What would your thoughts be on doing a regular tempo session, then having a long rest break (20 - 30 min) and then doing another tempo session? Anybody tried it?
I’ve tried similar… my aerobic endurance is alwyas pretty weak… so if lactic started kicking into the tempo session then I’d take a good break, then finish the milage (and more).
You can break up the vol- 50/50, 60/40, instead of big circuit do 2 x small circuit, whatever but I doubt you’d need 20 min between. More likely 10 to 12 min between sets would suffice.
Charlie, on the other side of the spectrum, I’m wondering if my athletes’ breaks have been too short causing the runs themselves to be too slow though definitely better to be too slow than to be too fast.
I usually tell them to walk 100m between sets. The walks tend to be slow to moderately paced-hard to describe any other way not having timed the breaks before. Would you guess that such a RI is enough of a break?
On a general note, wouldnt shorter rest between reps have a greater aerobic training benefit?
Shorter breaks keep the pace from getting too fast but for beginners, it’s tough to keep going so longer breaks may be needed. You need to see how the individual athletes respond to the work and decide what’s best. Remember, they must come back in good shape for the speed work- which is the prime objective.
It’s important to ensure that the work does not become lactic and this is obviously a function of intensity of each rep and duration of each rest interval. Tempo can quickly become lactic if the effort is near 75% and the rests are too short.
A high general fitness level will allow an athlete to perform in a lactic environment for quite a while in interval format such as tempo so it’s critical to remain conservative.
The lactic environment, counter intuitive to one of the main points of performing tempo work, destroys mitochondria in the active skeletal muscle fiber.
Short of wearing a heart rate monitor or measuring blood lactate, if you ensure that the pace is sub 75% of max speed for that distance then, regarding distances of 100yd or less, going straight to some sort of abdominal work or push ups then 45-60sec rest is more than sufficient to keep the effort aerobic and well within the capacity of any athlete of decent preparation.
Obviously longer tempo distances require longer recoveries
For the group’s consideration, I give my small skill players 16sec to cover 100yds which is conservatively based off a 12sec 100yd sprint. Obviously if any single one of them can’t manage 100yd in 12 sec then we’ve got much bigger issues on our hands.
So in reality, the bulk of them (again small skill) are closer to the mid 9 to mid 10 sec range for 100yd which really places the effort closer to 60-65% for the majority of the group
Most important, as a result of this, their work capacity is tremendous and as Charlie said they are always primed and ready for speed days.
It’s tougher to develop lactic with 100m tempo runs vs 200-300m range.
My Tempo Times:
100m: 15-16sec
200: 30-33sec
300: 47-50sec
Is that because the duration of the run is not as long?
What are people’s thoughts on continous tempo? Running at a certain pace for time rather than distance.
That can be done where there’s no track, on a big field or park for example, and you can set a beeper to go off on your watch, which works if all your intervals are the same, but an easier way to do it is to count strides. Just check how many steps you average in a tempo 100 and calculate from there. that way you don’t need to constantly check your watch if you use different distances, like in a big circuit.
I’ll be brief, but where is the literature that says a “lactic environment” (perhaps a definition of this might make things more clear) destroys mitochondria within muscle cells? Without some context and basis, this statement kinda detracts substantially from the rest of your post. I am not going to argue about whether or not we want or don’t want lactic in tempo, but to say it destroys mitochondria?
Also,
James is kind to provide some workout numbers and examples of his athletes, but leads into something else.
James mentions his athletes running tempo in ~16sec for 100 yards, or about 17mid for 100m. Given the ability he says his athletes have and the workouts that have been posted before, what is the goal of this?
In certain material, Charlie called an athlete out on running their tempo too slow. Further, the volumes James has posted before seem quite low to generate any sort of general fitness or work capacity qualities from such slow speeds.
Now, if the point of tempo is simply to loosen up and be ready for a speed session, that makes sense, but then why use the “big circuit” or do significant tempo volumes? If the point is to also generate fitness, why run so slow? If you are a sub 11 second 100m sprinter (which is at least the ability of the athletes used as an example), running 100m tempo in over 17 may not even generate much fatigue, let alone approach concerns for lactic (as an example, my general fitness is not where it should be an I did 2x10x100m with 50m walk rest in mid 15 and, while tired, experienced no lactic whatsoever with a PR in the range of times James describes).
Remember the range for tempo (60-75%). If I remember correctly James does up to 2000yds for his skill guys and as you know 2000yds at 15-16sec for 180-230lbs football players will increase work capacity.
16 seconds for 100yd is 17mid for 100m. He said small skill guys. Even at 180-200lbs, if you are able to run 9mid 100yd (what he says), that is a joke.
I understand you don’t want to cause lactic. I get that. I also understand you want to be fresh for your speed days as those are the most important, but why even bother doing those volumes if those are the goals? The speed here is so slow that even if you are doing 30 second rests, there is not going to be much fatigue until you get into significantly high volumes. That is what I am trying to figure out.
This is covered extensively in overseas research.
In short, the increased acidosis generated during lactic efforts, specifically when the 4mmol mark is approached and surpassed, destroys the mitochondria in the active skeletal muscle fibers.
Can you please post the literature that indicates this to be true (without complementary mechanisms in place)?
I ask this because of how it goes completely against the majority of the empirical evidence (with athletes who do more training in acidosis tending to have greater mitochondria development).
I personally can get lactic build-up anywhere up to 19s if I’ve done enough repeats (on grass)… on track or any other surface changes things completely and I’m ok in the low 16’s. But then I time the recoveries at 30s/60s rather than walking (i’m sure 50m walk is longer than 30s, also as you get more tired you tend to walk slower)
at those paces you might be able to justify it as “flush and feed” merely a recovery purpose of the tempo
Keep in mind that my guys go directly from the the tempo rep to either push ups or some sort of abdominal work. Then 45-60 sec rest and another run.
Most important, is that there are divisions of improved cardiac and aerobic function relative to anaerobic threshold.
One is in error to assume that the workload must be (insert your favorite adjective) difficult in order to improve aerobic work capacity.
The work capacity must be defined.
+108% anaerobic development
102-108% anaerobic maintenance
94-102% anaerobic threshold = aerobic development
85-102% aerobic maintenance
68-84% cardiac output
60-70% cardiac recuperation
Remember that tempo, from a bioenergetic standpoint, is performed in order to improve aerobic qualities.