Running a "tempo" run too hard, do you still get some benefits or does it set you back?

Remember, you're trying to get the most benefit from the workout with the least amount of stress on the body.

So, if you're trying to do a tempo run (85% effort), why do a 90% effort? Both are still aerobic, but that extra 5% is unneeded stress on the body.

And, if you attempted your tempo run (85% effort) and accidently ran, say, 95% effort, then you just changed the workout into VO2 training...which has a different purpose.

Likewise, on the other end of the spectrum, if you did your tempo run (85% effort) at 80% effort, then you didn't do a hard (enough) workout. Both are still aerobic, but you didn't stress the body enough.

As for your question, I would have pulled it when the body started hurting.

How do you know what he wants?

If you run a workout with the least amount of stress, then you are not preparing yourself mentally for the toughness needed when racing.

So you should have finished your tempo, it would have been good practice for when you go out a little to hard in a race.

I was running on trails and planned to do the run about a minute slower per mile of my 2 mile pace. It was more like 30 seconds slower and actually I did maintain pace through 2 miles but that was pushing it and if I had kept going I would have probably slowed down a lot.

failed tempo wrote:

I was running on trails and planned to do the run about a minute slower per mile of my 2 mile pace. It was more like 30 seconds slower and actually I did maintain pace through 2 miles but that was pushing it and if I had kept going I would have probably slowed down a lot.

Of course you got some benefit from it. When I was running my best, I often bagged workouts short of my goal that day. Nothing wrong with just going out and running hard for as long as you can some days.

faster than maxlass pace, you are no longer improving your lactate turnpoint. in this case, faster is not better. maxlass pace is generally slower than the runner thinks/wishes it is.

I used to race to win every two weeks, none of this newfangled VO2 or lactate stuff. Those were like failed tempos, right?

How do you know what he wants?

If you run a workout with the least amount of stress, then you are not preparing yourself mentally for the toughness needed when racing.

So you should have finished your tempo, it would have been good practice for when you go out a little to hard in a race.

---------------------------------------

Goodness, "mental toughness"? I bet you're from the No-Pain-No-Gain School of Running. Or did you ascribe to the Feel-The-Burn mentality of running? Sheez.

Really, what's accomplished? To show the OP is tough & can do a workout wrong, to overly stress his body, to tear it down in an unproductive way?

I'll take a mentally SMART runner over a mentally TOUGH any day! In a race, I'll let all those who go out too hard in a race burn themselves out, reel them in by the two mile mark & make them look stupid at the finish line.

I hope it didn't take to much out of me

I doubt it would. You aimed for 3 miles but you did somewhat less but at a faster pace. Not much difference really.

Regarding 'lactic acid' we don't produce lactic acid, we produce lactate (sodium lactate) which is the conversion of stored carbohydrate. Lactate is then distributed to sites of oxidation where it is further broken down for aerobic respiration.

There isn't really a lactate threshold or maximum lactate steady state as most fizzyologists would have you believe.

wellnow wrote:

I doubt it would. You aimed for 3 miles but you did somewhat less but at a faster pace. Not much difference really.

Regarding 'lactic acid' we don't produce lactic acid, we produce lactate (sodium lactate) which is the conversion of stored carbohydrate. Lactate is then distributed to sites of oxidation where it is further broken down for aerobic respiration.

There isn't really a lactate threshold or maximum lactate steady state as most fizzyologists would have you believe.

I certainly agree with the idea that there is not some specific pace where you suddenly start producing lactate if you go faster and don't produce any if you go slower, but isn't there a point at which the RATE of lactate production increases? So if you were to plot pace vs. lactate production there would be some positive slope starting at the origin and that at some pace (the LT if you will) the slope becomes more steep.

Lactate production is too complicated for simple definitions of levels.

And what is happening in the muscles and the blood are different things. Also the way in which lacate is circulated to meet the aerobic demand in different muscles is too complicated for simple definitions.

The most important thing that people need to learn before they can discuss these matters further, is that lactate metabolism is carbohydrate metabolism, not something that causes any disadvantage metabolically.

I have to concur with Not a Doctor, and Jack Daniels, for that matter. A workout is like a prescription. It has a purpose, in this case, recruitment of those motor units, energy systems, muscle types involved in high-end aerobic endurance. To do it too fast/hard turns it into a different workout, frustrating your original purpose.

When a doctor prescribes two aspirin, (can I get agreement from Actual Doctor here?) it is because that is the optimal dose. A double dose won't likely have greater theraputic effect, and greatly increases the likelihood of complications.

If mental toughness were the measure of workout efficacy, the logical move would be to do every run as hard as possible. I think we all know ex-runners who took this approach and never really reached their potential.

Actual Doctor wrote:

How do you know what he wants?

If you run a workout with the least amount of stress, then you are not preparing yourself mentally for the toughness needed when racing.

So you should have finished your tempo, it would have been good practice for when you go out a little to hard in a race.

Runs as described by the OP are effort runs and not pace runs. He'd get the same benefit running the last few miles of a standard run at a quickened pace if he feels it. I'm not a big believer in designed "tempo" runs as they tend to force the issue which is not what they are designed to do.

Wellnow, maybe this is for another thread or maybe not, but could you elaborate on your claims about lactate production. I was under the impression that(unbelievably oversimplified) during glycolysis, glycogen is broken down into pyruvic acid and that without oxygen pyruvic acid is turned into "lactic acid."

michael t. smith wrote:

I have to concur with Not a Doctor, and Jack Daniels, for that matter. A workout is like a prescription. It has a purpose, in this case, recruitment of those motor units, energy systems, muscle types involved in high-end aerobic endurance. To do it too fast/hard turns it into a different workout, frustrating your original purpose.

This.

My philosophy has always been that there are three kind of workouts:

1. The easy kind where you run as slow as you can to recover.

2. A moderate kind where you run as fast as you can while still being relaxed.

3. And a hard kind where you run fast, beyond the point of relaxation. At this point you try to run controlled under stressed conditions.

Recovery is recovery and takes a bulk of the training volume. the moderate workouts take a bulk of the remaining training and could consist of a lot of different things from short intervals to tempo runs. The hard kind is done when you are nearing racing season and especially during.

Point is, ideally, no one should hope to race fast and uncomfortable. If you're in a 5000m, those first 3km should be run as fast as possible but you still should be in control and somewhat relaxed. Learning to run fast and relaxed is one of the most missed points in competitive running. Of course, the last 2k is what's earned after doing those harder workouts.

So to answer your question, that tempo should have been a run that was done in control. Some days you feel like shit and can't even get a moderate run done comfortably, but going in with that goal and intentionality blowing your load is just a waste of a day.

michael t. smith wrote:

I have to concur with Not a Doctor, and Jack Daniels, for that matter. A workout is like a prescription. It has a purpose, in this case, recruitment of those motor units, energy systems, muscle types involved in high-end aerobic endurance. To do it too fast/hard turns it into a different workout, frustrating your original purpose.

.

When it comes to running, it doesn't have to make sense scientifically to work. Science is useful, but it isn't what makes champions. That drive has to come from within.

Do what Lydiard's runners did, just blast them hard at 3/4 effort. Or take a page from malmo's book and just run hard some days. How hard? You figure it out.

And if you want a more scientific approach from a fizziologyst then McMillan, Daniels and Tinman all have tempo formulas and tempo workouts on their websites and in their books. Personally I find all approaches work as long as you keep these efforts "comfortably hard" visa vis the distance you are running that day. You body will sort out the pace once you start doing them.

How do you know that so many miles at a certain pace is what is absolutely best for you that day? All you are really doing is guessing.

No different than this global warming nonsense. How do we know that we wouldn't be far better off if the planet was 2° warmer?

There is ALWAYS a benefit to a good hard run. What is more important is to get the proper recovery before the next run.