About my other post, I hope to have a program worked out by today, hopefully.
But, I have a question about intensity in tempo. I believe that one is suppossed to aim at 70% of there best time in a certain distance when doing tempo sessions. Is this correct? I have also seen people say 50-60% and some say 80%. I’m assuming the time to aim for is 60-70%. Am I correct in thinking this, or is there something else that shoudl be done for tempo?
Below 80%. As long as you can finish the way you started and arent accumulating lactic acid you are fine. I stay between 65-75% usually.
Also, what would be an acceptable time range for rest between each rep? I think it is between 1-2 minutes. Is that right?
Most of are tempo work is done according to charlies intensity scale, which elimiantes that midrange intensity so all tempo work is done at 75% of best time or slower. We normally do tempo as 100’s or 200’s on a soccer field with 50m walks between reps and 100m walks between sets.
So, does it really matter if you are doing tempos at 65, 70 or 75% since none of those intensities are fast enough to develop speed?
I think it depends on your purpose behind the tempo session.
I keep my tempo between 65-70% when doing them for recovery. If I’m looking for an aerobic workout, then I’m in the 75% range. Everyone is different though and that’s what I’ve found works for me so far.
What is wrong with LA? New theories says that LA dont provoke muscle fatigue… LA can also protect you from the fatigue (new studies)
So, forget about LA… as long as your time is constant (with little variation) that is good (finish same way started)
In regards to LA theories, are you refering to H+ buffering instead of LA? Or are you refering to some other mechanism.
100m runs I’ll rest 30 secs
200m runs I’ll rest 60 secs
60 - 90 secs between sets
It will obviously depend on the workout too, but I like to keep those general guidelines. If you start approaching the upper 75% limit then just shorten the recovery times to keep the same training effect.
Quark, take a look at theese:
http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/Popular%20Press%20and%20Lactic%20Acid.htm
And if you have time to spend (qualitatively), search for the work of Tim Noakes, you got some data on this web-seite too… It will change your view at the training physiology…
The rest should be 3-4 times larger than run…
or the walking distance should be 1/2 running distance… But this is individual and based on the purpose of training… if you run tempo for recovery, run it when you want it… when you feel recovered, but if your performance drops then call it a day
Blinky, I dont undertand why will you going to shorten recovery when approaching to 75%?
I believe that tempo cause recovery but I am willing to question this belief, why read this:
http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/Easy%20Runs%20and%20Recovery.htm
(this is for marathoners but it could be used for other sports as well. One thing that I miss here is the effect of hronically doing recovery runs on recovery not just acute recovery runs…)
When an athlete gets fitter, they can recover faster and thus they can at times be able to run tempo at greater intensities because they are so fit. The problem with running at say 80-85% is that it will tax the CNS to a greater degree then running at 75%. If speeds are kept below 75% then the CNS will stay largely intact. So to accomplish this to get the same training effect, just shorten recoveries.
A marathon is such a taxing event that recovery from it would be very different than a sprint. It is largely muscular whereas sprinting has a high degree of nervous system recovery.
As you pointed out, perhaps the article of more relevent for distance runners compared to sprinters.
All I can say is that I did notice a difference when switching from passive recovery (i.e. rest) to tempo after a hard speed session for example. I definetly feel fresher and less sore following tempo.
That’s one reason I do my tempo runs in the below 70%. I started out doing them faster (below 80%), but felt I needed to recover from my recovery despite the fact that the sessions felt comfortable.
With regards to lactic acid, I think their are 2 important points to consider:
-Fiber conversion
-Lactic acids effect on the CNS
I believe that the onset of lactic acid may play a big role in fiber conversion. I also think that lactic acid may tax the CNS to a greater extent then without it’s presence.
Aha, yes… you was thinking on that… sorry missunderstanding!
Actually I was thinking on a difference between:
On the other hand, I started questionning that recovery training session belief… maybe it is better to spend your recovery session on something important in your sport, but with different need on energy or fatigue specificity etc…
In sprinting, tempo provides a different stimulus from high speed running, and maybe this is responsible for CNS recovery, BTW tempo keeps sprinters slim… So you are doing different goals… I would say, spend your time and energy on something more important in your sport than doing recovery runs (20min steady etc)! I am just speculating, dont forget!
Can you expand on LA causing “fiber conversion”? Mechanism etc?
I proposed one research to find out what are the effects of LA (not lactic acid, just LA solts). But to isolate LA we must not do any kind of activity but rather to inject LA in the blood (BLOOD group) and intramuscular (MUSCLE group) and to measure its effects with a battery of tests (M-wave, H-reflex, twitch, MVC, 20Hz and 100Hz stimulation, isokinetic test at various speed etc.) to find out is it, and where (CNS, peripheral) is it, causing fatigue. But unfortunatelly I didnt do this… (bad situation in our faculty, there is no research here ) but if one want to do it, please put my name on a research paper… 
On the other hand, I think that it is time to stop this kind of a reductionism approach on studying fatigue and to turn ourself to more wholistic (complex system approach) analysis… refer to Tim Noakes, St. Clair Gibson et al papers (can be downloaded from Br J Sport Med web-site)
I do not have the studies on me, nor do I have the scientific background to break it down in technical terms, but I do believe you will be able to find some studies on fiber conversion and LA.
Thanks, i have seen this idea before, but i didn’t have the journal references to look at. Those papers looks good, but there needs to be more work done to get a good model for this mechanism. .