10 in the rain;3pm;67:10 was my time; had fun with a bunch of buddies
10 in the rain;3pm;67:10 was my time; had fun with a bunch of buddies
What is that you say? wrote:
Skuj wrote:This "tempo" thing is very intersting, especially if we allow that tempo can be different from the standard physiological definition.
How can anything be different than its definition?
standard = a type of definition.
physiological = another type.
1st post ever on these boards!
Ran at 6pm on Chicago's Lakefront on the southside. 15 minute warm up from my house to the 43rd St. pedestrian bridge over to the lake. 3 running strides (:20 on, :20 off). 4 mile fartlek out and back: 15 x :50 (with :50 rest). Finished the 4 miles in 24:45. 1.5 mile cool down back to my house. Total = 8.0 miles. Back in time for dinner with wife and baby!
JZ wrote:
Many people use the terms anaerobic threshold (a physiological term) and tempo (what I would say is a subjective term) interchangeably.
Like I wrote earlier, tempo to me has always meant comfortably hard. This may be a pace equal to anaerobic threshold, but it may also be at any other pace that is run over a distance (and/or in a session with recoveries) that allows it to feel comfortably hard rather than simply HARD. This type of session never results in excessively high levels of lactate and therefore allows the body to effectively clear the lactate that is build. Because of this I personally use the terms "tempo" and "lactate management session" interchangeably.
You describe perfectly a tempo session based on the standard physiological definition. Congratulations! Yes, there are other definitions floating around out there, but you have described the one correctly tied to physiology.
Reading Is Comprehension wrote:
standard = a type of definition.
physiological = another type.
Thanks for the backup. It's good to know there are other intelligent people out there who understand a contradiction of terms. Good day to you!
A 36:38 run;
Warmup for over 11 min., hard pace for over 13 min., jog recovery for near 2 3/4 min., three quick one min. leg turnover runs with 1 1/2 min. jog recoveries, eased it in for last 3 plus min.
8*200m, 75 jog recovery, in 27s & 28s, 2miles up, 2 down
How did your run go yesterday Skuj? Anyone came to run with you?
off today.
Thank you. However, my point is that to many people on this board and elsewhere tempo is NOT a session that can be done at any pace as long as it's done "comfortably hard" (as I defined it above) but ONLY applies to the pace that correlates to anaerobic threshold pace (I.e., the pace that could be run in a race of approximately one hour). These individuals would argue that tempo and anaerobic threshold are the same thing, something that I am arguing against. So, just to clarify, are you agreeing with me that tempo and anaerobic threshold are two separate terms?
Yesterday: 60 minutes skip rope (15 minutes - 10 minutes - 12 minutes - 13 minutes - 10 minutes with 2 minute recoveries); 20 minutes easy elliptical
Today: 48 minutes skip rope (4 x 12 minutes with 2 minute recoveries); 32 minute mini-fartlek on elliptical (included 10 x :15 at a "1500m effort"); ended with core and upper body strength session
Feeling really good energy-wise and my glut is 95% better. Feel like I could run easy right now, but there's still the slightest twinge when I push off so I'm going to be careful and give it a few more days to make sure.
Today:
-3 mile warmup to local high school track
-2 miles in 9:55, 3 min jog rest.
-1 mile in 4:55, 3 min jog rest.
-1 mile in 4:52, 3 min jog rest.
-1 mile in 4:38, jogged a lap
-4 x 200 at comfortably hard pace (not timed).
-3 mile jog back to my apartment.
11 miles for today, bringing the total to 95 for the last five days. Probably try to hit around 120 for the week.
nice and short and easy. just getting back into running from a 2 week break after track. i have to enjoy it while i can bc the big miles are just around the corner.
6 miles (3 out) on the Wabash, didn't feel old this week just tired. 43-44'and comfortable, I need a lot more like this.
I love this thread. I seriously enjoy reading every single post.
50min easy + 4 strides at UVic this morning, after the Vancouver Island HS 1500m were done. Quite sleepy, because dammit, why did Blowup have to be on TCM when I turned on the tv at the JBI late last night? :)
No run yesterday, vic. Nobody showed, and I was glad, because I was really tired from Tuesday's hard run.
Good to see things are well, JZ.
Looking forward to a longer one tomorrow.....
McGinn wrote:
1st post ever on these boards!
Ran at 6pm on Chicago's Lakefront on the southside. 15 minute warm up from my house to the 43rd St. pedestrian bridge over to the lake. 3 running strides (:20 on, :20 off). 4 mile fartlek out and back: 15 x :50 (with :50 rest). Finished the 4 miles in 24:45. 1.5 mile cool down back to my house. Total = 8.0 miles. Back in time for dinner with wife and baby!
Cool! Welcome to letsrun. Your life will never be the same, hahahaha.........
JZ wrote:
Thank you. However, my point is that to many people on this board and elsewhere tempo is NOT a session that can be done at any pace as long as it's done "comfortably hard" (as I defined it above) but ONLY applies to the pace that correlates to anaerobic threshold pace (I.e., the pace that could be run in a race of approximately one hour). These individuals would argue that tempo and anaerobic threshold are the same thing, something that I am arguing against. So, just to clarify, are you agreeing with me that tempo and anaerobic threshold are two separate terms?
I am agreeing with the "many people on this board and elsewhere." Though I understand that some people use the word tempo to describe other types of runs, the standard physiological definition is that tempo pace equals anaerobic threshold pace. On the other hand, your description of runs where acidity is buffered quite readily suggests anaerobic threshold pace. Methinks you are one of us!
Except that, once again, I believe that you can run faster than anaerobic threshold pace and still buffer acidity quite readily as long as the distance of the run(s) is short enough. For example, is I'm doing 6 x 1200m at 5k pace with 2 minutes recovery I would call this workout HARD (I.e., definitely not a tempo effort). However, if I was doing them at 10k pace with the same recovery I would call it a tempo session because there should never be a point in the workout where lactate levels reach a point where they cannot effectively be buffered (given the appropriate rest). This workout does not feel hard, but, rather, comfortably hard. So, even though 10k pace is faster than anaerobic threshold pace I would still call this session a tempo session. I wouldn't call it a anaerobic threshold session though because it's not done at anaerobic threshold pace.
A similar concept is discussed in Daniels' Running Formula (Second Edition). Instead of tempo he calls these types of workouts "Cruise Repetitions" and he defines them on page 135 as "relatively low-key sets of reps at a comfortably hard pace". He says they can be done at either anaerobic threshold pace or at interval pace (which he defines as VO2 max pace). The only difference between what he is saying and what I am saying is that I am allowing for a larger range of paces and I am calling this type of workout a tempo session rather than a cruise repetition session.
I like to write "tempo"....you know....with quotations. Who defined tempo anyway? I know that "anaerobic conditioning" and "lactate threshold" are more specific. But "tempo"? Who owns that one? :)
Just finished 74min easy + 4x100m inclined strides. I felt hungover. Except I've had no alcohol lately.
Tomorrow, I look forward to a 4km "tempo". :) (It will be much faster than 15k race pace, but not as fast as 5k race pace. Discuss.)
Doesn't "much faster than 15K pace" start getting out of the "tempo" realm and close to VO2Max? I believe the good doctor Daniels prescribes 5K-6K AT 15K being plenty for a tempo run. 4K much faster than 15K pace sounds pretty intense.
You did say 'discuss.'