How true is the study showing that tempos (defined as 45-70 mins of high-end aerobic running, what people might think of as a steady state run/long tempo run), short intervals (200-300-400), and the volume of easy running one does is the key to success?
I'm guessing it's the study analysing the training of a large groupe of 5k-marathon elites (2:02 to 2:30 range) by Arturo Casado.
It pretty much confirms what top coaches focus on for long distance training : high training volume and polarised training is the key to success. Work on endurance through tempos, and speed through short intervals while maintaining a high level of volume throughout the years, and you'll perform over the longer distances.
It would be more interesting to see a similair study done for 800m-1500m training, as there is a lot more variability in training volume/intensity from athlete to athlete.
It's worth noting tempos are defined as either:
- 1,000-5,000m intervals @ 82% HRMax
- 45-70 min of steady running @ 92% HRMax
But yes. How do you think it would work for mid D guys?
I think it's pretty similar. Probably mid D guys opt for the tempo intervals as opposed to the long hard runs that top long distance guys do. But other than that, of course they do short intervals for speed and easy mileage in between hard days.
IMO, it's pretty similar for MD and LD.
MD - "tempo running" (as defined by the article) comes in the form of 1k, 1200, and mile repeats. Aerobic strength work here.
MD - "short intervals" come in the form of 200-600s.
LD - "tempo running" are primarily those hard steady runs (think the classic 'hard 10 miler')
LD - "short intervals" come in the form of 400-800s.
Similar outline, different way of going about it, as the definitions in the study are wide to encompass both groups of runners.