longer tempo runs or short intervals

EpsteinDidn'tKillHimself wrote:

Mainly I run trails marathon, ultra distances, but lately added some road training to build some speed. I feel that intervals on track e.x. 1k, 1mi repeats do not improve me as much as a 1.3-2 hour run at tempo pace and tend to break me down. Does it happen to anyone else?

Can you explain what you mean by tempo pace? I've usually read that tempo pace is the pace you could hold for an hour-long race. Since you run that pace for 1.3-2 hours, and find it easier than intervals, I assume you're using a different definition.

I've found the opposite. For a while, I insisted that as a marathoner I don't need short speed work because I'm never going to pr off what I can do the last .2-1.2 in. My times stagnated at the marathon and got slower below that for a while. I'm finding that as I return to doing some shorter intervals/repeats that my race times were going back down - at least last season as all races this spring are cancelled, but also I am able to run faster/further in the long tempo type workouts as well. Its finding a balance that is key. Sometimes as a marathoner, you just have to be ok that a run was rather short because you did a set of 400s-800s.

Depends how slow you are and how slow you want to be

I'm not fast,no running teams in my country when I grew up sadly, so I started running to try it out at first, but loved longer distances. I feel that runs around 2 hours that I go at about 80% of max HR improve me a lot...not so long to break you down or fast that you need next day off or easy. Maybe I could put in a few intervals just for not missing out.

EpsteinDidn'tKillHimself wrote:

I'm not fast,no running teams in my country when I grew up sadly, so I started running to try it out at first, but loved longer distances. I feel that runs around 2 hours that I go at about 80% of max HR improve me a lot...not so long to break you down or fast that you need next day off or easy. Maybe I could put in a few intervals just for not missing out.

Daniel's calls your intensity "no man's land". As in, running in this pace zone doesn't have any more benefits than easy runs, but has the disadvantage of causing some fatigue and longer recovery than just easy runs. Tinman and Seiler agree with that this "moderate" running is not a great way to improve.

Get a coach or look up proper training if you want to race at your potential.

EpsteinDidn'tKillHimself wrote:

I'm not fast,no running teams in my country when I grew up sadly, so I started running to try it out at first, but loved longer distances. I feel that runs around 2 hours that I go at about 80% of max HR improve me a lot...not so long to break you down or fast that you need next day off or easy. Maybe I could put in a few intervals just for not missing out.

That's a great workout. It's usually known as a "long run." Like a lot of people, you're running your long runs a bit faster than easy or recovery pace. A long run is an essential workout for people running marathons. Ignore suggestions that running at 80% MHR isn't useful or is even counter-productive, since the theory behind strict zone training has not fared well.

Maybe you should do a real tempo run, like 20 minutes at a faster pace.

No intervals.

In my marathon training I do long runs like you at a pace faster than easy but slower than marathon pace.

I also do tempo runs at an uncomfortable pace, between MP and HMP. They help me improve a lot. I don’t do intervals, except for occasional strides. My calves don’t like intervals, so I avoid them.

Yeah, you're running hard long runs. If you want to keep those every/most weeks you can add one day of a full workout (like 20-30 minutes at tempo pace, which, like someone else said, is at an effort you could hold for an hour in a race, or 5 x mile at 10k effort with 90s recovery) and one day of a mini-workout (something like 4 x 400m at mile effort then 4 x 200m @ 800m effort all w/ 60s recovery, or 4 x 800m @ 3k effort w/ 75-90s recovery) to get your quality in.

Or, as someone else noted, you could do your long runs easier most weeks. If you did that you could do two full quality days a week, possibly with a bit of a higher-effort medium-long run some weeks (or a fast finish to your long run). That would look something like this:

M- 20-minute tempo run at a pace you could hold for an hour with 4 x 200m quick at the end (build this to 30 minutes at the same effort level, and then once it's 30 minutes, drop back down to 20 minutes and increase the pace just a little bit and build to 30 minutes again)

Tu-Easy recovery

W- alternate 3-5 x mile at 10k effort w/ 2 mins recovery (once you've built to 5 x mile and it still feels like the same effort level, drop back down to 3 x mile and increase the pace just a little bit) with 5-8 x 1k at 5k effort w/ 2:30 recovery (once you've built to 8 x 1k and it still feels like the same effort level, drop back down to 5 x 1k and increase the pace just a little bit)

Th-Moderate run,

F-Easy recovery

Sa-2-hour long run, cut down from easy to marathon to half marathon effort if feeling good the last 30 minutes

Su-Easy recovery

Any week that you want to do a hard long run you can drop the duration of the tempo run/# of intervals, and occasionally you could replace the second mid-week workout with 60-90 minutes at marathon effort.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

EpsteinDidn'tKillHimself wrote:

I'm not fast,no running teams in my country when I grew up sadly, so I started running to try it out at first, but loved longer distances. I feel that runs around 2 hours that I go at about 80% of max HR improve me a lot...not so long to break you down or fast that you need next day off or easy. Maybe I could put in a few intervals just for not missing out.

Daniel's calls your intensity "no man's land". As in, running in this pace zone doesn't have any more benefits than easy runs, but has the disadvantage of causing some fatigue and longer recovery than just easy runs. Tinman and Seiler agree with that this "moderate" running is not a great way to improve.

Get a coach or look up proper training if you want to race at your potential.

You must be one of those idiots who thinks coach Lydiard is not worth listening to anymore

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

EpsteinDidn'tKillHimself wrote:

I'm not fast,no running teams in my country when I grew up sadly, so I started running to try it out at first, but loved longer distances. I feel that runs around 2 hours that I go at about 80% of max HR improve me a lot...not so long to break you down or fast that you need next day off or easy. Maybe I could put in a few intervals just for not missing out.

Daniel's calls your intensity "no man's land". As in, running in this pace zone doesn't have any more benefits than easy runs, but has the disadvantage of causing some fatigue and longer recovery than just easy runs. Tinman and Seiler agree with that this "moderate" running is not a great way to improve.

Get a coach or look up proper training if you want to race at your potential.

Daniels' "no man's land" comment was about doing easy runs too fast. What the OP is talking about is not an easy run, but a hard day. His experience overlaps with mine. Those long steady runs -- I tended to do them in the 60-90 minute range -- worked for me. And they often work for so-called slow-twitch people.

Have you tried power running? It's like power walking but, ya know, running...powerfully.

WEEKLY TRAINING:

Three hard/quality days per week:

Tuesday: your interval workout should be 12 x 400 with 200 jog......5k pace for the 400s

Thursday: Tempo run 4 miles

Sunday: Long, slow distance day, 12 - 15 miles........... and your are a winner.

other 4 days are easy 45-55 minutes

Do you do strides? If not, add some easy strides 2 or 3 times a week, at end of an easy run, before thinking about any sort of track session.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Daniel's calls your intensity "no man's land". As in, running in this pace zone doesn't have any more benefits than easy runs, but has the disadvantage of causing some fatigue and longer recovery than just easy runs. Tinman and Seiler agree with that this "moderate" running is not a great way to improve.

Are you sure about this? It seems a bit dogmatic. I was once advised by a self proclaimed expert coach who said that my mainly moderate pace running was "all wrong" and recommended really easy running on my easy days and doing really hard intervals on my hard days - it was a total disaster (+2mins slower over 10k after 12 months as an example). I think that on the easy days I was not running fast enough to build a strong aerobic base and then on the hard days I was just destroying what little base I had. The moderate pace approach seems like a Lydiard style approach to base building which has had its successes. And Tinman himself seems to be a proponent of this approach:

"Mike ended up being forced into interval workouts because some of the team's runners were griping about Mike not having to train with them; and, that Mike wasn't being a good teammate. Mike lost his edge, once again, and placed 4th at Nationals against some solid runners.

The point of this is simple: Mike built a big base - he didn't run slowly though- and each fall, after skipping track season, he was stronger than before. He was stellar, to be frank. In my opinion, it's one fantastic way to build your capacity to run cross-country well: build your base in the winter, spring and summer and hammer races in the fall. If I had to do it all over again, I'd have done someting similar - but I probably would run outdoor track only or indoor track only - one of the two but not both. The extra time to build your base does make a big difference in the long-term."

That's more of long threshold pace, not tempo pace.

Runners of all distances and disciplines should do all kinds of speedwork to diversify their Training, so yes.

If intervals on the track are breaking you down, then you need to make them easier. Some combination of shorter, slower, fewer. Longer recovery. It should still feel good.

The dose makes the poison

^ Fits!