Ryan Hall's longer tempo runs

Spring rolls wrote:

85-87% MHR is slower than marathon pace. These are not what Hall is doing. His appear to be Mpace or quicker (4:50 = 2:06 marathon). Since those runs are at altitude and are said to equal 4:40 at sea-level, we're talking of 2:02 pace. No way this is 85-87% MHR (as per Vigil).

According to Jack Daniels 87% of MHR is around LT and that is FASTER than Mpace!

87-88% is what JDs' recommended T pace is for me and that is 30 sec faster than my M pace (of course I am slow so that number is larger).During my last Marathon I was 82% at the start and 90% at the end.

geten wrote:

According to Jack Daniels 87% of MHR is around LT and that is FASTER than Mpace!

Spring rolls wrote:

85-87% MHR is slower than marathon pace. These are not what Hall is doing. His appear to be Mpace or quicker (4:50 = 2:06 marathon). Since those runs are at altitude and are said to equal 4:40 at sea-level, we're talking of 2:02 pace. No way this is 85-87% MHR (as per Vigil).

I look at tempo runs in three baskets:

1) Marathon paced run of 60-90 minutes

2) Half Marathon paced run of 30-45 minutes

3) 2-4 Repeats of 3k to 5k at HM pace with 20% of run time recovery between each. (i.e 4 x 3k w 2 min or 2 x 5k w 3-4 min)

I usually do #2 or #3 until the last 6 weeks before a marathon and then alternate between 1 and 2 the last 6 weeks. (One tempo run per week)

For those who use a Heart Rate Monitor:

Marathon pace is roughly 85-88% of Max HR

Half Marathon pace is roughly 88-92% of Max HR

Sound to me like Ryan has been doing some Tempo runs between 1) and 2). Probably 50-60 minutes at 90% of Max HR.

His altitude pace of 4:50 probably translates to 4:35-4:40 at sea level. His half marathon pace was slightly faster than that. I'm guessing he was at about 92% of MHR for much of HM race.

the three miles wasn't a tempo it was all out

want my splits for the 10 miler? I have them mile by mile

last 3/4 in 3:28

my goals for track are 1:54/4:05/8:50

I didn't do xc, and have only been training hard for a few months

excuse me, I'm off for a 16 miler, running to the dam and back ill inform you of the time later

I really don't care what JD wrote. Mpace in well-trained runners is 88-90% HRmax, and I did not read that in some damn book. I coach runners who can do this.

So, 85-87% HRmax is slower than Mpace. Trust me on this. If 85-87% HRmax is faster than your personal Mpace (as one guy stated), you are not well-trained. Hall is, and we're talking about him.

Spring rolls wrote:

I really don't care what JD wrote. Mpace in well-trained runners is 88-90% HRmax, and I did not read that in some damn book. I coach runners who can do this.

So, 85-87% HRmax is slower than Mpace. Trust me on this. If 85-87% HRmax is faster than your personal Mpace (as one guy stated), you are not well-trained. Hall is, and we're talking about him.

I agree.

I'm 48 and untalented. In an early December marathon I lowered my PB from 3:39:39 to 3:30:59. I wore a HR monitor and averaged 173 (86.9% of my 199 max, achieved at several points during the fall) over the distance. 87%. That's for a three-and-a-half-hour marathoner.

Obviously an elite runner--sub-2:30, say--is sustaining an incrementally higher HR. I could, too, in a race that took me that length of time. (For the record, I sustained a HR of 181 (91%) in a 10-miler.)

So I agree: 88-90% for an elite marathoner doesn't seem implausible. I'd bet on 92-93% for a 1:00 half marathon.

It's worth stressing my key point: the % of max HR that a runner is able to sustain for a given DISTANCE depends not just on how well-trained the runner is, but on how GOOD the runner is. I'm well-trained; I'm just not very good.

I'm a three-and-a-half-hour marathoner.

A 2:10 marathoner, running for an hour and twenty minutes less than me, can of course sustain a higher % of HR than I can when running a marathon--just as I could if I were running a race that took me about 2:10 to complete--a 16 or 17 mile race. Got it? If I'm good for 87% over a three-and-a-half hour race, I'm surely good for 89% over a two-hour-and-ten minute race.

So is an elite marathoner--although he's moving much faster during that period of time.

Spring rolls wrote:

I really don't care what JD wrote. Mpace in well-trained runners is 88-90% HRmax, and I did not read that in some damn book. I coach runners who can do this.

So, 85-87% HRmax is slower than Mpace. Trust me on this. If 85-87% HRmax is faster than your personal Mpace (as one guy stated), you are not well-trained. Hall is, and we're talking about him.

You´re either a troll or an idiot!

Coach D wrote:

Back to the original subject, the long tempo runs have been part of Dr. Vigil's system for years. The runs go up to 60 minutes, or from 6-10 miles @85-87% MHR. For marathoners, the runs go up to 12-13 miles, and this is at altitude.

There's a great article by Vigil on his development of Deena, where they talk about these being one of the cornerstone's of her training for Athens.

HR is very individual. Just because JD says 87=88% is LT doesn't mean jack to the individual. Depending on a lot of characteristics LT can be as low 75% or as high as only a couple beats below max HR.

Get rid of the stupid formulas!