does Daniels have a place for hard (faster than MP), non race pace runs longer than 20 minutes? When I'm in good shape, I usually do tempos of 21 to 46 minutes at 10k to MP (MP for first half of the longest of these (4M), then 1/2 MP)), and when I regularly do them faster than the previous time, I've dropped my race pr's dramatically. When my tempos stay the same, slower than 1/2 MP pace, like last year, I race badly.
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.
Maybe it's none of their damn business and that's why I say tempo.
But really, if you have to 'assign' a number to it you need to relax a little and learn to run by listening to your body.
several things of note on this thread. First of all I sense a possible Malmo v Daniels battle royal and I like it- I dont know if all of us letsrun nerds could handle the fallout from that one.
Second I believe it was Homer who uttered the phrase "Aye,aye Admiral Butthead"
Third who cares what you call a tempo run. Everyone you talk to has a different definition. If you are so worried about whether or not people understand your workouts then describe them in more detail. If you arent just say tempo run and they will form their own opinion. But since workouts dont really matter anyway as opposed to races who cares what people think!
ccrunner609 wrote:
..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
all of these physiological paces can all replace a meaningless word like "tempo"
Out of morbid curiousity, what exact pace is "Aerobic pace" in your world?
You can't make me stop.
Mr. Robert Tempo
the smartest letsrunner wrote:
You're an idiot.
It's an effective term. Everyone knows that it represents the fastest pace one can maintain for an hour. For most people on this board, that should be between 10 mile pace and half marathon pace. (Assuming 10 mi 60 min)
ccrunner609 wrote:
No you are an idiot to think that most people on this board can run 10-13 miles in an hour.
Really? Most people on this board can't do a ten-miler in less than 60:00? I didn't think I was assuming that much of the posters here - this isn't Runners World. I'm around 55:xx for the distance and assumed I was one of the slower letsrunners, the way everyone here acts like a 15:xx 5k is slow.
somerandomdude wrote:
well perhaps I am, but I follow what Mr Vigil told me when he stated that HIS definition of tempo is what you can hold for 75ish minutes. slower than 1/2 pace by a bit, substantially quicker than marathon pace. I'd tend to listen to Dr Vigil over a letsrun dork (yes, i include myself here)....oh, and thanks malmo for supporting this view....
cheers, dude-
Seems just fine to me. The "what you can maintain for an hour at race effort" or "between 10 mile and HM pace" guidelines that I and others have tossed out are just that. I think that the 75 minute guideline from Vigil and Malmo is great, too, and honestly not that different for most of us. My point is that if you or I talk about doing a 30 minute tempo and have some idea of each other's abilities, we are going to know what the term means, plus or minus
Cheers!
I think the OP doesn't have much experience training distance runners racing above 5k.
I also don't understand when people talk about threshold or tempo and then mention 10k pace. Maybe this talk is just intended for hobbyjoggers, but 10k pace is hard for a good runner. What are you going to do, an 11 minute tempo? At some point it just becomes a time trial.
Back to OP: Plenty of coaches find the idea of never running at certain pace ranges in the spectrum from easy jog to all out sprint silly. So, if you want to jump from threshold to marathon pace, fine. Lots of times people who advocate this claim to be largely Daniels influenced. I am certainly not holding up Daniels in defense of anything I think, but even he doesn't advocate this. He's got charts modifying threshold pace based on the duration of the run. Use whatever words you want, but it seems that the set of terms you favor might be restricting the way you think about pace and physiology.
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.
[/quote]
If my 1/2 Mar time is 1:14 (5:39) pace, that suggests a 5:36 T pace on the Daniels tables. Based on my experience, I have not at any trouble doing a 20 minutes "Tempo" at that pace.
Granted, my HM may suck. But the pace is "comfortably hard" and does not leave me drained. I certainly don't think it is too fast if I can go 4 miles at a pace I can cover for 13 miles.
I remember running 10 miles in an hour once a week in HS. Our whole team did it. If a bunch of snot-nosed HS kids could do it, then I am sure others can, as well.the smartest letsrunner wrote:
the smartest letsrunner wrote:You're an idiot.
It's an effective term. Everyone knows that it represents the fastest pace one can maintain for an hour. For most people on this board, that should be between 10 mile pace and half marathon pace. (Assuming 10 mi 60 min)
ccrunner609 wrote:
No you are an idiot to think that most people on this board can run 10-13 miles in an hour.
Really? Most people on this board can't do a ten-miler in less than 60:00? I didn't think I was assuming that much of the posters here - this isn't Runners World. I'm around 55:xx for the distance and assumed I was one of the slower letsrunners, the way everyone here acts like a 15:xx 5k is slow.
can you explain each of these? sometimes I have trouble distinguishing one from the other.
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"
ChubsyUbsy wrote:
If my 1/2 Mar time is 1:14 (5:39) pace, that suggests a 5:36 T pace on the Daniels tables. Based on my experience, I have not at any trouble doing a 20 minutes "Tempo" at that pace.
Granted, my HM may suck. But the pace is "comfortably hard" and does not leave me drained. I certainly don't think it is too fast if I can go 4 miles at a pace I can cover for 13 miles.
But that's my entire point. If you are a highly trained competitive athlete then there's no way you can run 20 minutes at HM pace without being "on the edge". That is a very hard run - a race. Tempo runs are not very hard. Also 20 minutes are on the far edge of what I would define as a tempo run (anywhere from 20-70 minutes, with the mean probably being 45-50 minutes).
I've tried many times to get Daniels and other Whitecoats to provide a proper definition of "tempo" and "threshhold" but they never come close to doing it. Some relate to OMBLA, which in itself is vague, as well. "Exactly "where" on the lactate accumulation curve is OMBLA?"
Ironically the most precise definition of tempo pace is mine, and it too is rather vague for some: "you should know tempo pace as well as you know tired, sleepy, happy, hungry or horny." It's somewhere between HM and marathon pace.
malmo, from reading your posts over the last seven and a half years, I suspect that you have a better intuitive grasp of mathematics than JD too?
Also I have spent time with Jack Daniels and Jim Spivey and neither of them prescribe to using a vague term like "tempo"
sorry - you apparently didn't read the profusely used word "tempo" in Daniels article, which leads me to believe your don't read so not so very good thusly leding to cornclusions thet only sut yer presuppositioned beleafs.
Rush to Kenya to educate them on the importance of listening to you. Yours is a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
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
I think you have a point. When I ran 35 yrs ago we knew different paces hit different strengths of the body. We called them things like high pace for 45 minutes, easy distance pace 45 minutes and speed intervals. Something like that. Years ago started seeing Aerobic threshold pace and tempo pace etc. Then tons of different variations of your suggestions. Its all different depending on the coach. Bet the Ethiopians don't give a crap about all these title descriptions. I think it is all a bit of a waste of time.
all of these physiological paces can all replace a meaningless word like "tempo"
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"
you're an idiot.
malmo wrote:Some relate to OMBLA, which in itself is vague, as well. "Exactly "where" on the lactate accumulation curve is OMBLA?"
That should be OBLA. OMBLA is some sort activist group that is popular in San Francisco.
Onomatopoeia mumbling bumblebee lesbian association?
They're harmless, not a threat to national or global security.
J.O. wrote:
malmo, from reading your posts over the last seven and a half years, I suspect that you have a better intuitive grasp of mathematics than JD too?
Maybe not.
Modesty methinks?