I know Charlie has stated in the past that he’d prefer athletes to do continuous tempo rather than intensive tempo. If an athlete had to do continuous running in place of tempo, what % of his best time for the mile (just using the mile as an example) should he peform these longer runs at? For example 75% of a 6 minute mile would be 8 minutes.
I would think that there would be no problems with this type of low intensity training provided the athlete avoids lactic acid presence. After all, the onset of lactic acid is the exact moment when fast twitch fibres fatigue and the brunt of muscular work is shifted to the slow twitch fibres. Thoughts?
Interval tempo can get a little boring at times. Would occasionally using interval tempo on a trail or something like that be alright? I mean, would running at 65-75% intensity for maybe 15-20 seconds and standing or walking inbetween be alright?
Intensity is realtive to a particular distance travelled. So I gather that we are talking about 100m. 15 seconds per 100m may even be too fast depending on the terrain.
This is true, but I was just using that time guideline since it is hard to say the exact distance of a run if done on a trail (hence the 15-20 seconds).
I’ve found that having a variety of different paces especially during the recovery periods really helps keep track work interesting. Sometimes I’ll do a workout that looks like this…
400m@mile RP 50 meter jog, 200 meters at 800rp 50 meter walk 100 meter jog repeat. So the whole workout is done in 2 lap sets. For a sprinter distances would be shorter but the principle’s the same.
Continuous training stresses the aerobic metabolism energy production of the muscles. Therefore the S.A.I.D. (specific adaptations to imposed demands) principle will ensue. The adaptation to continuous aerobic stress is: increased size and number of mitochondria, increased concentrations of aerobic enzymes, increased myoglobin stores…hey wait a minute, these are all characteristics of slow twitch muscle fibers. FIBER CONVERSION…FIBER CONVERSION…FIBER CONVERSION…BAD FOR ANAEROBIC ATHLETES!
How much fiber conversion could occur when this type of workout is used only 1-2 times in a two week period? It probably wouldn’t be smart to impliment too many continious tempos into the training cycles, but it would provide for some variety to the recovery days.
Isn’t the point of tempo to improve the aerobic system, which is tied in with lactic capacity? When we cannot further consume Oxygen, ATP is produced to a lesser extent, the lactic acid system kicks in, and performance decreases. If the aerobic system is improved, we can continue to consume Oxygen for a longer period of time. Of course we must stop training before the fast twitch fibres fatigue and the slow twitch take over.
the main volume of the tempo should come before speed phase emphasis and during this period you have the chance to increase your aerobic capacity as a supportive system; after a while though you are looking for maintenance and MAINLY recovery of CNS and FTF from speed workouts and for the next one; nice and relaxed will take you a long way!
Is it really that bad? Increased mitochondria and increased myoglobin will aid recovery significantly, which are very usedful to anaerobic athletes. It’s not like people are talking about ONLY doing aerobic work so what’s the matter? Should a power type athlete only do power work? Hell no. I think too much is made out of fiber convesion.
thats what i always thought, but the problem comes wih guys like elite american sprinters whom have spent a couple of yrs doing football so they have developed the aerobic qualities throughout the years and when they left football for track, this kind of work was not needed at their level.
the other thing is ex i try to develop my aerobic fitness through a 2.5k jog as a warm up tool for my training session, these on average would be run from 9-11min depending on ur pace and current level. then i do my stretches and fom drills followed by the session whether it gonna be sprints or tempo work even. would this 2.5k run be any harmful? would it affect my training in any way? is it likely to cause any fibre conversion in the long run? the reason im saying this is because in a hot country like egypt wu would do fine running 800m for a warmup and u would be ready for the work, so i just curious about this whole slow twitch fibre conversion thing.
i wouldn’t think so; if you keep it to this sort of duration, it’s not enough for any fibre conversion, especially if it’s something you are doing regularly; the conversion to FTF is more probable from all the speed work you are doing, rather than the other way round; besides, despite the high temperatures, sometimes you need such durations to warm-up your muscles (e.g., if tired with a slower pace)
I 've just started reading the topic.
If you think about it what is the main reason a sprinter would like to have a sound base of aerobic capacity? to recover quicker. Recover quicker from what? fatigue!!
VO2max which is considered the best indicator of aerobic capacity does not have to be that high for a sprinter (I think more than 60 ml/kg/body weight would be very high for a sprinter). My first comment is that I don’t think you should place too much emphasis on trying to improve aerobic fitness anyway.
The best time to improve aerobic fitness would be during the GPP period by incorporating either continuous running or interval tempo. I would personally choose interval tempo with short recovery periods for different reasons such as:
You improve your aerobic capacity
It is not as dull and boring as continuous running
You put less stress on your body in general (physiologically, biomechanically)e.g save energy reserves or put less stress on your joints and particularly low back
You save time as it can last less than continuous running because you can achieve higher speeds than continuous running that they are more likely to bring improvements to your VO2max.
As I mentioned earlier the main reason the majority of people want to have a good aerobic capacity is to accelerate recovery. This would mean that an endurance athlete would recover quicker for example following a speed session or speed endurance session (if they had to do one). Would it be the fact that they have a better aerobic capacity though or the fact they are not able to generate high speeds during the speed sessions (less stress on CNS) that would accelerate their recovery. I think partly the first but mainly the latter.
What you (as a sprinter) really want to achieve is to rest during the tempo days. You are more likely to do that by doing interval tempo workouts and NOT continuous tempo workouts. the emphasis is not on improving your VO2max (to maintain it yes) but to REST.
I think, even for short sprinters, if all you are looking for from aerobic work is rest you’re leaving alot on the table. I know from experience and watching top sprinters and jumpers have good seasons and bad that tempo and long runs plays a much greater role than its often given credit for. It allows for far greater work loads to be achieved with improved recovery between sessions, improved recovery during sessions, tendon strengthening and in the case of tempo advancements in making running more autonomic. For a longer sprinter these are imperative, I can’t think of any sub 44 second runner who didn’t have long runs and both intensive and extensive tempo in their programme …
Be very careful. Long sprinters need Special Endurance 1 and 2, but intensive tempo (non-specific lactic work) has detrimental effects on both aerobic training over the long haul and speed work. High and low intensity are complimentary but intermediate work is detrimental to both. I’ve been convinced of this for decades but now there is proof via the evidence gathered by the Omega Wave testing system. We heard a great deal about this at the seminal in Vancouver. In fact, we heard that the results of early intensive tempo with distance runners showed a PERMANENT limitation to cardiac stroke volume via a premature thickening of the cardiac walls.
Because high and low intensity runs are complimentary, there is no reason to cut tempo during the SPP- it can be maintained or ever improved slightly. It is the speed work that must be adjusted to address recovery and CNS issues late in the game.(precisely the opposite of what was taught in the past).
The fiber conversion and most of the specific adaptations you are talking about are to be expected as the result of continous runs requiring very low level fiber recruitment.We won’t ever see as many mitochondria around fast twitch fibers as around slow twitch ones, but there still is the chance to build some there. Adaptations in muscles are specific to the fibers activated.
I doubt shorter multiple runs with relatively short breaks as those of Charlie’s tempo may really cause any unfavourable fiber conversion,particularly when applied with sprinters and in an organized training context.
first of all I didn’t say that that all I am looking from aerobic work is rest!!I said the main reason for aerobic training is to accelerate recovery and that I would prefer interval tempo workouts rather than continuous workouts for different reasons. I also stressed that the best time to do it (improve aerobic capacity) is in GPP and not when you are trying to improve speed for example.
What it is more important when your focus is on speed improvement for example is to rest your body so you can perform better during the workouts that matter most at the specific time of the year. What would be better in terms of recovery continuous or interval tempo workouts?
Tendons and ligaments improve when you you do interval tempo workouts as well. I would actually say that it is better to use for one more time interval tempo workouts because during continuous tempo workouts you might put unecessary stress on tendons and ligaments they are weak or are still recovering from injury.