Why the "20 minute tempo run"?

malmo wrote:

I'm a little schoolboy too.... wrote:

Daniels says that 20 minutes done at your T pace is correct. To run longer than that, at that same pace, tears you down too much. Don't argue with the science of it.

Daniels doesn't run tempo runs himself so how would he know? 20 minutes at 60 minute race pace is too fast for a tempo run.

Tempo runs can be anywhere from 20-90minutes at a little slower than marathon pace to about halfway between marathon pace and HM pace.(*) If you do them in those zones you will finish feeling invigorated not beat down.

20 min at HM pace is a race not a workout. If you want to do that then find a race and run it.

(*) yes, you can drop down to HM or faster for 2-3 miles without beating yourself down. Anything more than that is reckless.

*************************************************

Here endeth the lesson.

wellnow wrote:

"I'm the only letsrun poster who actually bothers to research lactate metabolism and a lot of other physiology subjects properly."

Where might one find your research?

i.e. who are you and what have you published?

Or by "research" do you mean, "I read other people's research"?

I for one would like to see Malmo and Jack Daniels debate this topic. On one hand you have Daniels a world renowned coach and phd in exercise physiology that has done extensive research in regards to training practices. On the other hand you have Malmo an ex-elite runner who I believe once held the American record in the 1/2 marathon and world renowned let's run message board poster.

This could go pay per view!!!

It has already happened. If you look carefully enough you can find it on here somewhere. As I recall, Malmo was game but Jack was already working on his second edition and supported both sides.

Wellnow, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be the first to assert that lactate levels are not a consistently meaningful measure of peripheral fatigue?

Brian123 wrote:

There actually is some substance to the choice of 20 min, I've read it somewhere but I can't recall it right now. I think it's something Daniels picked up during his stay in Sweden when he did research with Per-Olof Astrand. If someone knows the details, please share them with us.

About 25 years ago there was some research, can't remember where...that the minimum run to get a "training effect," was 20 minutes. This of course applied to distance running, and tempo runs.

I think it was in RW.

I liked the idea, because I found it more inspiring to run minutes rather than miles...and convert all my training into 20 minute blocks...except interval training.

Echo Chamber wrote:

"Well" said it first, concisely, and without labeling another poster "completely wrong":

"All training tears you down. Rebuilding takes place when you rest."

And you said it the third time, not concisely at all. Cheers.

Most likely answer to the OP's original question.

Long ago researcher was investigating LT runs and did a study with people running for 20 minutes. 20 minutes was picked cause it seemed like a reasonable number. They had to pick something after all. They could have picked 30. Or 23.5. Or 17.

Then the next researcher came along. They picked 20 minutes as well because that way they could compare their results with the first guy.

Repeat with many more papers. Along the way one or more of the papers came to the conclusion that this was a good workout. Conclusion:

LT run for 20 minutes is a good workout.

Of course none of this says anything about whether it's a *better* workout than a 19 minute or 21 minute run. Or even a 40 minute run somewhat slower.

Or what would happen if you ran them consistently as part of larger training program versus doing longer, slower threshold runs (as Malmo advises). It could very well be that the 20 minute LT run is a bigger stress (and therefore larger adapation stimulator) than the longer slower threshold, but that the typical runner can manage more volume of the slower runs over an extended period (without injury) and therefore the slower threshold run gives the better long-term payoff.

None of this is known 'scientifically'. Nor are the studies that would scientifically 'prove' either side of the issue likely to ever be done.

And most importantly even if we established somehow that the average runner benefited maximally from 20 minutes at LT it still doesn't help. It's clear that the range of responses across different individuals is large. So 20 minutes is unlikely to be best for *you* even if it is best for the average runner.

Hence the admonition to run by feel rather than by the numbers.

And I don't know about you, but to me a longer, slower, progressive threshold run feels like it's what my body was meant to be doing much more so than trying to stick exactly to LT pace for 20 minutes.

It always seems to me that a 40 minute tempo run and a 20 minute tempo run are two completely different workouts yet they are so often lumped together.

What I am really interest in is:

1. Is there a difference between the two (there has to be imo).

2. What is each of these workouts actually doing for you.

Rodger Kram wrote:

wellnow wrote:

"I'm the only letsrun poster who actually bothers to research lactate metabolism and a lot of other physiology subjects properly."

Where might one find your research?

i.e. who are you and what have you published?

Or by "research" do you mean, "I read other people's research"?

I read other people's research and present the different arguments here for letsrun peer review. I wish others with a decent level of knowledge would join in, but I seem to have frightened them all away. I have studied a lot of research papers and to me, there is a logical course which can be steered through the different research conclusions of Brooks, Robergs, Noakes etc going back to Hill and Meyerhoff in the 1920's. I also include Jack Daniels' research in a way others (those who call themselves Daniels fans) have failed to notice.

moderately informed wrote:

Wellnow, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be the first to assert that lactate levels are not a consistently meaningful measure of peripheral fatigue?

It would depend how the tests were conducted and evaluated.

But I don't think that runners should base their training on such tests, or even subject themselves to such tests unless they are being paid to do so for research purposes.

If you weigh yourself regularly you should know whether or not you are glycogen loaded or depleted, and this will certainly affect training quality and quantity.

wellnow wrote:

"I read other people's research and present the different arguments here for letsrun peer review. I wish others with a decent level of knowledge would join in, but I seem to have frightened them all away. "

ok, that's good to know.

Many people find your posts annoying, aggressive, arrogant, condescending etc. and of course annonymous.

Given how insulting you have been, I am amazed that Jack Daniels has responded to you at all.

Perhaps you should abandon the wellnow pseudonym, start posting under your real name and be more civil/constructive. Supporting your statements with references would help too.

stupid letsrunners wrote:

...and Average Joe is back to his bickering self^^^

Nice to see you offering some dull comebacks ("you think?" - hahaha) but do you want to actually address the topic, or just have a cat fight?

I did address the topic in my first post on the thread. Please pay attention.

How about a 15 min tempo run?

I, for one, think Daniels has demonstrated that he knows plenty.He continues to coach top athletes to higher levels. He doesn't have to rely on some distant past success as a runner and a pedestal on some lame message board.

malmo wrote:

I'm a little schoolboy too.... wrote:

Daniels says that 20 minutes done at your T pace is correct. To run longer than that, at that same pace, tears you down too much. Don't argue with the science of it.

Daniels doesn't run tempo runs himself so how would he know? 20 minutes at 60 minute race pace is too fast for a tempo run.

Tempo runs can be anywhere from 20-90minutes at a little slower than marathon pace to about halfway between marathon pace and HM pace.(*) If you do them in those zones you will finish feeling invigorated not beat down.

20 min at HM pace is a race not a workout. If you want to do that then find a race and run it.

(*) yes, you can drop down to HM or faster for 2-3 miles without beating yourself down. Anything more than that is reckless.

whatever911 wrote:

I, for one, think Daniels has demonstrated that he knows plenty.

He continues to coach top athletes to higher levels. He doesn't have to rely on some distant past success as a runner and a pedestal on some lame message board.

Would you care to name a few of these top athletes that he has coached recently?

Rodger Kram wrote:

wellnow wrote:

"I read other people's research and present the different arguments here for letsrun peer review. I wish others with a decent level of knowledge would join in, but I seem to have frightened them all away. "

ok, that's good to know.

Many people find your posts annoying, aggressive, arrogant, condescending etc. and of course annonymous.

Given how insulting you have been, I am amazed that Jack Daniels has responded to you at all.

Perhaps you should abandon the wellnow pseudonym, start posting under your real name and be more civil/constructive. Supporting your statements with references would help too.

Anonymous? Not really. Unsuportive, No, you haven't a clue. No references supplied? Again you haven't a clue.

I have had some good arguments with JD here in the last few years. I'm glad he has the balls to do that, maybe you don't? He also apologized for the confusion about Vdot, I appreciate that, do you? I doubt it, doubt that you really understand.

So if you find me arrogant etc, it's exactly what you deserve.

huh. wrote:

Would you care to name a few of these top athletes that he has coached recently?

I've heard Magdalena Lewy Boulet and Peter Gilmore say Daniels was their primary coach, but I think he works (or worked when he was at Flagstaff) more as a secondary advisor.

Anonymous? Not really. Unsuportive, No, you haven't a clue. No references supplied? Again you haven't a clue.

I have had some good arguments with JD here in the last few years. I'm glad he has the balls to do that, maybe you don't? He also apologized for the confusion about Vdot, I appreciate that, do you? I doubt it, doubt that you really understand.

So if you find me arrogant etc, it's exactly what you deserve.

I haven't been following the discussion fully but am getting up-to-speed. I will say that Roger seems right about you. He said you didn't site your sources. Do you respond by citing sources? No, you say he has no idea. I see that you mentioned names of researchers you've studied so you have that (which is good) but what about more thorough citations? And your general attitude is very condescending and arrogant, as he said before. You don't deny it, as you just say he deserves it. Deserves it for requesting academic honesty from you? But you probably know that you don't provide that and that you are arrogant. So as long as you're willing to admit that you're a prick it's okay.