race pace vs training pace (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2008-04-09 7:01 AM in reply to: #1325435 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Daremo - 2008-04-09 6:56 AM Not mine, that's how sports physiologists refers to it but feel free to call it anyway you want, after all it is popular to misuse terms (or even invent) in endurance sports... amiine - 2008-04-09 7:55 AM PennState - 2008-04-09 6:50 AM That's correct, Tempo is below LT pace but above endurance pace. This is Z3 for those using HR and/or Marathon pace for those using pace (VDOT)Quick hijack... I thought a tempo run was upper Z3...? Or is it just at or below LT? Opinions? By your definition, not by others ........ |
|
2008-04-09 7:02 AM in reply to: #1324313 |
Runner | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace OK, I'll throw my hat into the ring... I train primarily by pace and RPE. And I have never used a calculator to determine my training paces. Actually, I don't ever really look at McMillan except for the novelty. Too many variables. If anything, I'd use the VDot calculator mentioned above. As for the question about your current pacing.... Your regular training pace is most likely too slow, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. You could probably be comfortable at around the 8-9 minute mark. That being said, run by what your body is telling you. If the pace feels comfortable, then you've got it, and you could probably bump it up a notch. |
2008-04-09 8:35 AM in reply to: #1325440 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace amiine - 2008-04-09 8:01 AM Not mine, that's how sports physiologists refers to it but feel free to call it anyway you want, after all it is popular to misuse terms (or even invent) in endurance sports... Yup, especially by sports physiologists and burgeoning young coaches ........ Considering McMillan, Pfitzinger and Daniels all classify tempo as LT pace, I'll stick with their "arbitrary definition" for my workouts. |
2008-04-09 8:53 AM in reply to: #1325635 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Daremo - 2008-04-09 8:35 AM amiine - 2008-04-09 8:01 AM Not mine, that's how sports physiologists refers to it but feel free to call it anyway you want, after all it is popular to misuse terms (or even invent) in endurance sports... Yup, especially by sports physiologists and burgeoning young coaches ........ Considering McMillan, Pfitzinger and Daniels all classify tempo as LT pace, I'll stick with their "arbitrary definition" for my workouts. I don't have my TTB with me, but I believe Friel describes tempo runs as Zone 3 efforts. Not sure if his is the exception, or the rule. Edited by the bear 2008-04-09 8:54 AM |
2008-04-09 8:57 AM in reply to: #1325635 |
Runner | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Too much science. Don't get hung up on HR zones or pace for Tempo Runs. It's much better to learn how to feel it out. Learn what that pace feels like in your legs and arms, and you'll be much better off. |
2008-04-09 8:58 AM in reply to: #1324313 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Direct quote from Pete P. - OPTIMAL MARATHON TRAINING SESSIONS
Of the many possible combinations of speed and distance that you can do in training, a few provide the optimal stimuli for physiological improvements for the marathon. The most effective types of marathon training are described below. These workouts form the key sessions in Pete?s training programs. I. Tempo Runs: The most effective way to improve your lactate threshold is to run at your current lactate threshold pace, or a few seconds per mile faster. This can be done either as one continuous run (tempo run) or as a long interval session at your lactate threshold pace (called cruise intervals or LT intervals). These workouts make you run hard enough that lactate is just starting to accumulate in your blood. When you train at a lower intensity, a weaker stimulus is provided to improve your lactate threshold pace. When you train faster than current lactate threshold pace, you?ll accumulate lactate rapidly, so you won?t be training your muscles to work hard without accumulating lactate. During these workouts, the more time that you spend at your lactate threshold pace, the greater the stimulus for improvement. Lactate threshold training should be run at close to the pace that you could currently race for one hour. For serious marathoners, this is generally 15K to 20K race pace. This should be the intensity at which lactate is just starting to accumulate in your muscles and blood. In terms of heart rate, lactate threshold typically occurs at 80 to 90 percent of maximal heart rate, or 76 to 88 percent of heart rate reserve in well-trained runners. You can do some of your tempo runs in low-key races of 4 miles to 10K, but be careful not to get carried away and race all out. Remember that the optimal pace to improve lactate threshold is your current LT pace, and not much faster. A typical training session to improve lactate threshold consists of a 15- to 20-minute warm-up, followed by a 20- to 40-minute tempo run and a 15-minute cooldown. The lactate threshold workouts in my training programs mainly fall within these parameters, although some programs include one longer tempo run in the 7-mile range. LT intervals are typically two to five repetitions of five minutes to two miles at lactate threshold pace with two or three minutes between repetitions. For runners competing in shorter races, tempo runs and LT intervals are both excellent ways to prepare. For marathoners, however, tempo runs are preferable to LT intervals. After all, the marathon is one long continuous run, and tempo runs simulate marathon conditions more closely than do LT intervals. There?s both a physiological and a psychological component to the advantage of tempo runs. The extra mental toughness required to get through a tempo run when you may not be feeling great will come in handy during the marathon. |
|
2008-04-09 9:01 AM in reply to: #1325635 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Daremo - 2008-04-09 8:35 AM Yup, especially by sports physiologists and burgeoning young coaches ........ when you consider some athletes believe you can run a 5k at your VO2 max or a marathon at your lactate threshold, it is not unusual to have such confusionsDaremo - 2008-04-09 8:35 AM Daniels refers to tempo as long sub threshold runs and threshold pace to LT runs. McMillan uses Tempo to described LT pace (don't know why)Considering McMillan, Pfitzinger and Daniels all classify tempo as LT pace, I'll stick with their "arbitrary definition" for my workouts. As I said, feel free to use any term you want, it is not your fault nor mine that there is such an ambiguity or misuse of terms like this, LT, Anaerobic Threshold, VO2, etc. Since I’ve been growing frustrated with the thousand different definitions used/invented by many, I made the personal choice to adhere to what sports physiologists, science defined and currently adheres to as an attempt to unify and use one language. I am following the example of guys I admire and respect with great coaching experience and knowledge on the field, that’s all… if you call LT sessions: tempo, super Rick sessions or whatever you want, that's cool. |
2008-04-09 9:02 AM in reply to: #1324313 |
Runner | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace |
2008-04-09 9:03 AM in reply to: #1325715 |
Runner | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace amiine - 2008-04-09 10:01 AM if you call LT sessions: super Rick sessions... I move that this be the new term here on BT from this point forward. It makes much more sense to me than all the other crap you people go on about. |
2008-04-09 9:17 AM in reply to: #1325426 |
Expert 1027 Zürich, Switzerland | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace PennState - 2008-04-08 1:50 PM Quick hijack... I thought a tempo run was upper Z3...? Or is it just at or below LT? Opinions?
I think that Tempo Run is the training session I denote with Medium Pace Training. It should be done at 90% of the LT or at 85% of the HRmax. Pace should be 25-30"/km above the 10k PB.
It is a session where quantity and quality should be seriously considered to avoid to make a different session than the one planned. I consider this session the most difficult one since I always suffer during that. I do it once every 2-3 weeks. Most of the runners consider it in a wrong way because they give more importance to the pace than to the session' length. It is a mental limit: run faster than planned make you thinking you are stronger and that you are in a better shape. But this translates in a quicker slow down than expected and probably you will do less km than planned. To make a great Tempo Run session, you should fix in your mind the fact that you should finish all the planned km, starting in a slower pace than planned and increasing at the end, maybe in the second part. This will improve even your performance in long race where negative splitting is essential for a great performance. Anyway, Tempo Run should not be done at a higher pace, maybe looking at the HR monitor would help. The intensity of this session force your muscolar fibres to use, under the effort, an energy mix which is always richer in fatty acids and using less glycogen. This effect is essential for a runner for any racing distance but it is more important for runners partecipating in long event like marathons or HM. The mistake of running a Tempo Run faster than planned can make the energy mix too rich in glycogen and fails to train the target. Since I run, my Tempo Run HR reference is 160bpm and I run 10k race at 169 average. Tipically I refer to running pace and "feeling": I know pretty well if I am in the right pace and HR. If it is the wrong day I need to continously look at my HR monitor for this session. Again: very though! In general than, volume as I said is the key for this session: I would say that for 5k races: 8-10km volume for 10k races: 12-14km for HM: 13-18km for Marathons: 15-20km volume At the moment, for example, my sessions are between 12 and 15 km.
In all my post, I am assuming that Tempo Run = Medium Pace Session and I think it is.
|
2008-04-09 9:22 AM in reply to: #1325724 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Scout7 - 2008-04-09 10:03 AM amiine - 2008-04-09 10:01 AM if you call LT sessions: super Rick sessions... I move that this be the new term here on BT from this point forward. It makes much more sense to me than all the other crap you people go on about. I'm down with that ....... "What kind of run did you do today?" "Oh man, I had the most killer 40 minute super Rick session!! It rocked and confirmed my LT, VO2 Max, AeT, MAF and HRM numbers!! It was epic!!" |
|
2008-04-09 9:23 AM in reply to: #1325757 |
Runner | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Plissken74 - 2008-04-09 10:17 AM To make a great Tempo Run session, you should fix in your mind the fact that you should finish all the planned km, starting in a slower pace than planned and increasing at the end, maybe in the second part. This will improve even your performance in long race where negative splitting is essential for a great performance. This is what I would call a "Progression Run". Start at an easy pace, and increase pace over a given time/distance. |
2008-04-09 9:26 AM in reply to: #1325724 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Scout7 - 2008-04-09 9:03 AM I move that this be the new term here on BT from this point forward. It makes much more sense to me than all the other crap you people go on about. You would be surprised how simple and easy the plans I give to my athletes are: i.e. 45 min at run E pace, 2 hrs ride last hr Z3, etc. I do like to get into the detail fo training with other coaches or those self-coach athletes who enjoy learning as to why training for 1 hr near/at lactate threshold pace can produce certain adaptations or why doing big running blocks at low intensity improve your fitness. You are right, in general for the avg BTer just running, sometimes hard, most easy, but most important just running more is the best advice, however just because some don’t enjoy the specifics of training concepts we shouldn't dumb it down all the time, no? Some athletes don’t want to think and just train while some other like to train and learn/understand why doing one thing or another produce benefits.In the end I just think it would be very cool if someone would come here and ask what’s a tempo, LT, endurance, etc and he/she could get one definition making his/her training much simpler to follow. |
2008-04-09 9:37 AM in reply to: #1325783 |
Runner | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace amiine - 2008-04-09 10:26 AM Scout7 - 2008-04-09 9:03 AM I move that this be the new term here on BT from this point forward. It makes much more sense to me than all the other crap you people go on about. You would be surprised how simple and easy the plans I give to my athletes are: i.e. 45 min at run E pace, 2 hrs ride last hr Z3, etc. I do like to get into the detail fo training with other coaches or those self-coach athletes who enjoy learning as to why training for 1 hr near/at lactate threshold pace can produce certain adaptations or why doing big running blocks at low intensity improve your fitness. You are right, in general for the avg BTer just running, sometimes hard, most easy, but most important just running more is the best advice, however just because some don’t enjoy the specifics of training concepts we shouldn't dumb it down all the time, no? Some athletes don’t want to think and just train while some other like to train and learn/understand why doing one thing or another produce benefits.In the end I just think it would be very cool if someone would come here and ask what’s a tempo, LT, endurance, etc and he/she could get one definition making his/her training much simpler to follow. Oh, I agree with pretty much all that you're saying, Jorge. And I think it's very important to learn what's going on, what the terms mean, how to conduct training, etc. What gets me is your last paragraph. I agree that it is a laudable goal. However, the problem is that people are getting WAY too wrapped up in numbers about something that, ultimately, isn't really about numbers. There's a reason why I try to keep the advice simple. Because it is. We use nebulous terms to describe something that's hard to really describe. A Tempo Run is less about what HR zone you're in, and more about feel. Now, how do we describe unquantifiable thing to someone? We try to quantify it. So we use pace, or HR, or RPE, to try to relate a specific training method. And then we label it "Tempo Run". I think it's better to say to someone here, "Go run at a pace that feels just under your ability to hold it for a long period of time." The downside to this statement is that people, especially new people, are gonna be lost. So, it's a catch-22. Yeah, I know, I'm not scientific at all. I take a much more philosophical approach to this stuff, and I know it drives many people insane. "How can you NOT KNOW what pace or HR to run at?!?!" It's easy. I just go out. I know what distance I want to run, I know about how hard it should be (usually by pace), and I see how things play out. The real problem here is that we're dissecting the problem, and separating the parts from the whole, and it just can't be done. |
2008-04-09 9:39 AM in reply to: #1325783 |
Expert 892 | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace amiine - 2008-04-09 7:26 AM In the end I just think it would be very cool if someone would come here and ask what’s a tempo, LT, endurance, etc and he/she could get one definition making his/her training much simpler to follow. That would be cool, but if the so-called "authorities" on the subject can't come to common terminology do you think it's going to happen here? Dreams are good... |
2008-04-09 9:53 AM in reply to: #1324313 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace You train by the definition of what approach/plan you are using. I'm a firm believer in the Pfitzinger-Douglas school of training. So I follow their plans for my marathon training. And in their plans they prescribe "X" workout and they define what those workouts are. So as long as I follow their methodology and definition then I am getting the correct type of workout in. For Jorge's athletes, as long as he is specifically defining what each workout is and the athlete has an understanding of the way that he uses the terminology then it will work the way he intends. But going back to the OP original question, which DOES tie into all this in that the pacing zones that are listed on the bottom of the calculator are designed to give the most effective result using those paces. So in this case, the training methodolgy in question has very specific and delineated ranges of paces for each type of workout. Here is the portion of the chart based on my race times:
|
|
2008-04-09 10:04 AM in reply to: #1325829 |
Runner | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace So, perhaps it's really best to use the terms within the context of a given training plan/coach. I would agree with that, so long as a person is diligent about explaining the context of the terminology used. |
2008-04-09 10:19 AM in reply to: #1324313 |
Master 2355 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace The usual suspects causing trouble again, eh I fall in the catagory of self coached who likes to know everything, but then does not use it! Edited by smilford 2008-04-09 10:20 AM |
2008-04-09 10:19 AM in reply to: #1325856 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Exactly. With so much conflicting definitions across the board from even top level coaches in the different disciplines, if you follow a specific philosophy/training then you will know exactly where you stand in your workouts. This thread was looking at McMillan's plan, which is extremely specific in pace ranges. The problem comes in when someone is trying to establish their own plan trying to incoporate different definitions and philospohies. Things get all muddled then. |
2008-04-09 10:41 AM in reply to: #1324313 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace I was playing around with both those calculators you guys posted on the first page and they are awesome. Both jibe very well with the pacing I have been using based on HR. My issue is that I don't havce any recent stand alone run race times. My last stand alone Marathon was 15 months ago, mt last stand alone 8K was almost 2 years ago. All my run results are on the back end of a triathlon. But using my open Marathon time, the numbers do work well. Great stuff, thanks for posting those Jorge and Dan! In regards to the tempo run, I just did one today and although I have the Daniels book as well and think it's great, I do look at tempo as being a sub threshold pace, in my case maybe 5 bpm less and :20 less per mile pace than LT. |
2008-04-09 10:54 AM in reply to: #1324931 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace amiine - 2008-04-08 6:02 PM Aikidoman - 2008-04-08 6:45 PM Help me learn something so I may be able to provide sound advice in the future. Or maybe realize I should just leave that to others and not answer questions. There was an ealier thread where someone wondered if they were going too slow or not seeing results training slower. I suggested one speed workout per week to stress the body. It was mentioned that without me knowing about this athlete, my suggesting a speed session could be harmful and was not very sound advice. It was a very good point, and I didn't consider that with my original advice. Now, once again, we have an athlete asking if they are training too slow, and it is suggested they train faster and stress the body and that's ok. What I'm I missing? How much more about this athlete do we know? Is it the knee injury of the other athlete? The fact they had a coach? The fact we know the race time of this athlete? The fact that this athlete is faster? Please enlighten. I think you are confusing both cases; in the other example you are alluding it was suggest for the OP to include speed session (as in higher intensity sessions) when he was not running enough to begin with and also he was getting over/or just recovered from a knee injury. You shouldn’t get into training load specific without knowing the whole story, for the majority of AGers the main reason for them to not experience better running results is due to the low training volume. In this case, the OP 10 miler time indicates to me that has the current fitness to perform his Easy pace run (Z1) at a faster pace of what he is doing. No one is getting into details about training load and advising more intense sessions at least I am not. I am just suggesting that he should adjust his training pace based on the race results because performance is the best fitness indicator and considering that by training at the correct pace he should be able to continue experiencing bigger gains buy just running now at his ‘new’ easy pace. For instance, let’s say you ran today a 10K and you clocked 50 min; using that data as your fitness indicator it would mean that the majority of your training should be done at easy pace around 10 min/mile and run lots. Let’s say you followed the advice and you ran more miles per week at the Easy pace and 12 weeks later you ran another 10K and now you clocked 45 min; using the data your ‘new’ current fitness indicates that you now should do most of your training at E pace around 9 min/mile. If you don’t change anything but the E pace and run the same avg mpw for another 12 weeks you ARE changing your training load because your current fitness allows you to train at a faster pace but for your given fitness STILL is an easy pace for YOU. Hence after 12 weeks you most likely will post another PR… see the difference? Thanks! Reasonable explanation. From now on, I will let you guys make those distinctions and provide the advice. I will just stick to my little corner of the world, continue to train and get better and lose weight, etc. Just like I have been. Scout - I like your theory! Run lots, sometimes hard, mostly easy. Maybe quote worthy IMO. |
|
2008-04-09 10:55 AM in reply to: #1325894 |
Lethbridge, Alberta | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace smilford - 2008-04-09 9:19 AM The usual suspects causing trouble again, eh I fall in the catagory of self coached who likes to know everything, but then does not use it! X2 |
2008-04-09 11:27 AM in reply to: #1324459 |
Regular 357 | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Plissken74 - 2008-04-08 5:33 PM "Medium" pace session at 20 sec/km faster than 10k race for at least 8km and max 15km Are you saying you train for 15k at a faster pace than you can hold in a 10k race? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Nevermind - missed the later clarification. Edited by Stephen T 2008-04-09 11:32 AM |
2008-04-09 11:29 AM in reply to: #1326129 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace |
2008-04-09 11:33 AM in reply to: #1325829 |
Expert 892 | Subject: RE: race pace vs training pace Daremo - 2008-04-09 7:53 AM You train by the definition of what approach/plan you are using. Amen! |
|