific and best-fits which show no favor for extreme outliers such as no-speed and all-endurance or the opposite of high-speed and little endurance. About Paula Radcliffe, yes, her 2:15 and change is equivalent to roughly 14 minutes for the 5k. I believe that she was in much better track racing shape at the time of her marathon than ever before and could have been capable of running much faster than her p.r. of 14:31. Regardless, if a person is capable running a certain time for the 5k, their threshold is going to be within a second or two of the predicted time based on 5k pace divided by .87. If a person has been unable to equal the predicted time in the marathon, then I would guess the two main reasons; different racing surface for the 5k p.r. (and environmental differences too such as temp, wind, etc.) and lack of marathon specific endurance. An additional difficulty of the marathon (another reason why the marathon is such a compelling challenge to runners) is the mere fact that marathons can not be raced very often (more often would improve pacing/racing expertise) as opposed to shorter 5k type racing which can be done almost weekly. The more you do something the more you improve, theoretically.
tinman
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/31/2003 6:10AM - in reply to Think again Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Think again:

I am thinking again about your point. Perhaps women marathoners stand on the endurance end of the continuum and therefore the .87 formula would predict a bit slower marathon times due to a disproportionate of endurance vs. power. Hmmmmm! Perhaps .9 might be appropriate for women marathon runners who are not power oriented. Excellent point you make. Now, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so men marathon runners who lack power relative to endurance (have a forte of endurance, i.e.) would also be closer to 5k divided by .9 to predict marathon time. It seems we can go any which way from the cental point of the continuum depending upon a runners given strengths. Still, back to my key point earlier made about l.t., 3 mmol equiv., and 2.5 mmol marathon equiv., the prediction for such paces based on 5k are quite accurate. You may even refer to Daniel's formulas (which is based upon a ton of lab research on runners) and find that his predictions are very similar to mine. I will contend that Jack should be the definitive authority. I offer my numbers as an accurate and handy way of determining your own training intensities within the stamina zone of marathon pace to hour race pace. I mentioned earlier that this zone is optimal, according to European researchers and physiologist such as Canova, Jansen, and Olbrecht for improving endurance or what I call stamina which is the ability to hold race pace well. I define endurance as the ability to run long, but slow due to primarily development of more generalized physiological elements which are less specific to faster paced distance running.
Daniels Reader
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/31/2003 6:19AM - in reply to tinman Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Daniels alludes to the fact in his book, and has said so on this board, that LT varies by the individual. Thus someone who was at 4.0 mmol, but whose natural threshold was 6.0, would be undertraining by your measurements. He's also said that although very accurate, doing a lot of blood sticks is probably not the best way to train. He's an advocate of doing it by feel. He's said so here mnay times.
RunfortheSON
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/31/2003 6:39AM - in reply to tinman Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Based on all of your mmol's for different length tempo runs, what should the pace be for someone who is a sub 18:00 5Ker and a 1:24:00 half marathoner. I've been doing my 4 mile tempo runs around 6:10 pace and my 6-8 mile tempo runs around 6:20 pace. Is that about right or should I be going slower/faster for my tempo runs?
Thanks for all of your posts.
Think again
RE: Tempo run length vs. speed 10/31/2003 7:13AM - in reply to tinman Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I can see and understand all your rationalzations, but they don't cover all the bases. Would also like to see you figure in a ton of Japanese women, and then I'd be even more confident that the numbers would skew.

Don't wholly agree with your, good for the goose, claim either. I would argue that few men (with a 5k equal to a female runner) will finish up with the same marathon time as the woman achieves. Yet your numbers say they will...
Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |