The '20 minute tempo run'

Rat Race wrote:

I agree that there is no magic formula, . . .

It may not be magic, but "Daniels Running Formula" does provide a formula. Reality is that there are different definitions of "tempo run", but "20 minute tempo run" probably is a reference to the Daniels system.

Spreadsheet here:

Citizen Runner wrote:

Rat Race wrote:

I agree that there is no magic formula, . . .

It may not be magic, but "Daniels Running Formula" does provide a formula. Reality is that there are different definitions of "tempo run", but "20 minute tempo run" probably is a reference to the Daniels system.

Spreadsheet here:

http://www.electricblues.com/html/runpro.html

Here's a good thread on this from back in the day (2003):

The consensus back then see to be that good training should incorporate "tempo" runs that vary in terms of pace and time, with longer runs being slower, even for 5k runners. This obviously departs from Daniel's book, but sticking to closely to the Daniel's paces is a bit dogmatic (not that the above poster was advocating that) .

Daniel's formula is great for beginner runners but is too formulaic for an experienced runner, IMO. I don't even mean experienced as in fast, but simply just someone who has been running a while. The longer you've run, the more modulation you'll need in your training to continue to progress.

For example, alternating a 20 min tempo and a 40 min tempo every other week, even as you approach your key races, will be far more beneficial than only doing a 20 min tempo at the same paces each week. In the early season you may want to include two variations tempo work each week, and perhaps even three if you count the long run or in place of the long run.

Ideal volume of LT workouts depend on weekly mileage totals, period/phase of training, experience/injury resistance and of course target event focus. A half marathoner running 100mpw can probably do a lot more tempo work than a 5km runner on only on 60mpw. Again, I would phrase a 40-min workout as an "Uptempo Run". People of course can do 40-min at LT, but it would be a fairly hard effort. A lot of guys training for a marathon will do 8-12 mile "Tempo Runs" but it is more like marathon goal pace or what I called "Uptempo/Aerobic Threshold." Semantics. Now a session of 2 x 20min with a 5-min rest (or even 2 x 3 miles etc) could very well be a good LT workout. Marathoners running higher mileage could handle 3x 3 closer to half marathon race pace (and if the half marathon PB is under 1:10 that corresponds very nicely to being close to LT threshold pace/velocity). Then on the faster end of the spectrum you look at pushing down the Threshold by hitting Critical Velocity (not the free fall kind!). So maybe cruise intervals or 2km repeats with a shorter rest in the 1-2min range (or even 8 x 1km) closer to 10km pace...but slightly slower. What did JK say in college?...I think "12km race pace" But yeah Daniels tables are a good start for a rough idea of pace. The best thing with VDOT tables is using actual, current race fitness and performances to gauge relative workout intensity. Ability to operate and execute Tempo/LT workouts at a proper intensity (think roughly around 4mmol lactate) is highly dependent on Running Economy though so that is the individual variation. Some can operate at 90% max HR, while others are only 85% or less. But workouts around the spectrum can still be very beneficial obviously.

Smoove wrote:

In my view, by the way, the 20 minute tempo run is the best bit of training you can do, regardless of distance, once you establish a baseline of fitness by running regular distance.

^^ Although I like it closer to 25 mins. 30 tops.

heyyo wrote:

This obviously departs from Daniel's book, but sticking to closely to the Daniel's paces is a bit dogmatic (not that the above poster was advocating that) .

Daniel's formula is great for beginner runners but is too formulaic for an experienced runner, IMO. I don't even mean experienced as in fast, but simply just someone who has been running a while. The longer you've run, the more modulation you'll need in your training to continue to progress.

For example, alternating a 20 min tempo and a 40 min tempo every other week, even as you approach your key races, will be far more beneficial than only doing a 20 min tempo at the same paces each week. In the early season you may want to include two variations tempo work each week, and perhaps even three if you count the long run or in place of the long run.

Daniels does suggest running longer tempos and adjusting the pace accordingly. On the surface his book appears very formulaic, but there is a lot in there to support a wider variety of paces than most people on these boards think.

I totally agree with you Sage. When one keeps tempo runs kind of short the needed recovery time is shorter and it's also mentally easier to do the workout. You might be so tired after the day in the office that running a 40-minutes tempo run could be too much. It's much easier to do a uptempo run. My longest uptempo has been 15K so far whereas I haven't done any tempo run over 8K this year.

I Just completed a cruise interval-style workout this morning. Marathon training, 12 x 800 w/400 recovery. So roundabout 10k of work, which at my paces adds up to about 35 minutes. The recoveries make this a hard but manageable workout, and over the course of my plan I will bring up the interval lengths so that eventually becomes a single 10K tempo run.

I think the literature suggests that you start to accrue good bang for your buck at 20 mins / just over 5K of work (hence the popularity of that particular workout) and the cost/benefit of work time to recovery time evens out somewhere just beyond the 10K mark for the average runner.

This is what i don't understand. Why not run the 20 minute tempo hard, like fairly close to max effort? Is there any reason beyond injury prevention?

Sage, i just bought some of your canaberry gels. Good stuff.

I usually sing Happy Birthday. To each their own :-)

John Utah wrote:

This is what i don't understand. Why not run the 20 minute tempo hard, like fairly close to max effort? Is there any reason beyond injury prevention?

Comfortably hard. Train don't strain.

John Utah wrote:

This is what i don't understand. Why not run the 20 minute tempo hard, like fairly close to max effort? Is there any reason beyond injury prevention?

Pfitz uses the term "chronic acidosis" to describe overtraining. The primary goal of the 20-minute tempo is to train the body to deal with lactate, correct? You don't have to go all out to get that stimulus. Max effort floods your body with lactate, and if done on a regular basis is a great way to achieve chronic acidosis.

what to do? wrote:

John Utah wrote:

This is what i don't understand. Why not run the 20 minute tempo hard, like fairly close to max effort? Is there any reason beyond injury prevention?

Comfortably hard. Train don't strain.

I understand what it's "supposed" to be, but I still don't understand why. Why not strain? That trains the mind too. Getting comfortable with being really uncomfortable.

jewbacca wrote:

John Utah wrote:

This is what i don't understand. Why not run the 20 minute tempo hard, like fairly close to max effort? Is there any reason beyond injury prevention?

Pfitz uses the term "chronic acidosis" to describe overtraining. The primary goal of the 20-minute tempo is to train the body to deal with lactate, correct? You don't have to go all out to get that stimulus. Max effort floods your body with lactate, and if done on a regular basis is a great way to achieve chronic acidosis.

I get that, but in most training plans (e.g., JD) you're not doing these runs very often. I thought the whole point was to do loads of easy miles so you can go hard, infrequently, on the other stuff, like a 20 minute run.

20 minute tempo efforts are a pretty consistent part of most training plans, including Daniels oriented plans. They were an almost weekly staple of my college training. So I disagree with the basic assumption that you are making.

From there, we go to the fundamental question of a Daniels style approach: what am I trying to accomplish and how can I accomplish it with the least possible stress on my body? That doesn't mean you won't hurt enough to get a mental benefit from a workout. It means that you don't beat your body up more than necessary to effectuate the adaptation.

I don't try to kill 4 x 1600 at 4:48 with 3:30 rest when I can get the desired vo2max adaptation by doing them at 5:00, and I don't run 5:10 pace on a 20 minute tempo run when I can get the same LT adaptation from running in the low 5:20s.

Mental toughness can be achieved by these workouts - I know the end of a 20 minute tempo run and the 3rd and 4th mile repeats of a vo2max workout cause me enough pain for me to be ready for that sensation on race day, and I race frequently enough (10-15 times a year) for the races themselves to effectuate any mental toughness adaptation.

I would suggest that if someone tells you that the primary purpose of a workout is to build mental toughness, you find someone else to suggest workouts to you.

John Utah wrote:

what to do? wrote:

Comfortably hard. Train don't strain.

I understand what it's "supposed" to be, but I still don't understand why. Why not strain? That trains the mind too. Getting comfortable with being really uncomfortable.

Why not strain? Because it's not good training. You shouldn't train 'mental toughness' because it's natural. Any fool can hurt themselves. Smart training is efficient running. Don't ever ever force the pace, that's the wrong approach. Let the pace come to you and it will. Repeat this process for a few years with gradual increase in volume and you will be much faster.

Smoove wrote:

From there, we go to the fundamental question of a Daniels style approach: what am I trying to accomplish and how can I accomplish it with the least possible stress on my body? That doesn't mean you won't hurt enough to get a mental benefit from a workout. It means that you don't beat your body up more than necessary to effectuate the adaptation.

I don't try to kill 4 x 1600 at 4:48 with 3:30 rest when I can get the desired vo2max adaptation by doing them at 5:00, and I don't run 5:10 pace on a 20 minute tempo run when I can get the same LT adaptation from running in the low 5:20s.

Yeah, this. You have to know what you're trying to accomplish with any particular run.

Something else to consider is the recovery time needed for your 20-min tempo. If you try too hard, you'll need extra days for recovery and your training may suffer as a result.

pariah wrote:

John Utah wrote:

I understand what it's "supposed" to be, but I still don't understand why. Why not strain? That trains the mind too. Getting comfortable with being really uncomfortable.

Why not strain? Because it's not good training. You shouldn't train 'mental toughness' because it's natural. Any fool can hurt themselves. Smart training is efficient running. Don't ever ever force the pace, that's the wrong approach. Let the pace come to you and it will. Repeat this process for a few years with gradual increase in volume and you will be much faster.

Ok, that makes some sense. I can buy that. I can already see that after running all of these damn easy miles. Whenever i do tempos my effort level seems too easy but my pace keeps lowering over time. It still doesn't feel right without the agony and all of the negative emotions you have to fight through when pushing hard (my "hard" is not very fast, for the record).

My racing days are long gone. I still have the physical ability but not the obsession. But back then, sometimes I could run very fast at the end of a 12-15 miler. I think most distance runners can.

Not having fresh legs is typical of regular mileage, where the pace picks up gradually. It's a normal part of the training rhythm. I could still combine mileage and intensity with the right warm up.