Is it worth it to do 45 min tempos when the longest I'll be racing this track season is 12 minutes?

Of course. Lower energy systems need more development. 40 minutes a week is a good amount.

Or you could say, "why do any running more than 12 minutes in duration?"

yes and they will also help with overall aerobic development which is not a bad thing.

12 minute race* I mean, not tempo.

Every other week is a 40-45 tempo, and every other week is a 20-30 tempo so there is a mix of both.

bump

Why run a 20 minute tempo if one's focus is the mile? You've gotta work on strength. 45 minutes may be a bit much, but for some people the strength they gain is worth it.

Well this is like any Elite distancr runner saying, "I'm going to focus on the 3000 this year. Since I'm only running a little under 8 minutes why do tempo's any longer than 10 minuntes?"

From that perspective don't make much sense huh kid?

I'd say 2 x 20 minute tempo with a few minutes in between. You aren't training for a marathon, so no need for the very long, slower speed tempo runs.

So 2x20 min or 1x40-45 min? Keep in mind this 40-45 min tempo is every other week, alternated with a 20-30 min tempo

What's the pace/effort like on the 40-45 minute tempo? If it's half marathon pace or faster, I would take a 2-3 minute break between 2 20-25 minute segments. If it's slower than half marathon pace, then you can do it continuously and not tax yourself too much.

I don't know if it's half marathon pace (never run one) and I run this over hills and other terrain so it's not a flat road. But it is uncomfortably hard but not killer.

What the hell event are you doing that takes you 12 minutes to finish

Could be a girl doing a 2 mile

Cmurph wrote:

What the hell event are you doing that takes you 12 minutes to finish

The 5K

Really slow steepler that tries hard?

What you have to realize is that a 20 minute tempo and a 45 minute tempo are two different workouts with different stress almost entirely. The shorter 20 minute tempo is likely to be run at lactate threshold and sustained right there for the full time. You cannot do that for 45 minutes and if you are you're doing them wrong. Those very long tempo runs are more sub-threshold, and are trying to teach you to be more efficient at faster paces, not so much at the lactate threshold.

If you look back to a more Lydiard approach of training, the base period might include runs that are similar to this. Let's take for example an athlete with a lactate threshold at around 4:50-5:00 per mile, running 10 miles in around 52 minutes. Not at the threshold but not that far off it either. Like I said earlier, different lengths produce different results because they stress different things.

Just because your race may only be 12 minutes doesn't really change much. It's still going to be upwards of 90% aerobic, as far as energy breakdown goes. The majority of that is going to be at the faster end of the aerobic metabolism. Train it.

So one of the tempos is ~45 min, the other is around 30 min and these alternate every week and will probably get a bit faster each time.

The 45 min one is not run all out, uncomfortable but not killer, it just hurts going up some of the steep hills.

This is interesting. So it's ok to focus totally aerobic for 2-3 months, with just some strides here and there for track?

I don't really see much difference between a 30 minute and 40-45 tempo. I would be more inclined to run 20 one week and 40-45 the other. You paces will be much different.

You can probably do 3 miles in 20 minutes at 6:40 pace. The 45 minute run would be about 7 minute pace. Some would call this a tempo while others would call it a steady state pace.

Nein!!!

'with just some strides here and there for track?'

You need a lot more than that to prepare for the track