Tempo run length vs. speed

It looks like Bob Kennedy is going back to the basics: solid aerobic foundation with tempo runs. At Indiana, he did 10 milers at 5:00 pace about once per week during the winter to establish stamina (high threshold). Five minute pace for Bob was long to medium tempo pace. Additionally, if you look at Bob's old schedules for the winter, he did some long fartleks where he alternating long segments of tempo pace and normal distance pace. He did that on a flat dirt road according to an article I read. Regardless, it is good to see that he is utilizing aerobic foundational work as a step before his long-hard intervals which are basically about 3k pace for him when he is racing the 5k and 5k pace when is racing the 10k. There is a lesson in Bob's scenario for others on this website who have succeeded in the past but are suffering some ruts (now): get back to developong a strong aerobic foundation, including tempos within each training cycle.

I know there are folks reading this who are dying to climb back on top of the heap where they belong. There is not much in life that can compare to mixing it up with the big boys or big girls. Isn't that true?

maybe Im too old..mmol? translation?

My guess is that 5:00 is about Kennedy's expected marathon pace? (perhaps even a bit slower than MP?)

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)

tinman, just to clarify:

if 5k pace is 5 minutes per mile (300 seconds), 300/.93 = 323 seconds, so LT tempo pace would be 5:23 minutes per mile.

Thanks for all the good info on this thread.

x:

Yes you are right. If 5k pace is 5:00 per mile, then LT pace is 5:22.58 per mile (5:23 rounded), all things being equal such as weather, terrain, fitness, fatigue, etc.0 Some people may have very low power output, so they may in fact have slightly faster theshold efforts relative to 5k pace (more like .97 if power output is really bad). I would not count on that being the case for males or female middle distance runners. Rather, .90 would be the factor to use for persons who have great power and lack endurance.

Someone asked what a millimole is: In layman's terms it is a measure of blood lactate used by physiologists to determine how much carbohydrate metabolism is taking place at a give exertion. A typical resting blood lactate level ranges from .4 to .8 mmol one for trained endurance athletes whereas it typically resides up to twice that for sedentary folks. As exercise is introduced, blood lactate levels rise gradually at first and then rather dramatically at a point when energy metabolism shifts from a mixture of fats and carbs (simplified versions of these, of course) to primarily carbs. On a plot graph this can be observed on many but not all individuals. This first rise on the curve occurs at around 1 mmol for trained endurance athletes and often double that, but not quite for sedentary folks. Later, as the exercise intenstiy is raised, another noticeable shift takes place on the curve. Some people claim that there is no breakpoint (sharp inflection) on the graph, while others say the rise, though pronounced, is more curvilinear. I think it greatly depends upon how small the speed changes are during the test as to how dramatic the rise. Smaller speed changes equal smaller changes on the curve which smooths it out to curvilear. Regardless, the second noticeable rise in blood lactate shown on a plot-graph constitutes the lactate threshold that is so often mentioned in training circles as being a critical velocity for conditioning. The second noticeable rise occurs at higher lactate levels for sedentary folks (usually in the 4-6 mmol region) and lower for endurance trained folks (2-5 mmol). The average for most folks is about 4 mmols, but it really doesn't matter. What counts is the intensity and velocity at which the region of rise occurs. For endurance athletes, the pace of rise is equal to the range of 3 hour race pace at the slow end to 1 hour race pace at the fast end. If sometime you see that I am writing about using tempo training, quickly you might remind yourself that I am referring to paces that are moderately fast aerobic and fit into the region of interest for extending endurance and stamina greatly so that one can run along faster or at a higher percentages of individual maximum oxygen uptake. Clearly, research and experience of veteran runners shows this region ideal for developing performance capacity relative to the amount of effort required and the amount of fatigue ensuing (relatively small).

Saw the link to this thread on Cool Running...Had a question regarding the following...

*****

One week before your race do a 10 miler at marathon race pace with a warm-up and cooldown. This serves as a medium length tempo run at slightly slower than normal medium lenght tempo pace (normal medium length tempo pace is at half-marathon race pace)

Each weekend prior to that run either a Sat or Sunday "big" day in which you run a total for the day which is equal the time you will run in the marathon. So,if you think you will run 3 hrs and 30 minutes, then each Sat., for examaple for a month, run two workouts totaling 3.5 hours. Each of the two runs should include 30 minutes of running at medium tempo pace. This workout day alone will round you into excellent race shape.

*****

Has anyone ever done the above workout for a marathon? Splitting your weekend long run day into two segments with two solid tempo efforts. I am not fast by any means, my PR is 3:27, but I am always looking for something to jump start my performance.

Threshhold run = 4 miler @ 5:30 pace..................this should be your tempo pace

Tempo run = 8-10 miler 6:00 - 6:15 pace .....this should be your THR pace

good luck

tinman wrote:

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)

Good stuff. I just read through this thread, and would like to make sure I understand. Does the above translate into the following table:

20-30 min. tempo run = 5k pace divided by .93

40-60 min. tempo run = 5k pace divided by .90

70-80 min. tempo run = 5k pace divided by .87

Thanks.

Think again wrote:

You do realize your numbers are somewhat flawed, especially for women...But I'd be very confident that a number of women would not fit those numbers.

Interesting suggestion that women over longer time distances have better relative endurance/stamina than men with comparable running capabilities.

I haven't heard this before, but my twins (one boy / one girl) are exactly the opposite. They are virtually dead even at the 800. But for any distance shorter than the 800, my daughter could beat my son every single time, and for any distance greater than 800 my son could beat my daughter every single time. They did virtually the same training over a number of months with the same jr high coach (an experienced coach). My daughter is a sprinter, my son is a distance runner. They come from the same gene pool, but their difference in relative strengths is very distinct. Your generalization doesn't apply to them in the least.

Interesting discussion though.

Consider that Radcliffe is a marathon specialist, as are the other top marathoners that don't agree with the 0.87.

Tinman was refering to the marathon pace of typical 5km runner. Khannouchi ran 2:05.38, yet only ran low 14s I believe ... but Khannouchi was a marathon specialist not a 5km specialist. On the same note, I am an 800/1500 specialist; during XC, I'm sure I could put three sub-five miles back to back ... but I would be hard pressed to average 6:00 for 26.2. Based on 0.87, I should be able to hold 5:44 pace for the marathon based on 5:00/mile 5k pace.

KK has run sub 28 on the roads.

wouldnt it be smart to bring some parts of it over anaerobic threshold range in the shorter runs of 30 mins and under.

I am not talking hugely above but verry slightly.I am no pro or not running any great times but hen i do threshols i seem to be fine till 1.05 of threshold of those runs (heart rate%)

so i'll do them till 182 for a couplee of minutes on hard pieces.ANd the under range is 168 while in he mid there is threshold at 176.

Or ould you be strict in keeping them under threshold at all times.I mean is 4 mmol and 5 mmol really that much of a difference

(so stay still at 10 km pace or slower at the fastest part of your runs)

i somewhere read an article about CV pace in training.OFcourse avg heart rate oreffort stays under threshold butsay 5 minutes is at or just above it.But still in a not to hurtfull way.

Is this the Critical Velocity Article you are referring to?

http://www.peakrunningperformance.com/docs/Critical_Velocity.htm

idd,

i literlay experience it when going over 182 heart rate while at the same time my anaerobic threshold is 176. 182 -) 184 hurts more. I start to breath hard by then as well.Maybe its just that.(maybe ventilatory threshold is the best marker)

i do 2 kinds of runs btw one of 45 minutes at (167 - 172)

and one of 20 - 30 minutes from 172 - 182(trying to stay under the hard breathing but go hard although).Occourse in he beginnign it is lower. Wouldnt that be better then doeing o2 intervals and give the same effect while keeping stress lower.

Instead of hose short reps and race to get to your right heart rate(this certainly gets me above ventilatry threshold).

If i do itnervals it is 200's - 600's in total maximally 2000 meters. To gain strength.

All other running is easy.

Why would stay under anaerobic threshold be better?

As I understand Daniels's definition of tempo running, you want to train for 25-35 minutes at a level that just barely reaches your anaerobic threshold--and does not take you beyond that.

You want to run just hard enough to produce lactic acid. For the typical runner, this pace is 10-15 secs/mile slower than current 10k race pace (or equal to 10-mile race pace). The effort for this workout is intense, but the runner should not be tying up at the end. It's definitely not an all-out time trial, but maybe 7/8 of race effort (per Lydiard).

If you run at this pace for longer than 35 minutes, you're getting close to race effort and therefore not doing a tempo run.

The originator of this thread mentioned 45 mins as a duration for a longer tempo run. Assuming that his current 10k time is 35 mins., running for 45 mins at 10 secs/mile slower than 10k race pace would be close to his race effort and would certainly push him way past his threshold level. That's not a tempo run.

Is this the same as if you do it in cruise interval form like 6x1000m at lt pace with 200m jog?

This thread gives my soul cancer.

Alan

bump

what is meant by mmol?