Progression of Lactate Threshold Workouts

Racer1 wrote:

After how many workouts at a certain speed is it safe to boost the pace a few seconds per mile at the LT?

3-4 workouts to run 5 seconds per mile faster?

A good way to know is to run either a road race or a track time trial -- like a 3000 meter run. Go for a new PR. I use Daniels VDOT tables as a guide. From your performance in the race/time trial there you can determine the LT pace at which you should train.

If you don't like Daniels and his formula... well then you're on your own.

LT Workouts should be based on effort rather than pace per mile (i.e. 88% heart rate instead of 5:30 per mile). That being said, your current level of fitness (+ factors on that day's workout like heat, fatigue, etc.) would determine your pace. As your fitness level increases, the target pace per mile will be faster. Good luck with your training.

I like 5 sec/ mile progressions over 10 weeks at 10 miles of continuous LT running.

i.e., on Week 1 you run 10mi @ 6:05 pace at 85-87% MHR.

Over the next ten weeks, you work on moving towards 10mi @ 6:00 pace, starting out with 1200s, milkes, 2400s, two miles, but always 10 miles of work and over the weeks taking away rests aiming for another 10 mile continuous run at the new pace in ten weeks time.

Dr. Blackjack wrote:

LT Workouts should be based on effort rather than pace per mile (i.e. 88% heart rate instead of 5:30 per mile)..

I've always wondered about that figure. I've seen anywhere from 88% to 92% quoted for LT pace. However is that a percentage of max heart rate or of heart rate reserve. The two calculations give me different ranges.

I've understood the formula to be as follows:

Max HR = 191

Min HR = 41

Difference = 150 x 88% = 132

Add Back Min HR 132 + 41 = 173 Target HR (88%)

Just using 88% would calculate a HR of 168, so that's probably the confusion between the 88-92 range. Again, it's only a target, and in this example, the HR would drift somewhat but should be kept around the 165-175 range for best effectiveness. Just input your own max and min heart rates and run the numbers for a good indicator.

OK, that's heart rate reserve then. That's what I figured, just wasn't sure.

Effort based training is for losers. Train by time & feel. Don't listen to these HR idiots. Train by feel, like a a pro.

Progressing by 5 seconds a mile after only 3-4 sessions would be extremely difficult to maintain for a long period of development, if you are already in decent shape. Consider that this equates to knocking more than 30 seconds off a 10k time.

Whether or not you agree with Daniel's formula for tempo pace, I'd say he's correct that changes in target training paces should be based on improvements in race or time trial pace. Speed up your tempos when you prove to yourself that it will be advantageous, by racing faster

It would be great to hear what JK says.

lasse, I'm guessing that you're one of those runners who hammers every training run and then posts mediorcre race results as a result of being tired and burnt half the time. In fairness, maybe HR monitors have a bad rep when we see them being promoted by the Runners World gurus. But in truth, almost all national and world class runners practice some form of effort based training whether they use a HR monitor or not.

Very curious about this as well. I feel like my performances stagnate mid season as my workouts tend to have remained the same. I'd typically do something like 8x1k around 3:10-3:15 (depending how I'm feeling) with 45s rest, but I never progressed beyond that.

Would something like this be better:

8x1k threshold, 60s rest
10x1k threshold, 60s rest
10x1k threshold, 45s rest
10x1k threshold + 4x200, 45s rest
12x1k threshold, 45s rest
12x1k threshold + 4x200, 45s rest

And the pace would progress a bit from 8 to 12 before starting again at 8 but about 5 seconds faster.

I like adding a mile (or 2k) twice before increasing pace. This is in-season though; at the start of the season the jumps are more rapid since you're rebuilding fitness.

Sample progression (admittedly from very unfit at the start to decently fit):

6x1k in 3:30
10x1k in 3:30
8x1k in 3:25
8x1k in 3:20
10x1k in 3:20
8x1k in 3:15
10x1k in 3:15
12x1k in 3:15
8x1k in 3:10
10x1k in 3:10
12x1k in 3:10

All off 60s rest. Then, except if there are big PRs, we progress far less (i.e. 2-3 seconds per kilometer) and shrink rest: we might do 12x1k in 3:07 off 45s rest, but that's it