I was wondering if there is a difference between them ? I have always thought that tempo was just another term to describe the same thing ?
However, someone told me an recently that an obla is a shorter faster run compared to the tempo effort.
If there is a difference, which is more beneficial to a 5k/10k/xc type runner, or would a combination of both be more beneficial ?
OBLA, stands for the Onset of Blood Lactate Accumulation, the first break point on a blood lactate profile. This is used to indicate training intensity for endurance training, for most runners around 2mmol bla, tinman may describe this as Aerobic Threshold running effort.
Tempo running is a term used to discribe a submax run of some duration (20+ minutes at or around Lactate Threshold). Jack Daniels, I believe describes tempo running as around one hour race pace & maybe 4 mmol bla on a LA profile.
The theory behind their use is that the physiological response at Lactate Threshold & OBLA intensity will increase endurance if training at or around these two break points.
For example, someone with a 10k best of say 34min, which is around 5.30 pace.
Ive read from tinman and co that tempo pace is estimated to be 4% slower than 10k pace and 8% by 5k. What would the corresponding obla pace be then for this standard of runner ?
bump
Both are ways for scientists to measure effort. Nothing less, nothing more. I'm all for science, hell I have a degree in Exercise Science, but I wouldn't suggest letting science be the first place you go for training advice. The buck does not stop at the lab coat, it stops at previous successes, be them your own or taking the advice of elite runners. There are enough elite runners out there that you can come to some conclusion about how to train. You should know enough about yourself and what types of training you respond to.
The scientific information backs up what you're doing already. It gives you a biological reason why you're doing what you're doing. Your previous successes and elites previous successes gives you the practical reason.
Alan
i'm wondering though what the difference in effort is, both in terms of pace and distance between the two ?
OBLA does not measure "effort". (Being pick). It is a measure of lactate accumulation in the blood.
Tempo can be a vague term. OBLA is very specific: 4.0 mmol/L of lactate. Now one can suggest that tempo intensity should be some % of OBLA--certainly a reasonable way to describe it. Actually it would be the pace at OBLA more than OBLA itself.
...and OBLA = 4.0 mmmol/L, which can be a measure of effort: Running at 4.0 mmmol/L...:P
Alan
ahhh science
There are too many terms that people use to mean different things. In some journals OBLA is the same as Lactate Threshold, Anaerobic Threshold, Aerobic Threshold, Lactate Turnpoint, or any other term used. There's a lot of confusion.
Some say OBLA is the first rise in lactate from resting levels, others say it's the first significant rise (i.e. 1.5mmol over resting level).
Tempo is even more confusing because it doesn't have anything to do with lactate. Some use tempo to equal lactate threshold pace, others marathon pace, others a critical velocity pace.
So in conclusion it depends on the coach/scientist.
And for kicks, I use OBLA as Lactate Threshold (point where lactate production exceeds lactate elimination). To find a true LT, the test would have to be like a 30min run where there is no significant rise in lactate from 10min to 30min. However this is time consuming and pointless so I use a way to estimate it, which as long as done the same way every time will show progress in the LT.
forgetting concentrations of lactate etc in a practical sense what is the difference in pace between the two ????? for say a 34 min 10k runner ?