The '20 minute tempo run'

Darth Pariah wrote:

But really, pariah, most of this is unimportant to the discussion of this thread. All of it can be boiled down to: You should spend time at LT pace, and how much you do and the way you do it really depends on your training history and your goals.

This the most reasonable thing said yet! I'm sure Smoove could find a way to disagree with you that would also involve sharing the times from one of his workouts.

Obviously I have no idea what Darth Pariah or Pariah are talking about or where I am right now.

Drill, you are a loser. No one ever said they were using tempo to develop mental toughness. I seriously think you are clinically OCD because you have latched on to one silly little point that is only in your head and you can't seem to have any civil discussion or dialogue unless you receive affirmation of your point. You seem to be very closed minded and frankly, a d!ck.

Sorry, but I'm just saying what everyone's thinking.

HI!

Correct, the assertion of trolling is the result of asking people to look up the phrase "can not" suggesting people have dementia, and a general lack of civility.

Also, bemoaning the loss of what these boards once were while simultaneously engaging in the kind of behavior that brings the quality of these boards down strikes me as a bit hypocritical.

You were seriously struggling with the definition. I figured it might help. And I am seriously concerned about the old coaches memory and cognitive abilities. Just trying to help!!!

I wasn't struggling at all, I just didn't think an adult would be as dogmatically literal as my 9 year old; I expected a higher degree of nuance.

Darth, if you would handle this one next, that would be great.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8651585

I've been reading this thread the last day or so, and I have to say I find it funny and sad at the same time. Here is a similar discussion that happened last fall with quite different results:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8420602

I wish people on LRC could be less argumentative.

Wow I messing with you. Stop responding to me. Like the above poster pointed it out I have a compulsion to post nonsense.

dril wrote:

My bad. I'm pro train don't strain and anti calculators, formulas, and people who can't run tempo pace for 20 minutes but haven't tried running slower. Maybe "Add on" you aren't as fit as you think? And that's why you have to substitute a continuous 20-40 minute run for 2-3 minute repeats at the same pace.

The communal letsrun training knowledge has regressed to a sad level. You're now considered a troll if you suggest people run workouts at current fitness, not follow daniels paces blindly, and not use tempo runs for developing mental toughness.

Not trolling and no need to get that excited. I was just suggesting that rather than try and bang out 20minute tempos in the early stages of a training period you might be better off starting with shorter repeats and build up. I recognize that my fitness is lacking early in my training program and that's why I like to build training progressively.

So the majority of a vote here would be LT pacing is BOTH an art and a science?

For me tempo runs of at least 20 mins kinda go the first 5 mins I'm settling in pace and breathing is not labored, by 10 mins in my legs are starting to feel a little heavy and my breathing is now beginning to become labored. 15 minutes in my legs are officially heavy and starting to burn, my breathing is labored but I could get a few words out at a time if I had to. At 20 mins my legs are burning and heavy, my breathing is the same as it was at 15 minutes in, my overall form is good but not great.

When I do tempo runs longer than 20 mins I'll usually start off slower but still get to that feeling at the end of a 20 min tempo.

Fjjfjcjcfj in that thread nailed it:

The Daniels paces can be wildly inaccurate for distances not near what you are basing the VDOT on.

Example: Guy runs 17:00 which gives him a VDOT of 57 (May not be true but I don't have the table on hand)

That guy gets a "pace" from mile up to easy pace based on his VDOT number from that 5k performance. The problem with this is that it assumes he has a certain exact level of both speed and endurance. This is almost never the case with young athletes. They almost always have more speed than endurance, sometimes greatly so.

Now his threshold, tempo, moderate, and easy paces are too fast, and his intervals and reps are too slow.

Point 1:

The reason 400/800/1600 guys struggle to hit their T pace in long reps is because they aren't running T pace as defined physiologically based on mmol. They likely are underdeveloped aerobically so the tables overestimate (too fast) their paces for longer distances. In HS we'd run a 10 mile time trial part of a fundraiser. It wasn't supposed to be race but would turn into an all out effort each year regardless. The year when I started off the season in 16:30 5k shape we just managed to dip under 1 hr for 60 minutes! That would put our T-pace at 6:00 whereas daniels table who put it at 5:38 using 15k race pace! I also remember our young new coach taking us for our first tempo run. I can still remember the workout because it was so hard. He was incredibly confused as to why we couldn't hit the T pace that his tables were prescribing.

Occam's razor applies nicely here. The knee jerk reaction seems to blame the inability to run continuous T-pace on mental weakness, something intangible and unobservable; however, there's obvious explanation: young runners, middle distance runners are underdeveloped aerobically and therefore the prescribed paces from tables and formulas for longer efforts are too fast.

Point 2:

Intervals for younger athletes at T pace seems like a nice idea on paper, but as stated (wisely by smoove) in that thread, 400s at T pace are easy to "cheat on." This leads to a general principle that the more rest you introduce into cruise/threshold running the easier it is to cheat on. 400s>miles>...>continous (in order of easiest to hardest to cheat on). So while the conventional wisdom seems to be to use intervals at T pace for those who can't handle continuous T pace, I'd argue intervals at T pace should only be reserved for the most experienced athletes who know the feeling of T running well. For everyone else adding in rest only complicates the picture, and you'd be better off slowing down the paces until the athlete gets the effort right. After that the goal should be to gradually ramp up the pace of the T workouts. Aerobic development takes time but ideally the T workout pace should eventually catch up to the predicted estimate from the tables.

This is where the art of coaching comes in. Not every runner has a horizontal line across all distances on the VDOT performance table. Some slope to the left, others to the right, some are flat. I've see all three types in young athletes. So, as a coach, it's my job to properly prescribe the LT pace based on my knowledge of the athlete. You can use breathing rhythm, the "talking" test, recent race times at various distances, heart rate (if you know their true max...not the 220-age crap), etc. That's why a coach is there. To help the athlete figure it out and teach them how to train. Inexperienced coaches might just use a mile TT and go by the book, but there's more to coaching than just reading a table.

I'd argue that it's better to find the right pace and have them run that, even if it's longer cruise intervals rather than a continuous run. The truth is, the longer your LT run is, the more difficult it becomes. Yes, I'm speaking about mentally tough. It's hard to push your body at LT pace for a long time. 15 minutes in and most people want to quit. Are they physically able to keep going? Yes. Would it be better to break the workout up a bit in order for them to complete the volume at the proper pace? Probably.

Question: which is a better workout to target the LT system: 3xmile at correct LT pace with 90 sec rest or 3 miles continuous at a pace slightly lower than correct LT pace (say 82%-84% mhr)?

I say the first workout will do a better job of causing the adaptation I am looking for.

Interesting theory. But why not also consider extending pace over time? Until I have several weeks of training under my belt I know I cannot handle 3 continuous miles at HM-10k pace (based on recent race time a couple months ago). But I can handle 6 x 800 at that pace with 1-2min jogs in between. And a couple of weeks from now I can handle 4 x 1 mile at that pace, then 2 x 2, building up to peak weeks of 2x3miles, 4 x 2 etc with 1min jog per miles. Why is that worse?

I don't understand that if you want to stop or rather feel like you want to stop after 20 minutes then surely you're going faster than your 1 hour pace, ergo too fast...?

Darth:

You sure about 4) ?

My assumption which applies to both Varsity Lu's and Add on's posts is that its worse to run faster than LT pace than it is to run slower than LT pace. This is what I was taught about LT training.

I'm not quite sure which would be better in term so the two 3 mile workouts. They seem similar enough, one with gaps, one slightly slower. My only thought is the probability that the broken 3 mile workout of being faster than LT pace is a lot higher. While for the hypothetical we assume its correct LT, I don't think this will ever be true in actuality. Without blood testing you won't know the true LT pace . My tendency is to opt for the workout that is more likely to lead to a conservative estimate.

Same goes for add on's example. My worry would be that in the 6 x 800 workout the paces would be faster than LT. So on the one hand the plan you've specified is great in building up to 4x2 mile at a specific pace and is great at increasing volume at that specific pace. If the goal is to increase time at that pace than its a good outline. However if the goal is to improve LT than I'm not as sure its as great a plan.

Canova has a concept of internal load versus external load which applies here. Internal load is synonymous with effort or feel of the workout and external load is dependent on the actual paces. During earlier training phases the focus is on setting the appropriate internal load, so if on a given day your legs are beat up from training or you are tired from life, you would want to adjust your workouts to the appropriate effort. In these types of training periods, I'd opt for a plan that increases the pace of continuous LT workouts. In later training periods the focus is on the external load, i.e. the exact paces. Here you are preparing for body to run X miles at Y pace. During those periods, if you can't hit the prescribed paces that day is better to end the workout and try again another day. For the same reason, I'd argue that in those same periods you're buildup would be appropriate.

Why don´t you just STFU?

Words words words. In no particular meaningful order either.

Please keep it succinct, tell me the best way to tempo. Just tell me!

Rude!