question answerer wrote:
joho wrote:Malmo, Didn't you say that tempo runs, if done correctly, can be done several times a week? I might have a thread bookmarked where that was discussed.
That would be something totally different from "tempo runs are the least effective form of training," wouldn't it.
I'll sign off on question answers post. He is correct.
This guys website is a treasure trove of wrong. Good times
Brojos - you should write a 10,000 word article to debunk this bozo. I'd argue he is doing equal damage to the sport as some of the other super villains out there.
It's good to see different viewpoints. They shared what worked for them.
And obviously an ultra runner will train differently than your 5k specialist.
Some people thrive on rest days. Others don't.
I like the guys site. You have to understand where he's coming from with some of his suggestions.
He's a formerly obese ultra runner in his 50s or so if I remember correctly. His body will not handle things as most people's can on this form.
He obviously possesses a high level of intelligence, even if his reality differs from yours.
malmo:Yes. Neither tempo nor long runs are important for 10k.
Sorry to enlighten you, pal, nothing new about distance training has been discovered since the "good old days".
Tempo runs and long runs rate far down on the level of importance for 10k training. So low that you could completely do without them if you wanted to. Most importance would be repeats (800-2000m) at race pace.
mind...blown II wrote:
even if his reality differs from yours.
When did people start saying this? It doesn't make sense. There is only one reality, and we share it. By definition.
One issue with focusing on focusing on short term studies is that particular training modes that are effective in the short term are not necessarily optimum in the long term. The training modes that are most effective in a six week study are predictably going to be the sorts of things one would do in a peaking phase. The sorts of things one does in a base phase (lots of easy mileage, some tempo runs, strides) aren't intended to lead to optimum performance at the end of the base phase, they are intended to prepare the runner to execute a race prep/peaking phase more effectively.
In a study of a few weeks or even a few months you might not see as large a benefit from base training in untrained athletes as you would from something more like a peaking regiment. Neither will you see significant gains in well trained runners because virtually all of them have been doing base training for years already. The important question of how one best develops from novice to well-trained over a long period (years) isn't well addressed by the short term studies this guy is focused on, but experience has shown that mileage and tempo training are important ingredients.
Citizen Runner wrote:
One issue with focusing on focusing on short term studies is that particular training modes that are effective in the short term are not necessarily optimum in the long term. The training modes that are most effective in a six week study are predictably going to be the sorts of things one would do in a peaking phase. The sorts of things one does in a base phase (lots of easy mileage, some tempo runs, strides) aren't intended to lead to optimum performance at the end of the base phase, they are intended to prepare the runner to execute a race prep/peaking phase more effectively.
In a study of a few weeks or even a few months you might not see as large a benefit from base training in untrained athletes as you would from something more like a peaking regiment. Neither will you see significant gains in well trained runners because virtually all of them have been doing base training for years already. The important question of how one best develops from novice to well-trained over a long period (years) isn't well addressed by the short term studies this guy is focused on, but experience has shown that mileage and tempo training are important ingredients.
QFE.
Science-based training is great. The problem is we have very, very little good science on how to train.
That said, I do think that lactate threshold training is totally overblown. There are no magical adaptations at that pace that you can't get at other paces. The most that can be said for LT training is that it's an aerobic stress that won't leave you fried. For what it's worth, I don't actually know many good runners who do much pure LT training. I've always preferred long intervals, progression runs, and MP runs (even for shorter distance racing).
Original Message Author
Renato Canova
SubjectRE: Does it matter how fast you do your long runs?
Message: Excuse me, but reading what many runners think about long run is, for me, very funny.
One question : if you want to run a Marathon at 3:19 pace (about 2:20 final time), do you think that running 30k at 4:00 pace can have some connection ?
If you want running 10000m in 30:00, do you think that the main workouts are 400m on track, and long run must be only easy regeneration ?
The first man changing this old mentality was one Australian, Ron Clarke, that in 1964-68 was the first athlete running (not every day, of course, but once every week) for 15-20km very close 3:00 per km. He was able to destroy the World Record of 10000m moving, completely alone, from 28:15 to 27:39 without any rabbit.
If you want to beat your PB, you must run LONG and FAST. Running fast intervals and slow long run is not enough. Running always fast lon run and never fast intervals is not enough. Training is a combination of different speeds, and, more slow is the speed, longer is the duration. If we want to see what really happens in our body, we can see that, for very little difference of speed (for example, from 3:00 per km to 3:10 per km) the level of lactate is very different. The type of work has different targets, the time that you use for building the same enzymatic situation is different, the quantity of fibres interested in our run is different. Running at 3:00 or at 3:20 or at 3:40 are different type of training. So, we must put, in our training, ALL these speeds. I give you an example, for an athlete having a PB of 15:00 in 5000m :
100% of speed = 3:00 per km (this speed is good for some interval till 2000m, using a general volume of 8-10 km like 1000 / 2000 / 1000 / 2000 / 1000 / 2000 with 3:00 recovery, in 3:00 / 6:00, for example). The goal is to increase the ability in removing lactate from muscular fibres. This training has a direct influence in raising the Anaerbic Threshold.
105% of speed (3:00 less 9.0 = 2:51) is SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE. The goal is to increase the ability in accumulating lactate. We can develop a global volume of 5 km, using intervals between 500m and 1km (2 x 1000 in 2:50, rec. 3:00, plus 6 x 500 in 1:25 rec. 1:00, for example)
110% of speed (3:00 less 18.0 = 2:42) is HIGH SPEED ENDURANCE. The goal is to increase the ability in producing lactate. We can use this speed for a global volume of 3000 / 3500m, using intervals from 400m to 600m, example 400 / 600 / 400 / 600 / 400 / 600 / 400 in 64.0 / 1:36 with 1:30 of recovery.
Speed faster than 110 % (for example, 200m in 27.0, 400m under 60.0, 1000m under 2:40) : have a MECHANICAL goal, and/or can work for increasing the LACTIC POWER. We can use only few repetitions with very long recovery.
When we go slower than the pace of the race, we can have the following situations :
95% (3:09 per km) : the goal is to increase AEROBIC POWER. We can use long intervals (for ex, 3 x 3000 in 9:27 + 1000m fast at the end, with 3:00 recovery) for a global volume of 10-15 km, but also LONG CONTINUE RUN for 6-7 km in 18:54 / 22:03. The ability in EXTENDING this speed can give a better base for the workouts FASTER than the 100% speed, helping in raising your Threshold.
90% (3:18 per km) : the goal is to increase the support for the AEROBIC POWER. You use this ONLY with continue run, starting from 10km for looking for extending your endurance till 20km. Running 10k in training in 33:00 for an athlete of 15:00 in 5km is very easy, but he cannot run in short time in 31:00 if doesn't become able to extend his long run till 20k in 66:00.
85% (3:27 per km) : the goal is to increase AEROBIC ENDURANCE, that is connected, more or less, with the AEROBIC THRESHOLD. You can start with 15-18 km, for going till 30km. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARATHON.
Canova on fast long runshttp://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1363335&page=1
Snakeoil wrote:
This guys website is a treasure trove of wrong. Good times
Hahaa, I'm with you. Is this the consensus amongst ultrarunners, that "tempo runs" are futile?? I'm new to ultra running, so I don't know how they train. I continue to train like a marathoner. I've always done a heck of a lot of tempo work leading up to marathons and my recent 100K World Champs win.
I went for a period following Squires (Speed with Endurance) training where I cut out tempo work leading up to a marathon-- I lost my power to sustain. Added back the tempo work, and my raw speed and marathon times dropped.
Each athlete needs to figure out what works for them and stick with it.
:) jaguar1
"However, the science indicates...."
"While there are claims that Tempo Runs have benefits for Mental fortitude this is not supported by the science hat has looked at race performance."
IMO, anytime someone says "the science....", you can disregard what is being said.
Recall that he disapproves pushing the tempo runs, so that if they are literally at 1 hr pace or slower, then they are not going to help the 10k near as much as race pace or faster repeats at 800-2k. If you, on the other hand, really push the tempos, you're going to have a lot more transfer there. I'd also want to push the repeats up to 3x2M repeats at 10k pace, which are more effective or a better predictor than 1600-2k repeats for me.
not exact, but similar! wrote:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4223541malmo:Yes. Neither tempo nor long runs are important for 10k.
Sorry to enlighten you, pal, nothing new about distance training has been discovered since the "good old days".
Tempo runs and long runs rate far down on the level of importance for 10k training. So low that you could completely do without them if you wanted to. Most importance would be repeats (800-2000m) at race pace.
YEah.... No wrote:
Original Message Author
Renato Canova
I've run 15:05 and all of these workouts seem really, really hard.
the four thirty miller wrote:
YEah.... No wrote:Original Message Author
Renato Canova
I've run 15:05 and all of these workouts seem really, really hard.
Yes, but you're a miller
Same, 2k-1k-1k 2k-1k-1k all at 3:00 pace is ridiculous. Maybe it's because I am a miler. I've run 4:16 and that still seems crazy.
Funny, when western athletes try Canova's approach they end up overtrained and run terrible in the marathon. The US has just over 30 runners break 2:20 so far in 2015 and most try to do long runs at marathon pace. Go back to the 1980's and we had over a 100 running sub 2:20 and none of them did their long runs at marathon pace. Virtually racing a marathon in training is not training for a marathon. Canova's methods only work if you have a little something extra in your back pocket and it's no GU.
what did they do instead of getting significant # of miles at MP in long runs?
Far Out West wrote:
Funny, when western athletes try Canova's approach they end up overtrained and run terrible in the marathon. The US has just over 30 runners break 2:20 so far in 2015 and most try to do long runs at marathon pace. Go back to the 1980's and we had over a 100 running sub 2:20 and none of them did their long runs at marathon pace. Virtually racing a marathon in training is not training for a marathon. Canova's methods only work if you have a little something extra in your back pocket and it's no GU.
That's because guys actually raced back then which is a good substitute.
When was the last time guys like Ritz et al raced?