40 minutes easy + 4 x (2T + 2 minutes rest) + 2 x (1T + 1 minute rest) + 1 mile
Thats 10 miles at T pace. Seems like way to much to be at true T pace. I remember theres some kind of formula for how much to slow down, but i cant find it. My T pace would be something like 5:55
I don't recall any adjustments for T-pace interval workouts, even long ones like this. The adjustments are typically for continuous runs at T pace. So, run it at T pace.
I'm assuming this is a marathon workout? That's a ton of volume (10 miles), so you might want to double-check to make sure you have the number of repeats right. Usually 10% of weekly mileage for T-pace, so that would make this appropriate for something close to 80-100 mpw.
This might interest you, though it won't really answer your question
Daniels 2d edition does has it, but I gave my copy away.
Using McMillan calculator, 5:55 for about 20 minutes (let’s say 6k) is worth 6:20 for 10 miles. So I would do 6:20 pace, or maybe a little faster due to the rest periods.
6:20! wrote:
Daniels 2d edition does has it, but I gave my copy away.
Using McMillan calculator, 5:55 for about 20 minutes (let’s say 6k) is worth 6:20 for 10 miles. So I would do 6:20 pace, or maybe a little faster due to the rest periods.
You're suggesting he do it at marathon pace which is way too easy.
ridiculous suggestion wrote:
6:20! wrote:
Daniels 2d edition does has it, but I gave my copy away.
Using McMillan calculator, 5:55 for about 20 minutes (let’s say 6k) is worth 6:20 for 10 miles. So I would do 6:20 pace, or maybe a little faster due to the rest periods.
You're suggesting he do it at marathon pace which is way too easy.
Well I did say a little faster due to rest periods. Let’s take that to be about a third of the difference. So now we are down to 6:11.7. Do we agree that the answer is somewhere between 5:55 and 6:11?
Ok, you think that’s ridiculous. What is your suggestion and rationale?
I tend to err on the side of caution, aiming for consistency, staying healthy, and you can always increase the pace next time if it was “too easy”- especially for such a long workout. Maybe your idea is better. So what do you offer?
Hmm, ok, whatcha got? wrote:
ridiculous suggestion wrote:
You're suggesting he do it at marathon pace which is way too easy.
Well I did say a little faster due to rest periods. Let’s take that to be about a third of the difference. So now we are down to 6:11.7. Do we agree that the answer is somewhere between 5:55 and 6:11?
Ok, you think that’s ridiculous. What is your suggestion and rationale?
I tend to err on the side of caution, aiming for consistency, staying healthy, and you can always increase the pace next time if it was “too easy”- especially for such a long workout. Maybe your idea is better. So what do you offer?
By the way- 5-6 miles easy followed by 10 miles at M pace with only 9 minutes of easy running, plus an easy mile at the end, would be about 18 miles with 10 at M pace.
Hardloper wrote:
This might interest you, though it won't really answer your question
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9003665
Thats funny. I remember that thread, but i didnt remember that it was the exact same workout on the exact same plan.
I ended up deciding the workout was completely irrational. I ended up deciding to add about 10 seconds and cut 1 2 mile repeat out.
Jimmy21 wrote:
40 minutes easy + 4 x (2T + 2 minutes rest) + 2 x (1T + 1 minute rest) + 1 mile
Thats 10 miles at T pace. Seems like way to much to be at true T pace. I remember theres some kind of formula for how much to slow down, but i cant find it. My T pace would be something like 5:55
You don’t cut down pace for those workouts; the T+7s etc is when you’re doing something like 40mins continuous threshold, which appears in the XC plan and maybe the 5k-15k off the top of my head. The rest periods are there so that you can get a higher volume of T work than you could if you ran continuously at that pace.
The workout is tough but doable; I did it a few weeks ago as part of the 2Q plan.
Take that back, looking again I did something similar but not quite that.