progressive runs (Read 1311 times)

I guess it depends on your perspective. Speaking as someone who runs 10ks in the low 30s when in shape, 10k-hm pace IS a hard tempo. In peak shape (sbu-1:10 HM, sub-31 10k) I did 4-mile tempos at 5:13-5:18 pace. This was about HM pace but far slower than 10k pace (4:58). Running more than 2 miles at 10k pace would be racing the workout.

Andre..... Got it, makes sense - you are an experienced runner. BUT, 5K pace is beyond hard tempo as Spaniel says above. 5K is race pace. Tempos should be slower. Hard tempo is generally half marathon pace or a tad faster depending on athlete or a pace you could probably maintain for an hour if you had to. I use the term slow tempo as do others. It is a strong pace, maybe marathon pace or a bit faster but sustained for longer, 4, 5, 6, 7 miles + depending on athlete. For example, last year on my low miles I ran a 19:24 5K or around 6:15 pace. I ran my tempo intervals at around 6:45 pace and my slow tempo miles at around 7:05 - 7:15 pace. I liked 5 miles at slow tempo within a mid week longer run or 4 miles mixed in intervals during my long run. For me, the slow tempo work is much easier to recover from and a staple of my 5K - half marathon training. For the record, when I coach runners (generally mostly beginner/intermediates), I use the progression runs once or twice per week (in advanced beginners/intermediates) a lot and feel they are very simple for a runner to do without worrying about having to be at a certain pace. It enhances progress and aerobic foundation building without going anaerobic which is of no benefit to the beginner/advanced beginner runner. Running by feel is key and listening to the body.

From the preface to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. He's talking about political inquiry, but the same holds true for inquiry into running:

Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. ... We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.

Ah, so you think I'm over-analyzing it, eh?

Well, I dunno. One side of me says leave the numbers folks alone; that's their discourse, they understand it, and it works for them. Let's call that my "tolerant, pluralist side." The other side of me wants to shake you people and yell in your ear: "Just run, baby!" Let's call that my "fascist, dogmatic side." Whichever side comes out usually depends on how much coffee I've had.

Well, I dunno. One side of me says leave the numbers folks alone; that's their discourse, they understand it, and it works for them. Let's call that my "tolerant, pluralist side." The other side of me wants to shake you people and yell in your ear: "Just run, baby!" Let's call that my "fascist, dogmatic side." Whichever side comes out usually depends on how much coffee I've had.

So, like, is Inigo Montoya your tolerant, pluralist side and Skeletor your fascist, dogmatic side?

So, like, is Inigo Montoya your tolerant, pluralist side and Skeletor your fascist, dogmatic side?

Yes. You should see me when I think that people should be more tolerant. That's when I get really evil. Jeff (we could read more ironies into the fact that you and I have the same name), I see your point. I would just say a couple more things. We're getting really philosophical here, which you know I don't mind. But I would reject the science/art distinction. Just because a number is attached to a concept doesn't mean that it is scientifically derived. And just because an idea is vague and better explained verbally than mathematically doesn't mean that it's not backed by an experimental, scientific methodology. You can't explain the concept of progression running through pace analysis because the concept of progression running is based on qualities of experience, not quantities. We can talk about other concepts that way, but one reason why progression runs work is because they highlight the qualitative aspects of experience, which are useful tools in training. If you want to talk numbers, then there are plenty of other concepts out there for that.

Right. I guess I didn't notice the hijack. Though it doesn't surprise me that a thread based on feeling kung fu would get hijacked into a thread based on calculating kung fu. I'll end on a semi-tolerant note. It's good to have a variety of discourses available to talk about these things. My only worry is that one of these discourses will crush the other because of the false sense of certainty that the quantitative approach provides.

Well, I look at it this way. I like to look at the numbers. I like to see what the research into the science of running tells us. And I use those numbers as rough guidelines to practice the art of running within boundaries that will be most beneficial for me.

To me all this so-called scientific applied to running always turns into a case of affirming the consequent. The numbers in question are gathered from analyzing the past, after the results are in. Then people take those numbers out of context and try to apply them going forward. A tempo run was a tempo run before Jack Daniels calculated that they tended to happen at a pace that roughly coincided with a lactate threshold. If you don't know what a tempo run feels like then all the math and science in the world won't help you become a faster runner. I realize I'm late to the Jeff v. Jeff smackdown--not that it would have been hard to guess which side of the argument I'd come down on. But a thread about progression runs is the last place on the world wide Trenternet that I'd want to see math and percentages.