HELP! Tempo run advice needed.

Malmo is 100% correct. I've tested this myself and with the runners I've coached and every time they've tried doing tempo runs at half-marathon pace they're sored for the next day or two.

In my experience most runners can comfortably run tempo runs, as Malmo said, at a pace between half-marathon and marathon pace. They are NEVER sored next day, when they run the tempos at marathon pace or bit faster.

Yes.... I also agree with Malmo that the slower longer tempos are more practical and effective for the majority of runners. I know they are for me. Although, I have observed more "speed" oriented folks that prefer shorter faster tempos......and seem to do OK with them.

I've always hated that 20min tempo at 10mi - half marathon race pace. It always feels like I'm racing. And to make things worse....I think for many of us, it feels so much like racing, that we just say screw it and end up running all out.

I do feel that it should be pointed out.....or at least considered.....that "half marathon pace" in Malmo's world (or at least the world he was in during his prime) is not necessarily the same as "half marathon pace" for others. Half marathon pace to Malmo was an intensity he only had to sustain for 60mins or so. This intensity corresponds to my current 10 mile race pace. Half marathon pace to me is an intensity I can sustain for close to 80mins.

I believe that - when talking about training effort - it's better to refer to the best pace you can sustain for a given amount of time.....rather than a race pace for a given distance. In other words, when Malmo is talking about marathon pace, maybe we really should be saying the best pace we can hold for a little over 2 hours.

Just a thought.....and an attempt to reconcile seemingly opposing viewpoints.

eyestone athelete training below. i haven't looked up this guys race times and i think the below is done at altitude. i see 10x1000 at threshold and a tempo run which is presumably slower than the threshold work.

Sample Week during XC:

Monday: AM 5 miles / PM 11 miles

Tuesday: AM 4.5 miles / PM 10x1000 on grass w/ 1 min rest (avg. 3:02)

Wednesday: AM 4.5 miles / PM 8.5 miles

Thursday: AM 6 miles / PM 5 mile tempo run up Hobble Creek Canyon (pretty good climb)

Friday: AM 10 miles / PM 6 miles

Saturday: 16 miles (1 hr. 44 min, last mile was @ 5:20)

Sunday: rest

http://www.newbalance.com/events/trainingwith/blindsay.php

PTF wrote:

I do feel that it should be pointed out.....or at least considered.....that "half marathon pace" in Malmo's world (or at least the world he was in during his prime) is not necessarily the same as "half marathon pace" for others. Half marathon pace to Malmo was an intensity he only had to sustain for 60mins or so. This intensity corresponds to my current 10 mile race pace. Half marathon pace to me is an intensity I can sustain for close to 80mins.

Thanks for that info PTF. Good to know.

But Malmo, regardless of your credentials--- no need to call people SON or SONNY just because you believe they are wrong. They might NOT be wrong. There are many successful runners who go by your method of training, and there are many successful runners who go by Eyestone's or Daniels' method of training. You should know that by now.

There are much more condescending terms thrown around letsrun than "son" or "sonny."

This is a good thread; keep it up.

malmo wrote:

Pey wrote:

And note that a marathon pace run is not the same as a tempo run.

It sure is. You don't understand what tempo pace is. They are not races, son. And yes you could put in 4 to 5 tempo runs a week if you wanted to.

So according to you Mumbo any pace between 75%-95% of max is a tempo run. Well then I do tempo runs 7 days a week. Get over yourself!

I'm not an elite runner by any stretch of the imagination but my most successful races have come off a period of relatively high mileage (90-120/wk) which included 3-4 days of progression runs, ie: "running to the barn". Basically go out for a 60-90 minute run and pick it as you feel for the last 30-45 minutes. It starts at around marathon pace, maybe a slight tick slower, then progresses. It may stay at marathon pace or slightly faster. If it stays at around marathon pace, we'll say +/- 10 seconds, I can do these runs pretty much everyday. Maybe pushing the last mile or two even faster, but you have to be careful. If you push too long and hard then you know you'll be out of it tommorrow. So as training progresses you'd start with these runs at marathon effort +/- 10s, then move toward finishing harder and harder. At some point these runs basically become a speed workout in which you are shooting for exact splits and times. I wouldn't call these tempo runs...I would call these time trials. If you are shooting for 3-5 miles at half-marathon pace you are running a time trial for a half-marathon. They can also be beneficial for a marathon. If you are training for a 5k/10k I don't see much reason to do 3-5 mile timed runs at half-marathon pace. You want a time trial for a 10k? Go run 2-3 miles at 10k pace. You want a time trial for a 5k? Go run 1.5 miles at 5k pace. My best track 5k came after a period of the above mentioned "progresson runs" followed by the usual track work then a few weeks of specific 5k work (800s at 5k pace, miles at 5k pace, then ending with a 1 x 1.5mi and 1 x 1mi 4 days out).

Alan

I think that JD did more or less define the term, though malmo and others were already doing this kind of work and their words should be listened to.

SO in the book, JD has a nice table of tempo run times from his T pace (like 5k plus 20 or so) up to M pace (marathon pace), with the distance of the run scaling how fast you go. If you run 1 hr or more, Tempo runs are equivalent to Marathon pace runs. If you want to go faster, you need to split up your run into segments (otherwise enter a 10k and run it at race pace, because your beating your body just as hard). The whole point of tempo runs are to get the benefit without a beat down on the body. I think you agree with this based on your later post, but if you are going to argue terms and be aggressive with them, check your own use first. Cheers!!

pfizinger says

Tempo runs fit into three categories based on duration and pace:

1. 15- to 25- minute runs at slightly faster (5-10 seconds per mile) than LT pace;

2. classic tempo runs of 25 to 40 minutes at LT pace;

3. efforts of 40 to 50 (and occasionally up to 60) minutes at slightly slower (5-15 seconds per mile) than LT pace.

anybody have success with tempo runs marked as 2? i started running them last winter and week after week the pace would generally become easier and i extended a 4 mile tempo to 5 miles and occasionally 6 miles.

in my mind the increase from 4 miles to 5 miles represents a 20% increase in threshold fitness. i ran about three of these a month and although you couldn't see changes week to week necessarilly you could over a few months. throughout the period mileage stayed constant and no interval work was being done.

so they worked for me. anyone else?

loved them. worked for me too.

All,

Great thread. Really glad you all have availed your insight and experience. I think I'll start doing my tempos between HM & full M pace, depending on length.

MALMO—one question. You said you thought my long run was too long as a proportion of my mileage. I know this is a slightly different topic, but you could you explain your thinking on this a little more? I feel like one 18-20 miler a month would leave me severely undertrained endurance wise for a sub-3 effort.

This past weekend I did 24, beginning at 8:40 before slowly dropping down to a 7:10 for the final mile (most of run was in the 7:50 range). The run didn't exhaust me and I feel was a great confidence builder (I plan on doing one more 24, 3 weeks before Chiacgo).

Perhaps malmo will see this, in which case he will no doubt give a better answer than me, butfor now I'll try to explain his point for him (in his absence). A long run will help your endurance. However, it will also leave you feeling fatigued for several days afterwards. So, you end up sacrificing the overall quality of the training week for the sake of that single session. As good as the long run may be for you, it's not worth it; better to focus on overall weekly mileage and good long tempo runs. By spreading your training volume more evenly across the week, you are able to get in a higher total volume, which is more valuable than regular long runs.

Ah, makes some sense.

Does it ever make sense to do two tempo sessions in a week?

Sure do as many as you want and can recover from. I am guessing for a lot of marathoners, rotating through 10min intervals at 10k pace, 20-30min at 20k and 40-60min at 40k pace would be a reasonable week. You can do the longer tempo run after an hour of easy running to make it a long run. The week would give you a lot of time at quality paces (just above, below and at LT) but recovering from these slower paces tends to be easy than recovering from 4k/5k intervals. The only thing to watch is that it is pretty easy to run too fast (25min at 10k pace or 45 min at half marathon pace would be a tough workout).

frenchbulldog wrote:

Ah, makes some sense.

Does it ever make sense to do two tempo sessions in a week?

I see attempts here to reconcile Malmo and Daniels' notions of tempo running and I concur they are not so far apart.

JD, in the last edition of his Formula book, describes and prescribes a great many paces. The general drift is you should train at a variety of paces, or tempos. He provides tables of paces merely to help the runner find the training intensity for a given duration. I think the critical problem is that people latch onto a Daniels pace, and fight tooth and nail to stick with it because some PR indicates that this is where their VDOTs are. I've made this mistake myself.

After tinkering with a variety of methods, I found an effort based approach is better than adherence to certain pace. If I am struggling to handle any pace, or making such an effort that the next one to three days of training will be compromised/of less quality, then my training becomes inefficient. By inefficient, I mean that for a given amount of effort, I am progressing more slowly in fitness levels than I could/should.

Example: in my first two marathon build-ups, I followed a weekly long run approach, eventually building up to a 26 miler with two 20 minute surges (with most of the other long runs at least 20 miles). This, as you might expect, left me drained and flat for the following week. I was basically slogging through things and hoping for a high quality taper.

In a subsequent marathon build-up, for NYC 2006, I discarded the weekly long run thing, and pace measurement, and stuck with effort level (loosely measured by HR). So, instead of once a week, I would do once every three-four week long runs. They would be of quality - at least 20 miles, with some marathon effort surges of 20-50mins. total.

Also, I avoided Daniels type V02 max track stuff and just did tempo runs or 15-40 minutes. Even then, I would do those too hard and race them. This would leave me flat and not able to make these tempo workouts weekly happenings. That was inefficient, but at least I got the long run thing right. Also, I recognized signs of over-training that the too intense tempo work caused, and did a radical taper for NYC.

In the final 3-4 weeks before the race, I did two workouts at marathon pace (20 to 50 minutes), and nothing else but easy runs of 60 minutes max. duration. The result was a much, much more comfortable race, in a more difficult course, with a 6 minute PR.

After this experience, I've adopted an idea quite similar to what Malmo describes - run regularly at a some tempo pace (a pace that simply feels fast but sustainable and might very well be near MP) that progresses with that comfortably hard feeling until I reach home. If I can't do it regularly, then I'm at the wrong intensity level.

In fact, the two hardest things in training, I find, are: (1)getting out the door and (2)not overdoing it/getting too intense.

Malmo:

I've always liked your take on tempo runs. I know that Daniels had a nice piece in RT a couple of years back in which he supplemented his 20 minute rule with "longer tempo runs." JK has been talking for years about the importance of maximum aerobic pace. Tinman strongly advises, like you, that tempo runs be slowed to something like marathon pace.

I've been experimenting this summer with tempo runs. For the most part I've put aside 3-mile tempos and have run a number of 5-mile tempos (at least one a week) at a slightly slower pace. For me this translates into 7:30 pace or thereabouts, at a HR that slowly inches upward, a beat or two per mile, and averages out around 170, or 85% of my max. These runs quite clearly fit the definition of "comfortably hard."

Sometimes I've run these after a 4-5 mile warmup, a distinct pause, and a few strides. Sometimes I simply ease into the faster part in the last 5 miles of a 10 mile run and assess afterward what my average pace and HR were.

Yesterday I went out and decided to run an old-fashioned 3-mile tempo run at a faster pace and higher HR. Generally my true threshold runs average 7:00 - 7:10; that's also a pace I've been able to hold for half marathons.

Suffice it to say that I just couldn't find my groove at that faster tempo. Averaged 7:20s with an average HR of 179. Never felt right.

I'm thinking I would have profited much more by running a 5 mile tempo in the usual way but then slowly pushing the pace in the final two miles until I'd squeezed it down to 7:00.

Does this make sense? Is this something you ever, or sometimes, did? I'm planning on running two HMs this fall--one 9 weeks from now, the other 12 weeks from now. It seems to me (and I believe that McMillan suggests this) that there might be a moment in one's schedule where one can safely add in some faster tempo runs, or some faster finishing miles in one's tempo runs. Race-specifc work, of a sort.

Your thoughts?

JonDCH,

Sounds like a smart approach that I am rapidly adopting. I just did 3x3 miles at 6:38 (7 secs below MP), and focused on fatiguing myself with the duration and not just the intensity. Done consistently, I think it will yeild great results.

Have you been doing any faster paced stuff (5k paced intervals?). Your body might just not be used to running fast. Happened all the time in HS where over the summer it was pretty much all steady paced distance running. First race of the season was always crappy. 2 weeks later you were running 1 min+ faster over the same course. That wasn't due to some major training break through. It was the body remember how to run faster.

why the duece are you running a 20 mile long run on "64 - 71" miles a week?