Antonio Cabral wrote:
but since ther´s a link and linear correspondence of effort relate to pace, the slower is the pace, the easy is the effort, and the hard/fast is the pace the harder is the effort .
As it exists one direct correspondence from the pace (a mathematical objective reality) and the “level” of effort perceived by the subject, it´s here that I did say effort and pace indistinctly. But if you want a be very accurate change my pace or effort and vice versa when you think it´s not right.
What can´t be dubious is the use of pace and percents. I read you know something of mathematics.
Not necessarily true, with all due respect. For example a 10 x 400m workout run at 68 secs per 400m in the middle of a windy winter evening in the British Isles will be a very different effort from 10 x 400m @ 68 secs on a cool, windless summer evening in the same geographic area. This may be why the "Lydiard training" by effort/feeling can be very successful in many cases (disclaimer: I am not a hardcore Lydiardist). "Real life" factors are the major problem when there is an overemphasis of mathematics and exact training paces applied to the training schedule of an individual athlete.
I guess that some of these differences in opinion are perhaps because the climate in most of the Iberian Peninsula is generally favorable to running decent evening track workouts throughout most of the year, except for a few very hot weeks in July/August - winters in this area are much milder compared with say, Northern Europe or much of North America. In this case, perhaps more precisely defined training paces can be applied. However, we should never lose focus that the aim of training in distance running is to bring about the physiological and psychological adaptations that allow an athlete to run faster over his/her competition distance. This does not necessarily mean getting an athlete to run track interval workouts at faster paces, which is something that Canova and Lydiard have pointed out many times in their writings.