Tempo Runs, the least effective form of training

What would John Kellogg Say???

Malmo said something like that too.

The guy's an ultra runner. Tempos probably very ineffective for 100 milers over the river and through the woods, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ze1yH7sSQ

Mind... Blown!!! wrote:

I came across this gentleman's site awhile back and was blown away by some of his claims. Starting with this one:

http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Tempo_Runs

Where he claims Tempo Runs are ineffective.

He makes a few other fun claims too, on different threads. Among them are...

- Running 3 or 4 days per week is optimal, even for elites (in his marathon training program comparison where he decides RUN SMART is one of the best choices because of this)

- HIIT is king

Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there for you piranhas

it even looks like he knows what he is talking about. but he is not. move on.

I can claim more flaws in his one page article than in all of the sources he quotes.

more of the same crap:

"Running on the easy days is often referred to as "junk miles" as the only result of these miles is impaired recovery. If the benefits of training go down as the effort on easy days increases, why run at all on the easy days? So far I have found no evidence to indicate there is any training benefit from running on the easy days. In fact, all the evidence supports Supercompensation and Training Monotony, therefore I recommend running only 3-4 days of the week for optimal results."

Well. In my opinion and based on my experience it's completely the opposite.

The utmost important factor in long distance running is your speed at LT. Because your performance is literally based on your capability to run fast without "choking" with lactic acid.

I started running quite late in my middle 20s and have progressed rapidly thanks to regular threshold training. It is very important to teach your body to deal with lactate and reuse it for energy reproduction.

q: How can you tell when an ultra runner is sprinting?a: You can't.

Don't know 'bout this wrote:

The guy's an ultra runner. Tempos probably very ineffective for 100 milers over the river and through the woods, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ze1yH7sSQ

Not doing tempo runs is probably why he's sticking to the ultra. He's right for his distance it is irrelevant, though.

As for typical distance events, tempo runs are great, but steady runs are the best.

somebloke wrote:

more of the same crap:

"Running on the easy days is often referred to as "junk miles" as the only result of these miles is impaired recovery. If the benefits of training go down as the effort on easy days increases, why run at all on the easy days? So far I have found no evidence to indicate there is any training benefit from running on the easy days. In fact, all the evidence supports Supercompensation and Training Monotony, therefore I recommend running only 3-4 days of the week for optimal results."

That's very strange. He has a link to his running log, in which he details running just about every day and almost always at a pretty slow clip. I might even call them junk miles.

You meant to say "ultra-jogger", didn't you?

Btw, what caught my eyes was "43 views, 2 likes", a bit pathetic.

As I recall wrote:

Malmo said something like that too.

I don't think so.

As I recall wrote:

Malmo said something like that too.

I've never said that.

What is the difference between a steady run and a tempo run?

A tempo is supposed to be run at, or very close to, lactate threshold (~1 hour record pace). A steady run is a run at any challenging pace from ventilation threshold (4-5 hours record pace, 90-95% MP) to lactate threshold.

Mind... Blown!!! wrote:

Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there for you piranhas

LOL

malmo wrote:

As I recall wrote:

Malmo said something like that too.

I've never said that.

Malmo, Didn't you say that tempo runs, if done correctly, can be done several times a week? I might have a thread bookmarked where that was discussed.

joho wrote:

malmo wrote:

I've never said that.

Malmo, Didn't you say that tempo runs, if done correctly, can be done several times a week? I might have a thread bookmarked where that was discussed.

That would be something totally different from "tempo runs are the least effective form of training," wouldn't it.

Goes to show they should require a license to create a website...or at least an IQ test.

Mind... Blown!!! wrote:

I came across this gentleman's site awhile back and was blown away by some of his claims. Starting with this one:

http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Tempo_Runs

Where he claims Tempo Runs are ineffective.

He makes a few other fun claims too, on different threads. Among them are...

- Running 3 or 4 days per week is optimal, even for elites (in his marathon training program comparison where he decides RUN SMART is one of the best choices because of this)

- HIIT is king

Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there for you piranhas

loqueelvientoajuarez wrote:

A tempo is supposed to be run at, or very close to, lactate threshold (~1 hour record pace). A steady run is a run at any challenging pace from ventilation threshold (4-5 hours record pace, 90-95% MP) to lactate threshold.

Do you agree with this: