So how is Tempo defined here? Are we talking 20 min Daniel's tempo pace for these efforts or is it adjusted down? Let's say a 17:30 5k runner which Daniels equates to a 6:03 tempo pace for a 20min effort or would you take the total cumulative tempo time and find the prescribed pace which in this case may be closer to 6:15 for this generic runner?
They are intended to be at Daniels' 20 minute tempo pace, although I tend to find that I end up doing the first bout at 20 minute tempo pace and then the second bout is often a little bit slower (maybe 5-10 seconds) - I don't worry much about that. I think the real value comes in digging down and pushing your body to work at pace when you are 15+ miles into a run, and when some of those 15 miles were done at such a pace that it has taken a little something out of you.
Smoove wrote:
If I could get people to change one thing about their interval training, it would be to convince them to rarely do any 5k paced intervals of less than 3:00 in duration. This would essentially cut 400m and 800m intervals at 5k pace out of most routines. There are a couple of exceptions to this - when you are just getting back into some intervals after a lay off or when the hay is already in the barn and you just want to do some work to lock in some muscle memory of what 5k pace feels like without taxing yourself too much. Same thing with 400s.
Working Harder - this might be a good time for you to try some of the things that Daniels advocates for some of his mixed tempo and long run efforts. Below are a couple of those runs that I will be doing for Boston - but they are still a few weeks off. Not sure how comfortable these would be for someone who has not been doing a ton of tempo work (I am still building up to them - that is why they are a few weeks off yet). Still, food for thought:
2 mi up; 4 x 1 mile w/:60-:80 rest; 8 mi easy; 20 min tempo; 2-3 down.
2 mile warm up; 2 x 2 mi tempo w/2:00 rest; 10 mi easy; 3 mi tempo; 1-2 mi easy
Both are pretty tough workouts, but they really help you get to the mental place that you need to be able to find at around the 20 mile mark of the marathon.
What would be a good way to adapt that to a half marathon training plan? I dont really plan on going over 15-16 mile on the long run.
The half is tricky. Daniels advocates either training for 5k/10k and just racing up, or training for the full and racing down. I tend to train for the 5k/10k and race up since there is only one local half per year that I ever run, and it isn't my main priority. I do make a few modifications to my 5k training though: I try to get up to 16 miles pretty regularly for my long run and I get more tempo work in.
The increased tempo work comes in two ways: first, I stretch my tempo efforts out to 30-35 minutes, which requires me to slow them down by 10-15 seconds per mile. Second, I incorporate a fair amount of cruise intervals, typically 5 x 1 mile at 20 minute tempo pace with 1:00 rest. This allows for a greater amount of volume at tempo pace than a straight 20 minute tempo run.
Daniels does have some medium long tempo hybrids, and I think they would be great workouts for the half. These are a couple that I will do that are in the 12-15 mile range:
2 miles up; 4 x 2 miles tempo; 2 miles down
2 mi up; 4 x 1 mile w/1:00 rest; 5:00 rest; 3 x 1 mile w/1:00 rest; 2.5 mi down
2 mi up; 3 mi tempo; 3:00 rest; 3 mi tempo; 3:00 rest; 2 mi tempo; 2 mi cool down
3 mi up; 7 x 1 mile at tempo w/1:00 rest; 3 down
8 miles easy; 6 x 1 mile at tempo pace w/1:00 rest; 2 miles easy
Smoove wrote:
My reasoning, which is really Daniels' reasoning, is that you simply do not get your heart rate up to the desired zone for long enough with these shorter intervals. The primary goal of most 5k paced intervals is to improve vo2max. To do that, you need to be training at or close to your max heart rate. According to the studies that Daniels has performed, it takes most trained athletes at least 2 minutes to get up to your max heart rate. As a result, if you are doing 400m intervals, you may not get up to your max heart rate at all. Now you will note that I say "may not." I say this because if you keep the rest really short and make it active rest (jogging), your heart rate will stay elevated between intervals and, after enough intervals, you may be able to get up to your max heart rate at some point in the workout. Same thing is true with 800s.
Let's take a 15:30 5k runner as an example. Let's look at 3 different workouts (and for simplicity's sake, I will assume 5k pace is 5:00 pace):
6 x 800 at 5k pace with 2:00 rest. This is a staple workout that you see folks posting all of the time. Now let's assume that Daniels is right and it takes 2:00 to get up to your max heart rate. At 2:30 per 800, you get 6 periods of 30 seconds each at your max heart rate, tops. Total time at max heart rate: 3:00.
4 x 1200 at 5k pace with 3:00 rest. Another staple workout, with the same total volume of work at 5k pace. In this case though, the athlete will spend 1:45 per interval at their max heart rate, for a total of 7:00 at their max heart rate.
More than twice the time at your max heart rate over the course of the same 4800m at 5k pace by doing 4 1200s instead of 6 800s.
3 x 1600 with 4:00 rest. Total time at max heart rate: 9:00.
Again, you can try to trim some of this deficit when doing 800s by keeping your heart rate up by way of keeping the rest short (cut it down to 1:00 maybe) and by keeping the pace decent on your recovery (7:00 easy distance pace instead of 8:00 jogging pace), but then that becomes a much more intense and higher stress workout.
I am not totally crapping on 400s or 800s at 5k pace. They have their place in the workout cycle. I just think their place is very limited and that they are more suitable for getting you back into things or getting you some work at race pace than they are at actually improving your fitness.
Not to hijack this thread, but I have a lot of problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, I don't think it's worthwhile to specifically target improvement of v02 max in your training. V02 max plateaus relatively early in an athlete's career. After a couple years of hard training, your v02 max is probably about as high as it will ever be (note that this is true regardless of whether you do traditional v02 max training or not). This doesn't mean you'll stop improving - it's likely you'll continue to improve long after this point - but increases in v02 max are simply no longer the driving factor.
But even if you assume that none of this is true, there's still a flaw in your reasoning. You're essentially assuming that it takes just as long for an athlete to reach max heart rate in their first interval as it does in subsequent intervals (although you did include the caveat that this isn't true if the rest is really short). Let's say I'm doing 1200s at 5k pace with 3:00 rest. If it takes me a full 2:00 to get to max heart rate on the first rep, don't you think it will take even less time on each subsequent rep?
I'm going to end with this: assuming that my first paragraph is NOT true, which workout do you think will do a better job improving your V02 max, 20x400 at 3k-5k pace with 1:00 rest, or just a single 1200 at 3k-5k pace? Cause I think it's the former.
bummer so many are under the weather!
Good job, Runruncerepeat, slo-twitch, Thinkaboutit, and Smoove, making it through solid weeks anyway.
pewow - sounds like a fun week with the ski skate race and all the quick stuff. How did you feel about 55? I haven't run that fast in 20 years and that was about my top speed back then. You have a funny story about the mistaken distance... I run with a GPS watch and tend to rely 100% on that sucker for distances, although the specific watch (Garmin Forerunner 225) lacks easy interfaces for speed work (like countdown-restart, repeating countdown, or generally anything related to timing that's not tied to distance).
Smoove - Good luck with the race! How have you found your body responds to volume? I'm still "kind of" freshly returning (say I've been running more than 30mpw regularly since about 15 months ago after many years with very little) and this is the third time I've gotten my weekly mileage above 50 for more than a week at a time. All three times I have felt very strong at the time when I feel like I should be most fatigued--stronger than when I'm at 30. I can't help but feel like I'm getting some kind of almost immediate benefit from the increased volume even though I know that aerobic benefits take up to 6 weeks to manifest themselves. Considering you've been up and down with mileage over the past few years, how do you "feel" when your mileage is changing or is held high for some time?
IllinoisRunner - another solid week! I like those hills and the long run. When does your season start? First practice? First meet?
working harder - I suppose it depends on where you are in your training and how much GMP you have been doing. If you want to drive people crazy, alternate between GMP and 20-30 seconds slower for a much longer period (like miles 10-18) -- Looking back I'm not sure where I read about that alternating long run, but here's an article about it --
https://www.nazelite.com/the-alternating-pace-long-run/
-- it does require mental focus to switch between and nail down the fast and slow paces. I don't have specific advice for your case, but a GMP ending also sounds good to me. You might consider starting the GMP a little earlier and leave two miles for a warm-down. Smoove has some much more experienced advice, though, from the Daniels perspective, as we've seen.
Thinkaboutit - Different goals but I think we have similar speeds, so I'm keen to see your workout times. I haven't been racing or even doing time trials so I'm curious how I might do in a marathon by proxy through you. I just dart-boarded a 2:50 goal marathon to help hone in training paces. I'd say "We'll see" but we probably won't :-)
Hijack away. Most people come to this thread for two reasons: to watch training progressions over time and to talk through training theories; so this is exactly the point of this thread, I think.
First, I simply think that we disagree about the importance of training vo2max. While I have read that vo2max adaptation can be achieved quickly and is at its highest at younger ages, I don't think that means that you can ignore it later in your running life. It isn't as if once you achieve a degree of adaptation, that adaptation stays with you for the rest of your life. If you use periodization in your training, you will do some vo2max work, go away from it some to peak, then maybe take some time off, then come back to training. Working vo2max during each training cycle is important. In fact, Pfitzenger takes the position that as we age, a greater percentage of our workouts should be at vo2max pace since vo2max is so negatively impacted by age.
You kind of acknowledge my caveat regarding reduced rest and active rest on the one hand, and then dismiss it on the other as if I hadn't said it. I absolutely agree with you that you will reach max heart rate more quickly on subsequent reps - I affirmatively said as much and that is why I advocate for active rest between vo2max intervals regardless of the pace. But this is also true with respect to the longer vo2 max intervals, especially for older runners. I am turning 45 in a couple of days - my heart rate jumps right back up really quickly and it comes down more slowly. Frankly, I could probably get away with the shorter vo2max intervals than most because of this.
As between the two workouts you outlined, I would 100% agree with your suggestion that the former would get you more vo2max work. But that misses the point - my goal is to get the absolute most bang for my buck when I train. I want to maximize adaptation while minimizing stress on my body. So let's turn the question around: which do you think would be more stressful on your body, the one 1200 or the twenty 400s? Obviously it is the latter. The goal is to find the right middle ground where you are achieving adaptation with the least amount of stress necessary. For me, that is intervals of 3-5 minutes or so in duration, with maybe a little more than a 1:1 work to rest ratio, with a total volume of vo2max intervals equal to somewhere between 5 and 10% of my weekly mileage.
I think if you read Pfitz and Daniels, you will find that they support vo2max intervals the way I suggest them (which makes sense, since their books are the basis of my training approach), and they provide references to studies supporting that position.
I guess my question back to you is this: why would you think 20 x 400 would be better for anyone than 4 x 1 mile?
team 1 wrote:
Smoove - Good luck with the race! How have you found your body responds to volume? I'm still "kind of" freshly returning (say I've been running more than 30mpw regularly since about 15 months ago after many years with very little) and this is the third time I've gotten my weekly mileage above 50 for more than a week at a time. All three times I have felt very strong at the time when I feel like I should be most fatigued--stronger than when I'm at 30. I can't help but feel like I'm getting some kind of almost immediate benefit from the increased volume even though I know that aerobic benefits take up to 6 weeks to manifest themselves. Considering you've been up and down with mileage over the past few years, how do you "feel" when your mileage is changing or is held high for some time?
I am just now getting to the point where an easy 10 miler is starting to feel like a recovery day. This will be the first week where I do a workout with a 10 miler the day before my workout (I think it will be something like 6 runs in a row of 10 or more right before my workout), so we will see.
Honestly, I am torn about it. I definitely feel the cumulative fatigue from the mileage, but on the other hand, I do enjoy the trade off of increased volume over high intensity. I am really glad that my vo2max block is almost over (just a 5k race this week and then a track session next week, and no more vo2max work other than races until after Boston). I am just getting old and running at 5k pace on concrete tracks (all that I have access to in downtown Orlando) just takes a big toll.
Of course, my past heavy volume periods were during hot and steamy Florida summers in anticipation of fall marathons. And this winter has been really warm in Florida until this week, so I think part of the cumulative fatigue has stemmed from constant electrolyte depletion and dehydration. I am hoping that with the cooler weather that I am experiencing this week while training for my first spring marathon will mean less fatigue.
So I guess my answer is that I don't quite get the same physical bump that you do, but I definitely enjoy the higher volume more (even though I was a 50 mpw tops guy all of my running life until 2014).
I seem to respond better to mileage than intensity. When i was 20-21 and ran my PRs i topped out at 45-50 miles a week and I ran everything pretty hard. I am close to in as good of shape at them moment having just been running a year of easier runs and more volume. I think after the half and I bump mileage all summer , that in the fall I will PR at every distance.
team 1 wrote:
Thinkaboutit - Different goals but I think we have similar speeds, so I'm keen to see your workout times. I haven't been racing or even doing time trials so I'm curious how I might do in a marathon by proxy through you. I just dart-boarded a 2:50 goal marathon to help hone in training paces. I'd say "We'll see" but we probably won't :-)
Perhaps. I'm not quite at the point where I'd be running a 4 mile tempo at 6 flat. And you're doing a bit more mileage than me.
Last summer I was running 50-60 mpw and ran 17:50 (track time trial very early in cycle), 36:34 and 2:58. I really wish I'd have done more racing last summer.
Based on the single workout you posted and your mileage, 2:50 seems to be a pretty good shot on the board. But who knows with a marathon. Any races planned prior to your 50-miler?
Smoove wrote:
team 1 wrote:Smoove - Good luck with the race! How have you found your body responds to volume? I'm still "kind of" freshly returning (say I've been running more than 30mpw regularly since about 15 months ago after many years with very little) and this is the third time I've gotten my weekly mileage above 50 for more than a week at a time. All three times I have felt very strong at the time when I feel like I should be most fatigued--stronger than when I'm at 30. I can't help but feel like I'm getting some kind of almost immediate benefit from the increased volume even though I know that aerobic benefits take up to 6 weeks to manifest themselves. Considering you've been up and down with mileage over the past few years, how do you "feel" when your mileage is changing or is held high for some time?
I am just now getting to the point where an easy 10 miler is starting to feel like a recovery day. This will be the first week where I do a workout with a 10 miler the day before my workout (I think it will be something like 6 runs in a row of 10 or more right before my workout), so we will see.
Honestly, I am torn about it. I definitely feel the cumulative fatigue from the mileage, but on the other hand, I do enjoy the trade off of increased volume over high intensity. I am really glad that my vo2max block is almost over (just a 5k race this week and then a track session next week, and no more vo2max work other than races until after Boston). I am just getting old and running at 5k pace on concrete tracks (all that I have access to in downtown Orlando) just takes a big toll.
Of course, my past heavy volume periods were during hot and steamy Florida summers in anticipation of fall marathons. And this winter has been really warm in Florida until this week, so I think part of the cumulative fatigue has stemmed from constant electrolyte depletion and dehydration. I am hoping that with the cooler weather that I am experiencing this week while training for my first spring marathon will mean less fatigue.
So I guess my answer is that I don't quite get the same physical bump that you do, but I definitely enjoy the higher volume more (even though I was a 50 mpw tops guy all of my running life until 2014).
Thanks for the reply. I know I'm also benefitting from nice weather, but ironically after I wrote that last message I found myself walking around thinking my legs felt cruddy...
runrincerepeat wrote:
I seem to respond better to mileage than intensity. When i was 20-21 and ran my PRs i topped out at 45-50 miles a week and I ran everything pretty hard. I am close to in as good of shape at them moment having just been running a year of easier runs and more volume. I think after the half and I bump mileage all summer , that in the fall I will PR at every distance.
Man, That's really exciting (to PR at every distance). I, too, ran everything hard as a youngster. All of my honest PRs are high school-era with a few longer ones thrown in during my 20s (10K - 35:low, HM, 1:18, marathon 3:07) when I was never really consistently doing either intensity or mileage... I'm pretty sure I can take down the latter set with more solid training but my 5K PR is in the 15s which seems like another planet right now. I'd be happy to get into the 16s and right now I'd be genuinely pleased with sub-18, although I think I'm there.
Thinkaboutit wrote:
Perhaps. I'm not quite at the point where I'd be running a 4 mile tempo at 6 flat. And you're doing a bit more mileage than me.
Last summer I was running 50-60 mpw and ran 17:50 (track time trial very early in cycle), 36:34 and 2:58. I really wish I'd have done more racing last summer.
Based on the single workout you posted and your mileage, 2:50 seems to be a pretty good shot on the board. But who knows with a marathon. Any races planned prior to your 50-miler?
That' encouraging. I know I'm definitely more of a speedster than a distance monster, so I need to take shorter distance repeats and tempos with a grain of salt but your comment makes me think I should do some shorter races while I'm fit, if not to benchmark, but to put down a high water mark for my age and fitness. I don't have anything else planned besides the 50 but there are a couple local races in April and May (5k, 7-miler) that would be nice to run. Looking at the McMillan race calculator your best race last year was the 10k, considerably better than the other two (but not as bad as my 35/3:07 10K/marathon, ugh!). What do you think the reason was for the marathon/10k discrepancy?
team1 wrote:
That' encouraging. I know I'm definitely more of a speedster than a distance monster, so I need to take shorter distance repeats and tempos with a grain of salt but your comment makes me think I should do some shorter races while I'm fit, if not to benchmark, but to put down a high water mark for my age and fitness. I don't have anything else planned besides the 50 but there are a couple local races in April and May (5k, 7-miler) that would be nice to run. Looking at the McMillan race calculator your best race last year was the 10k, considerably better than the other two (but not as bad as my 35/3:07 10K/marathon, ugh!). What do you think the reason was for the marathon/10k discrepancy?
Ya that's a good question. After running the 10K I knew speedwise I was fit for faster than 2:58. But honestly though I was training for a marathon I was probably better trained for a 10K or HM. Hence my comment that the marathon is a different animal.
Truthfully, I think the tables are only accurate if you're consistently running 70 mpw+ and fully training for a marathon.
In my case, after the 10K I didn't change my goal. I wanted to qualify for Boston and break 3 hours. I knew that was super achievable and felt that if I shot for 2:50 or so as the tables indicated I had a higher risk of blowing up and crashing in the race. 2:58 was controlled and solid. Finished knowing that much faster was possible.
Plus, the marathon is just a finicky bitch.
Smoove wrote:
Plus, the marathon is just a finicky bitch.
Perfectly said.
Smoove wrote:
Plus, the marathon is just a finicky bitch.
This has to be true just mathematically.. the longer you are running a race the more can go wrong! I think thats why people like Bill Rodgers had so many great races.. because he raced ALL THE TIME
runrincerepeat wrote:
Smoove wrote:Plus, the marathon is just a finicky bitch.
This has to be true just mathematically.. the longer you are running a race the more can go wrong! I think thats why people like Bill Rodgers had so many great races.. because he raced ALL THE TIME
Hahaha, very funny. I can definitely relate. When I was in 1:18 HM / 35-minute 10K shape I was only able to pull off 3:07, so I know that one. Besides that I threw in various 3:12, 3:15, 3:21 type performances, but I was really barely training. I would imagine most people have better discipline than I did during those years.