Making LT: threshold workouts easier? Are these the hardest workouts in running?

If you are making them easier then you are only cheating yourself. LT workouts require a lot of mental toughness much like a race does. Making it easier would not only be worse physical training but also mental

You're doing them wrong. They aren't supposed to be hard. You are either too tired, trying too hard and running too fast or you need to run a few miles warm up befored you start the real workout.

You're probably doing them too fast.

That said, I do believe more fast twitch type runners struggle with these.

But for whatever reason, tempos, either classic 20-25 minute LTs or longer, slightly slower tempos, are basically my favorite workouts.

itdepends wrote:

That said, I do believe more fast twitch type runners struggle with these.

This is true. FT runners should do broken tempos and cruise intervals.

OP, a sustained tempo at Daniels LT pace is pretty difficult. If you don't like them, then don't do them. Most elites and high level coaches don't use them either.

800 dude wrote:

itdepends wrote:

That said, I do believe more fast twitch type runners struggle with these.

This is true. FT runners should do broken tempos and cruise intervals.

OP, a sustained tempo at Daniels LT pace is pretty difficult. If you don't like them, then don't do them. Most elites and high level coaches don't use them either.

Daniels' LT pace is nominally the pace one can race for about an hour. Thus it makes sense to use a race of about that length, say 10k to half marathon, to determine one's vDot score, at least for the purpose of LT runs.

If you're truly at one hour race pace, then 20 minute of it shouldn't be that difficult.

In the heat of training I agree they are the most difficult. I also think they are the most crucial, at least for my M and HM goals. It’s hour race pace but when training I believe Daniels says to ask yourself “can I sustain this pace for 30-40minutes today?” Again in the thick of training, even when doing cruise intervals, I find them tough mentally and physically. I think Daniels paces can be pretty aggressive though. I think a lot of people dial it back to HM pace and that makes things considerably better. I know a difference of just 5 seconds per mile is a big deal for me personally.

Is there magic to Daniels prescribes LT pace? I think he’d say you want to hit that pace as close as possible to allow the necessary physiological adaptations. But he also talks about going on feel. Windy? Sick? Go by effort he says. Now obviously the pace at which the physiological adaptation occurs doesn’t change just because it’s windy out. So maybe Daniels thinks getting pretty close will still do some good and also if you are running these in tough conditions the goal is not too bonk so hard early that you completely scrap the workout (hence the advice to ease up) AND you get some mental toughness training.

My rambling thoughts.

The best way I found was to start small, like 5-7 minutes. Then add 1-2 minutes each week, breaking up the effort with jogging as needed. Then reduce the number of rests. After 5-10 weeks, you're up to a steady 20-minute tempo, and it's just a regular workout. For context, I did this as part of a training block that got me from high 19 to right around 18 for 5K in my mid 40s.

800 dude wrote:

itdepends wrote:

That said, I do believe more fast twitch type runners struggle with these.

This is true. FT runners should do broken tempos and cruise intervals.

OP, a sustained tempo at Daniels LT pace is pretty difficult. If you don't like them, then don't do them. Most elites and high level coaches don't use them either.

That's because FT runners have a huge drop-off from their 5k to 10k and even more to half marathon. So the Daniel's T pace is overvalued if coming from a mile, 3k or even 5k. I race a 5k in 3:15/k, did a 6k Tempo in 3:30/k but it definitely felt like 10k pace/almost 10k pace. 4x2k in 3:30/k (Daniel's threshold) is also quite hard, but a 6k Tempo at 3:40/k is easy. That's probably what I can run in a 1-hour race, so my threshold is almost 10s slower than what Daniel's recommends based on my 5k time (if using my mile or 3k time, it would be even more ridiculous).

That's why I'm repeatedly saying - get rid of this Daniel's stuff, science has improved since then and now muscle fiber physiology dictates how someone should train.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

That's because FT runners have a huge drop-off from their 5k to 10k and even more to half marathon. So the Daniel's T pace is overvalued if coming from a mile, 3k or even 5k. I race a 5k in 3:15/k, did a 6k Tempo in 3:30/k but it definitely felt like 10k pace/almost 10k pace. 4x2k in 3:30/k (Daniel's threshold) is also quite hard, but a 6k Tempo at 3:40/k is easy. That's probably what I can run in a 1-hour race, so my threshold is almost 10s slower than what Daniel's recommends based on my 5k time (if using my mile or 3k time, it would be even more ridiculous).

That's why I'm repeatedly saying - get rid of this Daniel's stuff, science has improved since then and now muscle fiber physiology dictates how someone should train.

You're right about the drop off, but LT runs are difficult for FT runners even when they are at their true FT.

Maybe stop doing intervals for a while? Then you will look forward to some intensity every now and then

800 dude wrote:

You're right about the drop off, but LT runs are difficult for FT runners even when they are at their true FT.

Well that's also true. Exactly what Magness wrote in his book and also from my own experience. Symmonds for example (a real 800m specialist, not 400/800 or 800/1500) worked on his threshold by doing a lot of 1k reps at CV and lots of cruise interval miles. He only very rarely used tempos and also no "hard long runs", another session FT runners struggle with a lot. Seemed to work well for him.

On the contrary, FT runners don't necessarily have a huge drop off, if they train appropriately. People knew this in the 80s, because the original research had been done by David Costill in the 60s and 70s, informed by what he had learned from coaching athletes. Personally, I read too much into the FT/ST thing; what matters is to figure out what training a runner responds to, and this can usually be done without a muscle biopsy. The classic example from that era is Mamede v. Lopes. Some runners respond well to short rest intervals, others don't. And there was Ovett, who apparently responded well to everything.

Certainly the science has improved since then, but I would argue that it has mostly caught up with what was already understood from training experience. When the scientists got disconnected from training, the result was a heavy emphasis on max Vo2 work and other "quality" -- the 90s.

I think that a lot of runners bite off more than they can chew with threshold work when they first try doing it. Ultimately you would want to be able to do this work as a continuous run but you can derive the benefits of the run as long intervals (1 mile, 1200m or 1k repeats) with a short recovery (90 sec to 2 minutes or around 25% of the rep time).

What's not typically done is the use of short intervals (200m-600m in length) with threshold work. I love to use them with my new athletes or as a ramp up at the beginning of general prep coming off a transition. I try to pick a rep length that about 90 sec to 2:00 in length. This is long enough get some VO2 max stimulus but the key is a short recovery of 1/4 to 1/3 of the rep time. This is just enough time to catch their breath and take a sip of water. Typically I will start with a 400m interval and use the Tinman stamina formula (420/5k time or estimate=total time volume) to establish the volume of reps (time volume/ 400m @ LT pace).

For example, a 10:00 3k runner can probably run about 17:50-18:00 for 5k. Using the Tinman formulas: 420/18=23..33 minutes of total volume. So for CV and LT work that's going to be my target total time volume for this runner. LT pace (88% of vVO2max) for 400m is about 89-90 so 23.33 minutes (target total time volume)/1.5 minutes (400m rep time @ LT pace)= 15.5 reps. So I'm looking to do about 15-16 reps at that pace with :30 recovery (1/3 or rep time).

So what are we accomplishing here? The duration is long enough to get a VO2max stimulus and the recovery is short enough to allow some clearance of lactate but not long enough to clear most of it so you are still accumulating lactate and teaching the body how to manage larger quantities of it as it accumulates with each rep. You are also strengthening the legs to handle the total volume of the workout.

How does this fit into a progression over the macrocycle? After each 3-4 weeks you can progress the 400m reps to 600m, then 800m after 3-4 more weeks, then keep progressing the reps to 1k after 3-4 weeks at the rep distance. Once 1k reps are reached it either 12 or 16 week in and I will transition that workout to CV reps for the specific prep phase (usually 6 weeks) then to 5k reps for the racing phase (6-8 week ). For my experienced athlete, I use the 400m to 600m to 800m as a 3 week ramp up to the 1k reps.

While I certainly agree with the overemphasis on FT/ST, especially with runners thinking they are "FT" when they are just extremely underdeveloped aerobically, the drop-off is not a joke.

Look at a FT 800m runner like Rudisha. Could you really get him down to let's say a sub 13 5k or sub 27 10k with changing his training?

Look at FT 1500m runner Lewandowski. Could you really get him down to sub 27:30 10k or sub 60 half with different training, which would be somewhat equivalent performances to 3:31? Keep in mind he has been doing 100 mpw for 10 years. So I'm really struggling to another stand what change in training will make a 1500m runner that can kick like that suddenly a world-class 10k or marathon runner. He just got too many fast-twitch muscle fibers.

Not even gonna talk about pure sprinters like Bolt, you won't achieve anything there for a mile or 3k even.

The Mamede vs Lopes example is a classic of WHY FT/ST is important and works - Mamede was extremely FT, with 47s 400m speed, and Lopes was an aerobic ST monster (Salazar/Radcliffe-style) with 54s 400m speed. That's a MASSIVE difference considering in the 10k, both ran 27 min, the same performance level. Therefore they had to train, race and eat differently to optimize their performance. I think Lopes had like 90% ST, and Mamede only 65% ST or something like that.

Well, Ovett had a certain reputation for his kick, and he was a world-class 5000 runner when he chose to be. I don't believe he ever ran a track 10000m, but could hold his own against 10000m specialists in XC. And Aouita did run a world-class 10000m.

Moving out of olden times, look at Alan Webb. He was a decent 5/10 guy, although Canova has posted that in his opinion, 5000 was really Webb's event.

As for Lewandowski, he's a fairly skinny guy with a reasonably fast 400m PR. So it would not surprise me if he could compete at 5000m if he chose to, or even 10000m. Compare to Nick Symmonds, who has slightly better PRs at 400, 600, 800, but slower times from 1000 up, and has relatively weak times over longer distances. Nick is not considered a FT guy.

It's just not as obvious or simple as you make it out to be.