I don't think tempo runs are overrated.
I think all of the trying to figure out the exactness of tempo runs and the gobbly gook that goes along with it is overrated.
"You need to learn how to feel Kung Fu, and not think Kung Fu" or something like that.
well. wrote:
johnny rotten wrote:Nah, definitely not overrated. Possibly underrated.
Tempo runs and cruise intervals + 200m reps = success.
With that as a base, it only takes a few interval workouts to be at your best.
I do think that most people run tempos and cruise intervals too fast, though.
Have you visited "www.therunzone.com" frequently?
Never heard of it before. I guess I will look. I suppose you're saying that what I said above reflects something that someone said there?
They are very useful if done correctly...that's the problem. Almost everyone I know runs them too frequently and way too fast.
A guy I know runs his tempo runs at 5:40-5:50 pace for 6 miles...runs 1 tempo per week with at least 1 other quality workout..averages 80 mpw...been having a real tough time breaking 27:30 for 5 miles in a race. He can't figure out where he's going wrong.
The Cart wrote:
They are very useful if done correctly...that's the problem. Almost everyone I know runs them too frequently and way too fast.
A guy I know runs his tempo runs at 5:40-5:50 pace for 6 miles...runs 1 tempo per week with at least 1 other quality workout..averages 80 mpw...been having a real tough time breaking 27:30 for 5 miles in a race. He can't figure out where he's going wrong.
Could you or anyone else explain the "Correct way" to do Tempo Runs?? My guess is there will be as many ways as there are posts...
Relaxtakeiteasy wrote:
i don't think most runners need 50's or plyos, or really any weight training to be perfectly honest. If anything is overrated it is this aspect of training along with core.
AND YET, you complain about having no speed!
Get real!
You won't have speed and power if you don't work on it!
Duh!
Try telling this guy that shirt sprints and plyos aren't important:
(Go to p.31, "A 'Typical' Spring Week's Training")
http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/1999spring.pdfReal-life story:
At 18, my fastest 200 of my life was 27". No joke.
I want to get faster, so I start doing short sprints with full recovery, plyometrics, the works.
A year goes by.
I enter an open 200 at a podunk early spring meet, and voila, 23.7".
Some Canadian wrote:
...shirt sprints and plyos...
I suppose I should explain what shirt sprints are.
It's simple, you see, you take off your shirt, tie it around your neck like a cape, and then try and use it to catch flight while you're sprinting, like Batman.
Short sprints, on the other hand, I believe everyone is familiar with...
I like both fartleks (simulate races better) and progressions (easier on the body I think) more then just 5 miles at X pace. Tempo runs have their place but decent mileage+good speed/power+a few race pace sessions should produce good results at 800/1500/3000 without many tempos. 4-5 miles hard once a week is enough for them. For 5k/10k/marathoners tempos are very important and should be done at least a few times a week when you feel up to it. 1/2marathoners/marathoners in particular run "close to the edge" during their races and should develop a good feeling of exactly where that edge is...for shorter track runners tempos are more of a support/strength thing instead of a direct practice of ~race pace. So whether they are overrated or underrated depends on the event and who you ask.
Oh and "Some Canadian", I completely agree...most people have way more potential at 200/400m then they give themselves credit for...speed development, like aerobic development, takes time. Both are crucial to a runners long term success. Unlike runningart I won't say that they are EQUAL in importance because clearly more time should be spent running, but sprint speed is often overlooked. There are a lot of distance runners fleeing towards the marathon, and even the ultra events now-say a runner in high school does sprints,drills,hills,weights and pylos and puts up a 53 400 and 1:55 800, but is not national champ. They move to the 1500 and run well but drop the pylos in favor of more miles, then move to the 5k in college and bag the drills, then move to the 10k and neglect the sprints and stop doing anything under mile pace, they try a 1/2 marathon after college and figure it's an endurance race and the hills don't help. Finally they try a marathon and consider long tempos at 1/2 marathon pace "speedwork". Slowly any speed they had is long gone and despite all the hard work and miles they struggle to run a 60 seconds quarter. They run well at the marathon but not to their potential, even though there is no way of knowing. They figure anything shorter surely couldn't help them run faster at the marathon, right as that is 99% aerobic...I know I will take some flak for this, but I don't really care all that much. Sorry if I got a bit off topic though.
here is a good article about it.
most people run their tempos too fast. Long, slower tempos are great. 5 miles at "just a little slower than you could possibly run" pace is, indeed, not such a great workout.
Both longer, slower tempos and shorter, more intense runs have their purpose. I am a huge fan of hard 8-12 milers starting at marathon pace and working down to half marathon pace with the last mile a little quicker, but quick 3-4 mile tempos closer to the season work well too. Generally speaking, the closer to a race/peak you are, the faster and shorter the tempos should get. Also the shorter your race is, the shorter and more intense your tempos will be as well.
Tempo runs are the second most important runs that you can do, behind long runs. Interval training should be used primarily for sharpening, but is generally overrated.
NE Ohioan wrote:Obviously, the pace of the tempo would vary whether you're training for 5k, 10k, 1/2marathon, or marathon, and it might not be as important for 5k and shorter, but my favorite run is a couple mile warmup then 6-8 miles @ 1/2marathon pace
Woah... tempo pace is based off of putting your body in a certain amount of stress to get the proper reaction. I don't care what event you are training for, tempo pace is tempo pace (the only caveat here being that some days 6:00 might be tempo pace, and others 6:15... but the determining factor is how hard you are working, not the race you are aiming for). When you finish a tempo, you shouldn't be whipped like you did a workout, and you shouldn't feel bad from in the next day. If you do, you are like most runners and are going too fast. Not that you didn't do a good workout, it just wasn't tempo.
the rocket wrote:
Tempo runs are the second most important runs that you can do, behind long runs.
Long runs are the least important runs.
wrong!! wrote:
the rocket wrote:Tempo runs are the second most important runs that you can do, behind long runs.
Long runs are the least important runs.
Not for a marathoner
malmo?
I have always stressed tempo/threshold type workouts because I feel it's more important to maintain pace than rely on leg speed which dosen't exist in the last 800 meters of a 5000 meter or longer race....
that's just what I've always thought.
notempos wrote:
Overrated and unnecessary. I could never break 3 hours until I ditched the tempos and switched to 2 speed sessions weekly, one long (3-5 miles of 800s and 1600s) and one short (1-2 miles of 200s, 400s). Coach said that tempos are less efficient in producing results and can wear you down.
Uh, let us know when you break 2:40. 3:00 hours is Oprah-esque.
xxxx wrote:
I don't think tempo runs are overrated.
I think all of the trying to figure out the exactness of tempo runs and the gobbly gook that goes along with it is overrated.
"You need to learn how to feel Kung Fu, and not think Kung Fu" or something like that.
Don't think. FEEL. It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.
I was able to run 23 and 49 for 400 at 18 and my 800 and 1500 PB's were 154 and 417 ( i actually did do lots of plyos and resistance training back then. Then I got to college and did none of that BS. I started training like a runner should 70-80miles a week.(10 runs a week) I ended up running 3:45 for 1500. I doubt I could even break 50 in the 400 by that point but it made no difference. When everyone is tired at 1200 it doesn't matter how much "power" you have. This isn't the 100meters we are discussing on letsrun, we are middle and long distance runners. It comes down to the person with the most strength. Quick the BS shortcuts to running fast, sack up and run more high quality miles.
Some Canadian wrote:
Relaxtakeiteasy wrote:i don't think most runners need 50's or plyos, or really any weight training to be perfectly honest. If anything is overrated it is this aspect of training along with core.
AND YET, you complain about having no speed!
Get real!
You won't have speed and power if you don't work on it!
Duh!
Try telling this guy that shirt sprints and plyos aren't important:
(Go to p.31, "A 'Typical' Spring Week's Training")
http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/1999spring.pdfReal-life story:
At 18, my fastest 200 of my life was 27". No joke.
I want to get faster, so I start doing short sprints with full recovery, plyometrics, the works.
A year goes by.
I enter an open 200 at a podunk early spring meet, and voila, 23.7".
Listen, on the importance of long runs, there's a slight twist but it's really not that complex. You won't need to call for malmo each time if you can commit this to memory:
- A serious marathoner training well is by definition running lots of miles, and in this case the long run is much less important.
- For a lower-mileage recreational or time-constrained marathon runner, the long run is of course essential. Nobody in his right mind would suggest training for a marathon on moderate mileage and no long runs.
yea, imagine what you could have done had you had kept doing the shorter stuff and maintained the 49 second quarter speed and still did the 70-80 miles a week...you could have been a 1:48/3:35 guy.
Besides, you are only proving the case that speed matters-you ran 23 and 49, that is decent speed.