JK'S stuff in relation to the 1500/800 type of runner

Joe: Point taken about ramping up on mileage. If I keep tempos to one every 7-10 days, getting to 100% mileage is doable in a month. The other factor is that my goal race isn't until August, so I have more time to build a base than your guys (and I'll need it).

Thanks, good luck, and maybe I'll run into some of your people at the Can-Am this summer.

We always try to start at current pace and work down to goal pace by the end. Thing is on 200's and 300's it's pretty hard to slow people down to current pace, so they end up a little fast for what I want them to do. Once we get to 400's and beyond, if they can stick to current pace that's the idea and if they can end the last rep or two at goal pace, that's fine. I work at current pace probably 85-90% of the time at whatever pace we're working at. Just tends to keep people healthy. They get plenty of faster paced running with the correct recovery and volume of work when we do stuff at 800 pace.

Joe

Bump...

Also...Rubio, could you answer my question about Jack Daniels etc.? Or JK, or others with good advice...pleeeease, im desperate

Yea, I know telling people to quit probably isn't something people want to read. But my point is that the current strategies employed in the current training system in this country are basically useless in reaching the world-class levels that everyone dreams about. There has to be major changes made FIRST, at all levels, primarily the junior level because that level provides the critical physical and psychological foundations of base training needed to succeed at the world class levels in senior level years. If you don't already have the junior level system consistently cranking out athletes competitive at the junior world level then it's irrelevant about the kinds of problems the senior level athletes may have that they think restricts their access to those current unreachable levels. For example, why would sponsors want to provide funding for a system where senior runners are already starting in the hole from their junior level training experience? For example, money at the senior level isn't going to fix the problems already associated with the junior level. There's plenty of money budgeted at the junior level through the school system virtually year-round. But the funded junior level training system is useless and more destructive as it does not incorporate strategies that are necessary for appropriate junior level development consistent with our competitive world counterparts.

So where does the initiation process begin to bring about world class competitiveness and popular interest back into the American sport? You've got to begin by diminishing high school monopolization or year-round coaching control of athletes that have both the interest and the talent to succeed at the world junior level. You've got to have special clubs or training centers accessable to junior elites where they can get together on a frequent basis to train together under QUALIFIED professional coaches. Since successful high school athletes are most likely to attribute all their success to their high school coach, abandoning the system that they thought helped them succeed isn't a likely scenario, even though it is that same system that will eventually lead to their demise at the next level.

High school athletes who engage exclusively in their school cross country, indoor track, outdoor track, and summer conditioning programs year after year have virtually zero chance of ever acquiring the training base levels necessary for development to the current world-class levels. That means either programs have to implemented that are too lucrative for elite high school runners to pass up, or both cross country and indoor track would have to be eliminated as sports at the high school level, and where outdoor track was only about 12 weeks in length. This would open up the market for outside interests to implement and develop youth level programs that are not associated with the scholastic program.

Until the demise of high school monopolization, you will never see the American system consistently crank out competitive world-class juniors. And as an unfortunate result, you will continue to see world-class senior wannabees mired in fruitless attempts at overcoming their junior level deficiencies that inhibits their dream of becoming a successful world-class competitor.

I honestly haven't read Daniel's 1500/3k program very closely recently but knowing his history and what I remember of it, I would say it's a solid program. That said, it's hard to suggest if it's a good program for you because I don't know your history of training. It's fairly simple for any reputable coach to look over your past training and spot areas of deficiency pretty easily. That's why you get a coach or an objective outside observer to look over your past training. At the very least if you're a self coached runner you should give yourself an annual check up and give yourself an honest appraisal of what worked, what needs improvement and what needs to have more or less emphasis placed upon it in the coming year/s. So I can't honestly answer if it's a good program for you, sorry.

I can give you some advice in answering your question on your own. If you've had regular tempo runs in your program for the last 2-3 years and you haven't progressed past a 20 minute tempo run, my opinion would be that you need to increase the volume of your tempo work. If on the otherhand, you are in your early stages of your career and young (ie 16 years old) and have never run tempos before, then a 20 minute tempo is probably asking too much. If you are older and have been running for a few years but haven't incorporated tempo work into your training, then 20 minutes is a solid starting point. The thing with tempo work as with any other form of fitness is that you need to have a progression not only within each season, but from year to year as well to have success with it. That's why Daniels suggests starting with what I believe he refers to as "cruise" intervals. These are simply mile or 1k reps done at tempo pace with a minimal amount of recovery. You do these a couple of times, your body adapts, you remove the recovery down the road as you gain fitness to make it a ture tempo run. That's an example of a progression within a season. Now an example of an annual progression is the following: 20 minutes worth of tempo in year #1, 20-25 in year #2, 25-30 in year #3, 30-35 in year #4, etc. You ideally do this with all areas of your fitness (all-out speed, 800, 1500, 5k, 10k, tempo, MP, weekly miles, weights, plyos, flexibility, etc). Mileage is the easiest one to figure out for most people and the one most everyone does. So in the case of miles it's pretty easy to see how 100 MPW is a natural progression for an athlete who starts running their freshman or soph year in HS if you go at it in the following fashion:

Year #1: 35-40 MPW, #2: 40-45, #3: 50-60, #4: 60-70, #5: 70-80, #6 80-90, #7 90-100 #8 100-110, etc.

So if you start as a freshman in HS, no real reason you can't easily be at 100 MPW by the time you're a senior in college if take it slow and methodical. The thing is, most people just decide willy, nilly that 70 is the "right" weekly mileage for them and they stop adding weekly miles annually. The same as someone decides that 4 x 1600 is the "right" volume of 10k work for them or someone else determines that 8 x 400 is what they need or maybe that a 20 minute tempo is all it takes. Whenever you stop progressing in any area of fitness, you stop working towards increasing your ability to tolerate work in that area, which limits the improvements you'll see in race times.

Many times someone will comment on a message board that a workout such as 25 x 400 at 61 on a 2 minute cycle is impossible even when reputable people has seen it done. If you take the concept that a very talented person who gradually increases their individual ability to tolerate that pace of work each year, you can imagine that an athlete can get to that level of work over the course of many years of diligent work. This is where that phrase few seem willing to use comes into play, "patience". You just don't get the ability to run those very fast workouts, with minimal recoveries at a pretty unbelievebale volume of work overnight. It takes ever increasing workloads annually to attain this level of fitness and it takes a long time. It also take diligent planning and a desire to work harder each year. Plus it takes talent.

My $.02 on why we aren't quite as fast as we can be as a nation is we settle for a certain level of work. We decide that 28 flat is good enough and don't try to work at a greater effort in successive years to make that next jump. Oh sure, we decide short term "we want it" and overtrain for a season, then come back the following year after the experience and decide that training at that level is impossible. Others seem much more willing to look at 25 x 400 on a 2 minute cycle as a long term goal than we are. Could be cultural, could be any number of things. But it's good a guy like KK takes the time out of his schedule to do that workout at the ARCO center in Chula Vista so guys like Meb and Deena and Shay can see what it takes to be at the highest level. I'm glad the guy is wearing our colors and he takes the time to share his knowledage with our up and comers. Class act.

My advice to you in looking at the tempo run or any other form of workload you do or are planning to do is answer the following question. Am I able to do more next year? If not, why? Is it because I get hurt doing that or is it because I don't really want it badly enough? Decide what a safe increase is and go for it every single year (usually 10% works). Just seems to me everyone is on the mileage bandwagon and are committed to running 100 MPW. But what about things like over the next 4-6 years gaining the ability to tolerate workouts such as starting at 4 and steadily increasing to 7-10 x 1600 at 10k pace or possibly starting at 2 and gradually increasing to 4-5 x 800 at 1500 pace or going from 8 to 20-25 x 400 at 5k pace or starting at 3 miles and eventually getting to 8-12 miles at tempo pace or starting with 6 and annually gaing the ability to ultimately be able to handle 16-20 at MP and do all of these different types of workouts within the same training cycle. THAT's what needs to be done in addition to 100 MPW to get as good as you can get.

It's all about progression in all areas of fitness. So is that 20 minute tempo long enough for you? No, if you've been doing that level of work for over a year. Yes, if you've never attained that level of work yet and it's a natural progression of what you've been doing up till now.

Joe

I honestly haven't read Daniel's 1500/3k program very closely recently but knowing his history and what I remember of it, I would say it's a solid program. That said, it's hard to suggest if it's a good program for you because I don't know your history of training. It's fairly simple for any reputable coach to look over your past training and spot areas of deficiency pretty easily. That's why you get a coach or an objective outside observer to look over your past training. At the very least if you're a self coached runner you should give yourself an annual check up and give yourself an honest appraisal of what worked, what needs improvement and what needs to have more or less emphasis placed upon it in the coming year/s. So I can't honestly answer if it's a good program for you, sorry.

I can give you some advice in answering your question on your own. If you've had regular tempo runs in your program for the last 2-3 years and you haven't progressed past a 20 minute tempo run, my opinion would be that you need to increase the volume of your tempo work. If on the otherhand, you are in your early stages of your career and young (ie 16 years old) and have never run tempos before, then a 20 minute tempo is probably asking too much. If you are older and have been running for a few years but haven't incorporated tempo work into your training, then 20 minutes is a solid starting point. The thing with tempo work as with any other form of fitness is that you need to have a progression not only within each season, but from year to year as well to have success with it. That's why Daniels suggests starting with what I believe he refers to as "cruise" intervals. These are simply mile or 1k reps done at tempo pace with a minimal amount of recovery. You do these a couple of times, your body adapts, you remove the recovery down the road as you gain fitness to make it a ture tempo run. That's an example of a progression within a season. Now an example of an annual progression is the following: 20 minutes worth of tempo in year #1, 20-25 in year #2, 25-30 in year #3, 30-35 in year #4, etc. You ideally do this with all areas of your fitness (all-out speed, 800, 1500, 5k, 10k, tempo, MP, weekly miles, weights, plyos, flexibility, etc). Mileage is the easiest one to figure out for most people and the one most everyone does. So in the case of miles it's pretty easy to see how 100 MPW is a natural progression for an athlete who starts running their freshman or soph year in HS if you go at it in the following fashion:

Year #1: 35-40 MPW, #2: 40-45, #3: 50-60, #4: 60-70, #5: 70-80, #6 80-90, #7 90-100 #8 100-110, etc.

So if you start as a freshman in HS, no real reason you can't easily be at 100 MPW by the time you're a senior in college if take it slow and methodical. The thing is, most people just decide willy, nilly that 70 is the "right" weekly mileage for them and they stop adding weekly miles annually. The same as someone decides that 4 x 1600 is the "right" volume of 10k work for them or someone else determines that 8 x 400 is what they need or maybe that a 20 minute tempo is all it takes. Whenever you stop progressing in any area of fitness, you stop working towards increasing your ability to tolerate work in that area, which limits the improvements you'll see in race times.

Many times someone will comment on a message board that a workout such as 25 x 400 at 61 on a 2 minute cycle is impossible even when reputable people has seen it done. If you take the concept that a very talented person who gradually increases their individual ability to tolerate that pace of work each year, you can imagine that an athlete can get to that level of work over the course of many years of diligent work. This is where that phrase few seem willing to use comes into play, "patience". You just don't get the ability to run those very fast workouts, with minimal recoveries at a pretty unbelievebale volume of work overnight. It takes ever increasing workloads annually to attain this level of fitness and it takes a long time. It also take diligent planning and a desire to work harder each year. Plus it takes talent.

My $.02 on why we aren't quite as fast as we can be as a nation is we settle for a certain level of work. We decide that 28 flat is good enough and don't try to work at a greater effort in successive years to make that next jump. Oh sure, we decide short term "we want it" and overtrain for a season, then come back the following year after the experience and decide that training at that level is impossible. Others seem much more willing to look at 25 x 400 on a 2 minute cycle as a long term goal than we are. Could be cultural, could be any number of things. But it's good a guy like KK takes the time out of his schedule to do that workout at the ARCO center in Chula Vista so guys like Meb and Deena and Shay can see what it takes to be at the highest level. I'm glad the guy is wearing our colors and he takes the time to share his knowledage with our up and comers. Class act.

My advice to you in looking at the tempo run or any other form of workload you do or are planning to do is answer the following question. Am I able to do more next year? If not, why? Is it because I get hurt doing that or is it because I don't really want it badly enough? Decide what a safe increase is and go for it every single year (usually 10% works). Just seems to me everyone is on the mileage bandwagon and are committed to running 100 MPW. But what about things like over the next 4-6 years gaining the ability to tolerate workouts such as starting at 4 and steadily increasing to 7-10 x 1600 at 10k pace or possibly starting at 2 and gradually increasing to 4-5 x 800 at 1500 pace or going from 8 to 20-25 x 400 at 5k pace or starting at 3 miles and eventually getting to 8-12 miles at tempo pace or starting with 6 and annually gaing the ability to ultimately be able to handle 16-20 at MP and do all of these different types of workouts within the same training cycle. THAT's what needs to be done in addition to 100 MPW to get as good as you can get.

It's all about progression in all areas of fitness. So is that 20 minute tempo long enough for you? No, if you've been doing that level of work for over a year. Yes, if you've never attained that level of work yet and it's a natural progression of what you've been doing up till now.

Joe

Joe, their are too many problems associated with the high school program that would for the most part inhibit any kind of common sense in the training program that you have detailed out.

1. High school programs over-race. When you are easily running 50 races during a one year period there is no way to successfully implement a progressive low to high mileage program over the duration of a high school career. After a hard workout or ace, recovery is the most important element in appropriate development and that does not exist at the levels needed to develop successfully with other world counterparts.

2. High school programs are not individualized. There aren't very many high school programs who have training programs separate for each individual. Usually, a training program is set up based on what the coach thinks are team needs, not individual. As a result, while one athlete needs to increase mileage and endurance work, another may need to decrease mileage and turnover improvement. Odds are they'll end up doing the same workout.

3. High school coaches are not qualified to develop athletes toward world class levels. And they'll claim it's not their job either even though they are usually the sole provider of that individual's development. You look at the general high school program and it is simply that - general. Everybody has their own way of doing things and it is usually very generic in comparison to what everyone else around the world is doing at the same age level. High school coaches think that the general lifting of weights is productive. Not very many coaches, if any, do specific weight training that is SOLELY productive in the movements and resistances that occur from running.

Even if you gave a high school coach the perfect training program in writing, their lack of experience with appropriate methods of training wouldn't allow them to implement it properly or make alterations appropriate to individualized needs.

As a high school coach Ah's points seem offensive at first the point he makes is one I must agree with. I have 120 students in class during the day and another 25 distance runners after school. They all require personal attention at one level or another.

The runners are comprised of three main groups - participants, competitors, and champions. All have different goals and aims. The role of sports in high school is multi-faceted. They do not exist for the purpose of eventually creating world-class athletes. Sports are a part of the curriculum which in the public schools is "designed" to created "successful citizens" - the effectiveness of this curriculum can be debated endlessly since it's unlikely to find even two people that can agree on what it means to be educated or successful or a citizen ... sorry for the digression.

My point is that if I were to have the opportunity to have athletes with the genetic makeup to become world-class, I doubt I could give him or her the attention and focus they would need to develop without sacrificing the ability to meet the needs of my other students and athletes.

We have junior national/club programs for young athletes in gymnastics, swimming, ice skating, etc. At this moment it makes sense to have one for elite young runners as well.

I still think Ah's final statement overstates the point:

"Even if you gave a high school coach the perfect training program in writing, their lack of experience with appropriate methods of training wouldn't allow them to implement it properly or make alterations appropriate to individualized needs."

Just as there are under-qualified coaches at college and national levels there are over-qualified coaches at high school and junior levels. The position you've chosen to work at doesn't determine your ability.

I've never talked to JD and I haven't looked at his book in a few years, but I can piece together his rationale for prescribing tempo runs of 20 minutes at "one hour race pace". Nearly all laboratory measurements are made using a "graded exercise test" (GXT), in which the athlete begins at an extremely low level (walking pace) and the intensity is increased in a consistent fashion at regular intervals via either added resistance (ramping up the incline on the mill) or faster pace. When this protocol is carried out, the athlete is allowed to achieve a fairly stable respiratory rate and heart rate during each of the early stages of the exercise. Measurements of economy (how much oxygen is required to sustain the effort) are often taken at stages prior to reaching the lactate threshold (LT).

The LT can be found either by direct blood lactate measurements or it can be correlated from the "ventilatory threshold", which is found using gas exchange measurements. It turns out that most runners (those with decent running backgrounds, anyway) reach their LT (using the GXT protocol) at a pace that they could sustain for about an hour in an all-out, evenly-paced exertion. We could call that pace "lactate threshold velocity" (LTv).

Further testing indicates that most runners can actually run continuously at this LTv for around (you guessed it) 20 minutes before they actually reach their LT and have to begin supplementing their power output with ever-increasing ANAEROBIC energy production. In real world terms, this means you will basically be under control for the first 20 minutes of a hard one hour race, and the last 40 minutes will be spent either hovering on the VERGE of struggling (for a couple of miles) or ACTUALLY struggling (for the final few miles).

So physiologists who recognize all this will likely advocate a thorough warmup followed by a run of 20-ish minutes at their version of "LTv" (i.e., "one hour race pace").

It turns out that the only thing which is unique about running at "one hour race pace" is the muscle fiber recruitment. There is no ONE value of "LTv"; JD's "T pace" is entirely dependent on the testing protocol used to measure it. You can reach your LT (or stay close to it) by running LONGER than 20 minutes at slightly slower than "one hour race pace" or by running FASTER (and recruiting different muscle fibers) and not going quite as far. Furthermore, your "one hour race pace" will VARY from day to day dependent on weather, recent efforts, etc. It's all a question of how you wish to balance out the factors of fiber recruitment, time spent at the chosen pace, impact stress, and so on.

I tend to prefer longer and slightly slower runs which remain fractionally BELOW (slower than) the LT, although tempo runs of the 20 minute variety are effective in their own right. These longer runs provide a greater stimulus for improvement and, since the pace is a few seconds per mile slower than on the 20 minute outings, it's easier to monitor the effort and keep it from going into "push" mode. If you're always doing 20 minute tempo runs, you're liable to feel as though they need to be HARD efforts and will be under more pressure to hammer them when in fact this is not necessary.

In short, I'd advocate hitting the "high end of aerobic effort" two to three times per week during your base training and VARYING the pace and the duration (if possible) from time to time to recruit different muscle fibers and to provide slightly different stimuli for aerobic development. "Progression runs" are excellent for this, since they let you warm up completely and find the "high end" from the SLOW SIDE (this way, you ensure that you don't get in trouble and can therefore spend more time "at pace"). Don't HAMMER these things in order to hit any predetermined pace. Just go by feel. You want to find a pace at which you feel nearly effortless - almost floating. You can make this the FASTEST pace which gives you that feeling and only go for a moderately short time, or you can hold back from that speed and stay even MORE under control for a longer time. Or you can use "high density" repeats, in which you run for a few minutes at a time (with extremely short, slow jogs between each rep) and try to find the pace which will allow you to just BARELY touch "push mode" by the end of each rep. And, of course, you can go ahead and "release the hounds" at the end of a tempo run if you really feel awesome and want to fly, but try not to do this too often or the effect will be similar to overracing.

Ah - Thanks for contributing to a GREAT thread!

To cut down on bandwidth why not just post the link to the same lengthy post you offered on another thread?

I just want to make sure that more people see my professional ingenious opinions.

Joe Rubio and JK: Thanks for the great posts.

JK, excellent thread here. Thanks for the input. Now here's my question:

I've read that some coaches advocate running at what they call aerobic threshold. This is running at a velocity about 30-40 seconds slower per mile than "one hour race pace". JK, do you know of any particular benefits of "tempo" runs at this velocity? Is this what you call "high end of aerobic effort"? What is your opinion on training at this pace?

Thanks,

DougC

Well, Mr. "Ah", if this was the old TnF Media message board, I'd bet dollars to donuts that people would think you and I were one and the same poster, because what you've written (with the straight-to-the-point, unapologetic tone) is PRECISELY the stuff I used to post there. In fact, if I didn't know better, I would think you were me! The REAL problem with our adult runners is poor foundation in youth - specifically no aerobic development, overracing, and intense track training designed to expedite raceworthiness and "perform" in meet after meet as a freakin' middle schooler! I got flamed on the message boards for calling it like it is, too, but hey - somebody's got to say it.

While I don't see too many kids racing in MEETS 50 times per year, they are most certainly racing at LEAST that often in what they believe is PREPARATION for meets. I wouldn't be surprised if MOST high schoolers (and some even YOUNGER guys) are going to the well over 100 times per year!

This crap has to STOP. I've personally known (or have been in e-mail or phone contact with) several runners who have taken searing (even hateful) criticism for refusing to run (or at least refusing to double or triple) in ALL the meets that the high school "coaches" ask them to run. They KNOW the high school buffoons don't have a clue and they seek outside help, which generates more friction. I know this because those young runners often come to me for that individualized attention and progressive, long-term aerobic development you're talking about. Word gets out about the runner not being a "team player" or about the dad or private coach wanting "too much control".

Even a few people on these message boards (who are for the most part fairly knowledgeable) take a negative attitude toward a runner or his family wanting to seek true EXCELLENCE. They post things such as, "Hey, crybaby, doing the school workouts is all part of being on a team and learning to adjust and get along with people. Just get over it." Well, you know what? Screw ALL of you who think that way. Many (though not all) of our high school "programs" SUCK ROYALLY and I am an full agreement and support of anyone who bucks a crappy system to search for what is BEST for them (or their kid). If your cafeteria only served dog dung, wouldn't you go off campus to eat, even if it meant being branded a troublemaker with a bad attitude by all those fools who were choking down the dung and who were too blind or stupid to see they were going to eventually get tetanus and die? Well, some people are smart enough to recognize a fecal running "program" when they see one, and they should be APPLAUDED for saying, "Forget THIS crap!"

So what's the solution? How are we to prevent these high school burnout artists from "coaching" the clubs we want to set up? We've got to have intelligent people in charge of selecting these potential club coaches. In the meantime, it's EDUCATION on proper youth training principles that we have to have. I've spent the last several years hammering these principles home on various message boards. Maybe I should start on DyeStat (I just haven't gotten around to it), but I've read some of their posts and have a feeling that most of the posters/readers would have a very difficult time looking past the high school years.

Kyle Heffner (of the ill-fated 1980 Olympic team) and I have talked about getting a coaching NETWORK going around the country, but we haven't FULLY developed that idea yet. We HAVE been advising a number of high school coaches in various states, though, and quite a few seem to be receptive to the ideas of progressively higher mileage, aerobic development, and underracing. So some smart coaches ARE out there, and we need to find them and nurture their receptiveness. The results their runners are getting using our training ideas are not much better AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL than they were getting prior to implementing our stuff - but they aren't doing any worse, either, and they HAVE gone on to run far BETTER than most of their closest high school rivals as they mature, which is more important. So we're looking to find coaches like these who are willing to train their runners for the FUTURE rather than killing them in the present.

Regarding weight training, we rely on body weight exercises (not barbells or machines) for core strength (only if the athlete is VERY weak in these areas) and we use hill training and drills which transfer easily to the running motion as our primary "resistance training". This is far preferable to useless weight training which does nothing but place un-needed anaerobic stress on an individual whose primary demands are aerobic and who is never "benching" anything out there on the race course, anyway.

Wasn't it Percy Cerutty who said, "If the coach cannot do it, he cannot teach it, only talk about it."? We would prefer club coaches being REAL runners (or former runners) who have undergone the trial and error necessary for the training secrets to be revealed to them on a personal level. There may be a few exceptions who have gotten a lot of it right without having done it themselves, but the depth of understanding can NEVER be the same without personal experience. Of course, somebody's going to accuse me of dissing some "great coaches" who never ran themselves. Well, hard cheese. They might be great at certain aspects of coaching, and they might know a thing or two ABOUT running, but they don't KNOW running and they'd be BETTER coaches if they'd learned their craft through personal trials. Besides, you just can't please everybody on these message boards, anyway, so I'm not going to mince my words or be apologetic about the truth.

So, Mr. "Ah", do you have any concrete answers to the problem of eliminating high school overracing and implementing a workable club system? The wise among us have LONG known it needs to be done.

MiddleD ended his post by saying, "Just as there are under-qualified coaches at college and national levels there are over-qualified coaches at high school and junior levels. The position you've chosen to work at doesn't determine your ability."

This is a thought that has ocurred to me many times. In education, the general rule is that your teachers become better qualified as you move through your schooling. There are a number of valid reasons for this, not least being that PhDs should not have to "waste their time" with those who are not capable of going all the way through the system. The pupil, in effect, must demonstrate abiilty and durability before coming under the guidance of the best teachers.

There is sense in this, but with the system this way round, it means that the best teachers/coaches are not yet available when a supremely talented individual, one who will benefit most from their specialised skills, first appears. There should be a system in which talented youngsters can be fast-tracked and put in contact with the best coaches from a very early age.

I've been playing around with this a lot lately. And just got back from a 4-mile tempo run in the rain and cold. Brr.

Here's my interpretation from reading posts like these, Joe Vigil's book, and Martin/Coe. Please correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm not a physiologist and don't have my books with me.

It seems like 20min-plus runs at your ANaerobic threshold pace are what's being called for, i.e., the pace which you can maintain for 20mins or so without exceeding your body's ability to produce energy aerobically and thus causing your heart rate to spike. Vigil (again, from memory) says this happens at somewhere north of 80% of your VO2 max, and that over time, you can extend the run from 4 miles to 6 or 8.

80% of VO2 max also seems to correlate nicely with 10-mile to half-marathon pace, which is why so many people recommend that.

So here's what I did. I ran a 3k race in 10:15 a couple of weeks ago. Yes, I'm slow and out of shape (30y.o. male). I figured that to be right around my VO2 max pace, since Coe and Martin say VO2 max is what you can maintain for 10 minutes. 80 to 85% of that would be 6:05 to 6:15 pace, more or less.

Went out on a bike path today with half-mile markers and ran 23:57 for four miles. It felt a little fast, struggling a little toward the end. But my heart rate stayed right at 160-162 the whole time.

I figure the pace is fine as long as the HR doesn't spike. I'll keep doing these once a week as I start to add in hillwork and track repeats (1200-mile), and will move up to 5 miles sometime in February.

JK and Joe, does that sound like what you're talking about?

Yup, that's it. Although if you ran a 3k race at 10:15, I would peg your 2 mile at 82, so 80-85% of that would indicate 96.5-102.5 for the range as you outlined - basically 6:26 - 6:50 pace. If it was in fact a 10:15 3k, then my opinion is you need to slow it down a bit on the tempos as 6:05-15 pace is more like 10k pace for your 10:15 3k, so a bit too fast, which may explain why you suffered a bit on that last tempo.

Actually I've gotten to just making 5k pace the VO2max pace for a variety of reason I won't bore you with here, but it has mostly to do with slowing people down a notch. I have the following definitions of pace I ask for from athletes. Now remember, these are just estimates for workout purposes. They aren't written in stone so don't treat them as anything but general guidelines to help learn what the effort should feel like:

Tempo: 15-20 seconds per mile slower than current 10k race pace or 30-40 second per mile slower than current 5k pace or a pace you could honestly maintain for 60+ minutes if you had a date with Pam Anderson or Brad Pitt riding on it. If I have a recent half marathon or maybe 10 mile race time for the athlete, I'll reference that.

Marathon race pace (MP): 15-20 seconds per mile slower than current tempo pace. Usually what I define as the slowest of the workout day paces as anything slower and I consider it just plain running and not something I devote a specific workout day towards.

The 2 other paces I reference:

Aerobic Endurance (AE): Pace that's roughly 80% of your VO2max pace. So 80% of your 5k pace (ie 72 5k pace = 6:00 pace for most runs away from the track). These are the runs that make up the bulk of your training miles you do as a distance runner. You generally start off all runs at a recovery/jog pace and slowly drop the pace down to AE during the last stages as you warm up. It's really not forced, it just happens. Sometimes it never drops down to this pace because you are either not very fit or just hurting that day. Whatever, when you're fit you are generally running a large portion of your runs at AE pace. I think I read where Decker was running most of her mileage away from the track at 6:00 pace whether it was a long run or a regular run day. That amounts to about a 4:00 1500 if you work it backwards - so 6:00 pace was appropriate for her.

Recovery: Just a butt slow jog. I go with Ray and Benson's reccommendation of no more than 45 minutes as a recovery run. I also reccommend walk breaks if warranted. The main goal of this is to flush the system and get ready for a hard effort the next day or later in the week. The main purpose is to get your muscles, tendons, endocrine system and brain back in order and a weekly or bi-weekly recovery jog is the best way to get this done after several overload days. I've got a 30 minute version of this planned for myself today and I can tell you I am NOT looking forward to it. These just hurt from start to finish.

Back to you, I have the 1500/5k types do primarily 4-8 milers at the tempo pace as described above every week to 2 weeks for about 2 months, then we progress onto a higher level. Right now, a person just getting back into the tempo routine who's a middle distance person would probably do what I'm having a female 1500 runner with a recent 36:30 10k do tomorrow, which is:

AM run: 30-40 minute easy. PM: 30 minute warmup, 6-8 x 100m solid strides, 4 miles at a progressive pace (6:20-30 for the first half, 6:10-20 the last 2 miles), 2 mile cooldown.

This will advance over the next few session until she's at weekly 6-8 milers that will begin alternating between a tempo one week and 5k/10k work the next starting in February through the beginning of March. I have most middle distance people do are advanced versions of tempo runs about March or so after a solid 8 weeks of consistent tempo work as outlined above. Here's a few:

-2 x 800 at 5k pace, 4 miles at tempo, 2 x 800 at 5k all with 400 jogs between each

-Ovett Tempo: 4 miles at tempo, 1 mile at MP, 1 mile at 10k pace - all continuous within a 6 mile run.

-4 mile tempo followed by 6 x 200 drop downs w/ 200 jog (ie 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28)

Once the real meet of the seaon rolls around I'll have them do 3-4 mile tempos every 2-3 weeks just to keep some work going in that system. An idea I'm toying with is something like 16 x 400 at 10k-tempo pace with 100 jogs.

Hope that helps.

Joe

Joe -- thanks for the clarification. Lots of stuff to think about.

Great stuff Joe! Thanks for taking the time. Do you have any training articles on the net?