Quit using the word "Tempo"

Tempo just means "not slow" or "not easy" continuous run.

It's supposed to be vague.

It's like saying you are going to do a track workout.

Vague, but you know it is not an easy run or a tempo run.

Schedule

M- Track

T- Easy

W- Tempo

Th- Track

F- Easy

Sa- Hills

Su- Long run

Runningart2004 wrote:

Also know as: run to the bar

Alan

No, runs to the bar are known as something else entirely.

I've used tempos at 10k pace when training for the 5k with good success. They're just 4 miles, and probably a bit more intense than other tempo runs, but they're still "tempo".

Quit making so many typographical inexactitudes.

And learn some real physiology, before you start preaching.

ccrunner609 wrote:

No you are an idiot to think that most people on this board can run 10-13 miles in an hour. As for the term, I have never used it because it doesnt provide enough material at what pace someone is running.

Good story was last fall, Bob Schul and I were sitting around talking and he sais, "can someone tell me what the hell the word "tempo" means? Its a vague word that doesnt entail what physiological state you want to run in"

I would agree with the only American to ever win the 5000 meter gold. Also I have spent time with Jack Daniels and Jim Spivey and neither of them prescribe to using a vague term like "tempo", they like to use physiological terms that detail what pace you are running.

Just because you're a good runner doesn't mean you know a damn thing about the science behind it.

Like a previous poster said, it's supposed to be vague. Listen to your body.

If you want to go the other route and have a definitive pace to run, go buy a Garmin and have it warn you when you deviate from it. Have fun getting injured and losing motivation, because you're setting up unrealistic expectations for yourself.

On the contrary, you could learn to run by perceived effort, and you'll find that your "tempo" effort is slightly slower on days when you don't feel as good, and--surprise!--faster on days when you feel great. It'll probably average out to 10k or HM pace over the course of many runs, but you won't be beating yourself up over not hitting an exact time, and you'll probably get faster.

FYI, much of this can be directly attributed to Matt Fitzgerald and his research regarding the brain's role in training, fatigue, and perceived effort. Feel free to disagree with it if you want, and feel free to go with Daniels' rigidly prescribed pace guides, but know this: SCIENCE DON'T LIE.

point taken sir wrote:

Wow, I've just seen you bitch about this on 4 threads that are all on page 1. Shut up already. The word tempo is readily understood by all, it's the pace you can run for approximately an hour, or it's 10 mile race pace, or it's HM race pace. That's your range.

Exactly. Why would anyone take up this terminology cause with such fervor? Doesn't the OP have better things to do with his life?

ccrunner609 wrote:

this term in running is cokmpletely useless. It means absolutely nothing when describing a run. when you say "Tempo run" you could be describing anything from an easy pace to a all out pace. The word needs to be used with a commonly known physiological pace or not used at all.

My suggestion is we use the correct terms to describe any type of run at any pace.

aerobic pace

lactate threshold

aerobic threashold

anaerobic threshold

VO2 max pace

VVo2 pace

all of these physiological paces can all replace a meaningless word like "tempo"

Aye, aye Admiral Butthead!

I am very happy you said that, Malmo. I've always felt like I was struggling to hit those paces. Closer to a race pace that a tempo feel. I finally just dumped that pace and ran on feel-10 seconds or 15 slower/mi.@OP, I think in your example you chose the two paces that can't be called tempo runs-EZ pace and all out (maybe you mean mile or 800 pace-that seems to be a more ambiguous term than tempo). I'll add in that a lot of marathoners refer to race simulation/pace runs as tempos as well. It's pretty easy to tell what people are talking about in context. I'm sorry you get confused.

malmo wrote:

Pennsywania School wrote:

Daniel's "T" pace stands for threshold. For elites and sub-elites, "T" pace is approximately half marathon pace, if not a couple of seconds slower per mile. It's the pace you could sustain for 1 hour if putting forth race effort.

This is clearly defined. It's also the same thing as a tempo run as far as I'm concerned. Some people like to do their tempo runs in an accelerating fashion, and don't really achieve Daniel's "T" pace until the midpoint or end of the run.

Running is an art, not a science!

Daniels definition is too fast. If you can run tempo runs at HM pace then your HM sucks - and the reason for that is that you've been killing yourself in tempo runs.

Why not just say that you want to run a tempo run at 5:20 pace? or 5:30 pace? We have numbers, so whats the point of me having to learn what the hell all those things you wrote in your first post are. I feel like "a 5:20 pace tempo" is a lot more simple and specific than "lactate threshold pace run" especially considering most people have no idea what that means.

ccrunner609 wrote:

LOL at all of you, you just made my point by using the word tempo and by your examples made it even more of a vague term.

the definition is "the rate of a repeating event".....vague and is unassigned when used by itself. To understand the meaning or purpose of a "tempo run" you need to assign a pace or physiological pace to it.

The real question is why you care so much.

As an aside, I always understood tempo to be based on perceived effort. If you want to be technical, it means 15-30 seconds below race pace for whatever distance you are running. So, if you can do 5 miles at 4:50 pace in a race, then do your 5 mile tempo run at 5:05-5:20. If this is not clear, then go with the perceived effort of as fast as you can go comfortably without getting that burning feeling in your legs.

Back to the real question, why do you care so much? It's just a traditional term that is pretty well understood in the running community. Why are you so obsessed with assigning a specific physiological meaning to everything? Let people use it however they want. What the hell purpose does it serve if you actually did eradicate the use of the word? Would we see new American records because you convinced people it was a bad word?

ccrunner609 wrote:

but by not assigning an actual physiological pace, your "tempo" is vague and doesnt tell anyone what type of workout you are actually doing.

Do you think coaches always tell their runners specific paces for hard runs? No, they can't always tell what is hard or what is not so hard, and these levels of difficulty aren't always clear, but we use them anyway. The point is, there is no clear cut definition for every level of pace. Coaches tell their athletes to run "hard, but not all out" or "a pace where you can't carry on a conversation" or some example that isn't exactly clear because it doesn't need to be. It is well understood what the coach means, and the athlete does it based on that perception. You can't apply a physiological definition to everything. What are "striders"?

malmo wrote:

Daniels definition is too fast. If you can run tempo runs at HM pace then your HM sucks - and the reason for that is that you've been killing yourself in tempo runs.

malmo - question for you. For my training I'm following an over/under approach. In the fall when my focus is racing 5k-10k, one workout a week will be on the faster side of that - something at like 1500, 3k, or 5k race pace, and the other workout will be something on the higher end, like mile repeats at 10k pace, or a continuous 4 mile run that I call a "tempo" that I run at estimated half marathon pace. The estimate comes from using comparison charts. This over/under method works well during track season too, the fast workout is usually at 400, 800, or 1500 race pace; the endurance workout is usually 3k, 5k, 10k, or tempo. And of course for non-workout runs (most runs), it can be a wide range, from dead easy for a recovery run to higher end aerobic runs that might eventually finish near estimated marathon pace.

I like my approach, I think it touches on all paces within the spectrum but your training from this thread is less "systematic":

And here you are saying tempos at half marathon pace is too fast. So if you didn't have workouts set aside for half marathon pace, when did you do that? Do you think it's unnecessary?

this is a verbatim quote from a "Jack Daniels PhD":

"There are three kinds of threshold-pace workouts: tempo runs, cruise intervals and cruise repetitions.

Tempo Running

A tempo run is a steady, controlled run that should last about 20 minutes at threshold pace. A steady intensity of effort is important. Going too fast on a tempo run is no better than going too slow, and neither is as beneficial as running the proper pace. You could perform a longer-than-20-minute tempo run, but 20 minutes has been shown to produce positive results, and it will leave you relatively fresh for the next day's training.

Here's a typical workout: After a 1- or 2-mile warm-up, run for 20 minutes at your threshold pace, then do a 2-mile warm down. Simple enough. However, a few warnings are in order.

First, it's almost never a good idea to do tempo runs with a partner or group of runners. To run a tempo run correctly, you must complete it at a very specific pace, and it's rare that a partner or group of different runners would need to run the exact same pace as you. In addition, when several runners get together, they all too often turn the workout into a race. This destroys the value of the run.

You must also resist the temptation to run each tempo run harder than the previous one. This is a trap many runners fall into. It's easy to understand why. Since a tempo run is hard but controlled, you could put a little more effort into the next one and do it faster. While this might make your training diary look impressive, it won't add to your fitness, and it might detract from your next race.

When you run faster than threshold pace, you enter into "no man's training land," somewhere between threshold- and interval-training pace. This in-between pace serves no real purpose. So stay cool and keep your tempo runs under control.

Here's another warning about tempo runs: It's important to run at the right intensity; speed will vary under different conditions. When you encounter the wind, hills, even temperature extremes, maintain a steady effort and don't worry to much if your splits vary from mile to mile. On occasion, it's a good idea to run your tempo run on a track because you can measure your intensity exactly.

You might think the ultimate tempo run would be on a treadmill, where everything can be kept perfect. However, this environment reduces the concentration required to keep the proper pace, and therefore I don't recommend it. Learning how to concentrate on your pace, though not a physiological benefit, may be one of the most important things you can learn from tempo runs."

1. Must be a different Jack Daniels than you are referring to.

2. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Bob Schul has no reference to words or meaning of "tempo" runs = he trained under a very rigid (and successful) system.

3. There are countless runners throughout the world who use the term "tempo" runs

4. Using words that you have suggested DOES NOT in any way mean runners aren't doing the exact same thing - changing words doesn't change what actually takes place during the actual run. I'm gonna take a wild guess here: there are more than a few Kenyan who have no clue what the 'proper' terms are for tempo runs, as defined by you or Jack Daniels or an alarmed/disgusted Bob Schul. Those things we use to transport ourselves around .... are they automobiles, cars, motor car or wheeled motor vehicle? They all are the same thing and have the same function. What is your advice about what to call them?

5. This is straining at gnats and engaging in counting the number of fairies dancing on the head of a pin.

6. Name dropping hardly strengthens your position. A number of people posting here could do the same thing.

I believe the OP is engaging in what you young people like to call "trolling." Simple solution: if the OP does not like the term "tempo," don't use it. And leave the rest of us alone.

no one wrote:

A tempo run is a steady, controlled run that should last about 20 minutes at threshold pace. .

Jack uses the work "Tempo" but he assigns teh lactate threshold intesnsity to it so it actually means something concrete and not some vague term that describes nothing when used by itself.

Good try but you actually made my point for me. Using the word tempo by itself means nothing but assigning something like "lactate threshold" to it makes it means something.

At first, you were like, "HEY GUYS LISTEN UP, here is my point and it is pretty stupid, but here are maybe a couple reasonable premises."

Then you were like, "ur all stupid."

Now, you're like, "HURRRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRR."

Ya'll just take the fun out of runnin', don't cha?

ccrunner609 wrote:

but by not assigning an actual physiological pace, your "tempo" is vague and doesnt tell anyone what type of workout you are actually doing.

It's none of their business anyway

Ya'll just take the fun out of runnin', don't cha?