Quit using the word "Tempo"

malmo wrote:

That should be OBLA. OMBLA is some sort activist group that is popular in San Francisco.

That's a relief! I was afraid you were referring to NAMBLA.

I am actually headed out to do a tempo (comfortably hard pace) run in 20 minutes. Anyone want to join?

http://www.williamsburgtrackclub.com

I agree with the OP that tempos can be associated with a wide variety of paces and distances. However, I agree with others who say that tempo running is about perceived effort.

You can run a

-4 mile tempo at just slower than 10k effort

-5-8 mile tempo at around HM effort

- 10-12 mile tempo at MP effort

- 8-15 mile tempo at MP+10-15 effort

All make sense and I have no problem calling them all tempos. As long as you specify the effort/pace you are trying to run at you can call them all tempos

Malmo, 2nd time this week that you wrote the best thing on Letsrun.

Yeah, i am big about associating my definition of tempo run with perceived effort. I usually think of the discomfort level as tedious. It's uncomfortable enough that you dont just feel like you could go forever. Still enjoyable though in my opinion.

But just an example: I remember last fall i was gearing up for a half marathon. I hadnt had my eye on it for two long but i had just graduated from college the spring before and i was still riding out my fitness.

I had been doing longer tempos and then about 3 weeks before the half i did a 10k race at an 85 percent effort. I ran 34 flat. A week and a half later I wanted to do an 8 mile tempo run about 10 days before my half.

I got out for the run that day, and I guess i was still feeling some fatigue from the 10k or something, but i just went with my definition of what my tempo run pace should be. In any case, if my memory serves me well i think my miles went something like this: 6:27, 6:20, 6:16, 6:16, 6:15, 6:14, 6:12, 6:05. Something like that. In any case, on the one hand i was thinking i went pretty slow and that worried me. In the months before i had gotten down pretty easily to 5:40 pace or even 5:35 at the end of a 6 mile tempo. And that day 6:15 pace felt just about right.

But i was smart about it. You can't make your tempo into a pace. you are going to get out of it what you should get out of it if you go that particular uncomfortable pace.

In any case 10 days later. I ran 5:39 pace for a 1:14 flat half marathon. Started around 5:45 pace and worked down to 5:32 by the end. I really did just need to recover that week before and i let myself.

So i have taken what i learned from that race to heart, and i always start out my 6/ 8/ 10 mile tempo runs with only perceived effort in mind/ no pace goal at least for the first mile or two. With a 4 mile tempo run i might shoot for something more specific though. But that might just be because i am less familiar with how my body should feel at the faster tempo pace

the rocket. wrote:

I agree with the OP that tempos can be associated with a wide variety of paces and distances. However, I agree with others who say that tempo running is about perceived effort.

You can run a

-4 mile tempo at just slower than 10k effort

-5-8 mile tempo at around HM effort

- 10-12 mile tempo at MP effort

- 8-15 mile tempo at MP+10-15 effort

All make sense and I have no problem calling them all tempos. As long as you specify the effort/pace you are trying to run at you can call them all tempos

THis is exactly what I am talking about.....specifying the effort or intensity relative to a standard makes it mean something.

It already means something. It refers to a range of intensities relative to the distance being run. Your are merely unable to deal with terms that are not exactingly precise, a failing common among anal-retentives.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, because originally you were suggesting a bunch of physiological thresholds rather than the somewhat reasonable approach of defining a distance run at a particular race pace. It doesn't help one bit to describe intensity in terms of physiological thresholds even if they are well defined and measurable. You won't ever know where you're at relative to some arbitrary threshold unless you're taking blood samples or doing some other kind of invasive testing. People who claim they know are really just running by feel.

a) I don't care if I can't convey to you what type of workout I am doing, I only care if I can covey it to myself.b) your use of "LOL" is much more obnoxious than my use of the word "tempo." Were you really laughing out loud? Or did you just giggle. Maybe peed your pants a little? I'm going to need you to be more specific.

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.

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.

NOT TRUE.

The main purpose of a "Tempo" is to teach your body to adapt to the build up of La and H+ in the blood and to do this by running at an effort which allows your body to use it as a fuel efficiently instead of it building up too quickly and forcing you to slow down.

You can go look in a Daniel's book and take you best 5k race and then try to apply that to "LT" pace on a given day but that doesn't mean you are going to be running "LT" effort just BECAUSE you are 5:20/mile on the dot every time. For a coach to instruct his group of athletes to run at "Tempo" effort for 40-45 minutes is a GREAT way to ensure that everyone is running the proper effort. Say your V-dot says for you to go out and run a Tempo at 5:20/mile and your HR goes well past the threshold range and you bonk on mile 3 out of 6. Why is your 5:20/mile any more correct? You would have been MUCH better off running "Tempo." You know what that effort feels like whether it's 25 mph winds, rain, wet grass, rolling hills, etc.

Stop trying to apply math to running. It doesn't work that way.

You, sir, need to learn to respect the marathon.

then call it a threshold run then.....thats is what it is. calling it a tempo run without assigning the threshold pace to it makes it nothing.

Clive wrote:

You, sir, need to learn to respect the marathon.

You, sir, need to spit out your dad´s cock from your mouth.

Dr. Daniels does account for adjusting the pace for those who prefer to do "tempo" runs of longer than 20 minutes. While it is short on technical / medical mumbo jumbo, it does address the point about the suggested paces being too fast.

http://www.runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=7479&PageNum=1

The "Variations table" is at a second link:

http://www.runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=7482&CategoryID=&PageNum=3

I will still call my 4 mile run a tempo run tomorrow and will still run it by feel - "comfortably hard". The bottom line is, whatever I call it, the effort has proven to be been productive for me and has not lead to injury.

Next week, I might go a little longer and bit slower. I am open minded, after all. I'll still call it a tempo run, but who really cares?

I see your point...

one big problem in describing training types and energy systems is that there are often different terms used by different exercise scientist (as well as the general running community). Partial or different terms are often used. Example: AT run, threshold run, lactate threshold run, tempo run, steady state run...I think these all refer to the same idea. Confusion or misinterpretation can result

on another note, most run their tempo runs too fast

Who is Jimmy Gilbert?

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?

Tempo is what you do to build stamina. That's how to understand it without ambiguity. This can be achieved at a variety of paces and efforts.

ccrunner609 wrote:

THis is exactly what I am talking about.....specifying the effort or intensity relative to a standard makes it mean something.

malmo,I won't challenge your opinion about Daniels tempos being too fast. I'm one of those whose "half-marathon time sucks".I just wanted to take a second to explain Daniels T-pace better. If your HM time sucks, Daniels T-pace is even faster than HM, possibly equal to your 10 mile pace, or 10K pace, if you really suck. He said it's about your 1 hour race pace, but that is just a suggestive estimate.Daniels paces are all based on formulas derived in Oxygen Power with a bunch of test subjects measuring speed and oxygen. It wasn't derived like that, but your pace at VDOT (his pseudo-VO2max) is effectively your 11:00 race pace (actually 11:02). This is true for everyone.And some bright "math major" here showed that T-pace is simply 88% of the VDOT pace:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3704747So assuming the formulas are representative of the physiology, Daniels recommends that T-pace is 88% of VO2max.

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.