Physiological Advantages of Progressive Runs over Tempos? (Or the Other Way Around?)

What is most important is an efficient stride. Good technique, longer stride/higher stride rate with less effort. I think posture is critical and that takes practice. When you start slower you can stay focused on good technique and gradually pick the pace up retaining that good technique.

In a tempo run, you need a really good day or a really good warm up to get that technique rock solid without straining. Tempo runs should never be a strain.

That's enough for now, others please chime in.

Thanks!

Bump.

Following.

I guess it depends on duration in the threshold zone vs distance. So in a progression if you get in the slow end of the threshold and stay there longer is it more beneficial than a shorter tempo run at a faster speed? I would think so , especially when you take into account effort.

Runrincerepeat wrote:

I guess it depends on duration in the threshold zone vs distance. So in a progression if you get in the slow end of the threshold and stay there longer is it more beneficial than a shorter tempo run at a faster speed? I would think so , especially when you take into account effort.

Actually, I was thinking more "start slower than tempo, finish faster than tempo"...

I don't think there is an appreciable physiological difference. Daniels uses tempo runs at T pave, cruise intervals, longer tempo runs at a little slower than T pace and progressions all for the same purpose: aaptation to the build up of waste products associates with lactic acid.

If you were to chart the build up of those waste products while using each approach, each of the charts would look a little different, but the end result would all be an appreciable build up of waste products over the course of the run. With a progression run, the accumulation would build up more slowly at first as compared to a straight tempo run, but would climb more steeply during the second half. Longer tempos would have flatter rises, but the rises would be longer. Cruise intervals would have stepped rises with very flat portions during the rest periods, but there would be more rises. But they are all functionally doing the same thing - forcing your body to adapt to the build up of waste products over time.

Not as specific as you want, I know. But that's the general idea. The best thing to do is to use each approach during a training cycle. To the extent that the differences in the rate of build up result in any differences in adaptation, you'll be covered. Plus, it breaks up the monotony of weekly 20 minute tempo runs.

Their both good.

Coming from the 70s/80s, I didn't know that that there was any other way to do a "tempo" other than as a progression -- start slow, get moving, hit a good effort, hold it.

I'm a great fan of Jack Daniels, but I think that the 20-minute tempo is a workout for coaches and exercise physiologists more than for runners.

brfc wrote:

Coming from the 70s/80s, I didn't know that that there was any other way to do a "tempo" other than as a progression -- start slow, get moving, hit a good effort, hold it.

I'm a great fan of Jack Daniels, but I think that the 20-minute tempo is a workout for coaches and exercise physiologists more than for runners.

I thought you were supposed to keep accelerating?

Slightly Off topic, but I like the psychological benefits of progression runs. They get your mind used to finishing fast/hard, but the workload is such that you can stay relaxed.

Both are good but straight hard tempo is likely the better option for more runs. In a race you rarely have time to wait forever until your body is ready. It's all well and good to impress yourself with a fast finish progression tempo but if the average speed is poor it won't translate as well to race scenarios.

thejeff wrote:

Runrincerepeat wrote:

I guess it depends on duration in the threshold zone vs distance. So in a progression if you get in the slow end of the threshold and stay there longer is it more beneficial than a shorter tempo run at a faster speed? I would think so , especially when you take into account effort.

Actually, I was thinking more "start slower than tempo, finish faster than tempo"...

There are many ways to do both tempos and progressions so the OP has asked a fairly vacuous question.

thejeff wrote:

brfc wrote:

Coming from the 70s/80s, I didn't know that that there was any other way to do a "tempo" other than as a progression -- start slow, get moving, hit a good effort, hold it.

I'm a great fan of Jack Daniels, but I think that the 20-minute tempo is a workout for coaches and exercise physiologists more than for runners.

I thought you were supposed to keep accelerating?

It depends on how you feel. Some days you keep cranking it up, some days you don't.

The correct answer is numerous.

Tempo is an outdated term based on archaic physiology.

dsrunner wrote:

The correct answer is numerous.

Tempo is an outdated term based on archaic physiology.

Ok, fine, then rephrase it as "advantages of progressive runs vs. steady-paced moderate efforts." And even if you don't like the term "tempo," the fastest pace you can sustain for about an hour is still a good benchmark for thinking about a steady moderate effort, and is a lot easier to type than "the fastest pace you can sustain for about an hour."

I'm interested to hear what people think. I like both steady 20-35 efforts and progressive runs. No idea about the physiology, but to me a steady effort is a better simulation of race pace, while progressive runs seem to mirror the psychological demands of racing without being terribly taxing.

I usually do progression runs pretty much everyday, where i start a 10 mile run at 7:00/mile and the last 5-10min finish at 5:50/mile.I also do one tempo run a week about 6:10/mile - 6:15/mile around 10 miles as well.On physiology not really sure to be honest, but i would say that if you were only doing tempo runs and easy runs, and you went to race 5k or 10k ,i think this would be quite a shock to your body as you haven't prepared for that pace.Progression runs on the other hand i would say hit a variety of paces from marathon pace - 5k/10k pace, so 5k/10k race won't be somewhat of a shock to your legs.But then again most people will do intervals or fartleks at 5k/10k pace to prepare for the race.

dsrunner wrote:

The correct answer is numerous.

Tempo is an outdated term based on archaic physiology.

I would argue "tempo" is a horrible term due to its vagueness. I think I asked on here years ago to define the term and got several different answers.

Slowly Getting Faster wrote:

Progressive runs certainly more fun. Would love to find out that they have similar (or superior!) adaptive benefits. Google hasn't turned up much :-/

Interested in duscussion on pretty much any road distance 5k and longer, but feel free to chime in with whatever.

Progressive runs would maybe feel more fun but they will not give the very best physiological outcome. Running intervals or tempos at an even level of pace will give the best effect. What happen that way is that the even level of pace gets more demanding the more reps the interval has ,and the same with the tempo during the run. The pace will not increase but the effort will.

Some of the kenyans I coach used to run progressive intervals before I took over . They ran too slow at the first reps and too fast at the last reps. When I corrected that they got a fast improvement.

The only real Wizard :)

Do you think it matters if the runner is more of a slow-twitch vs fast twitch runner?