13 replies to this topic

[shortarse]

This may sound like an obvious question to many of you, but what is the difference between interval training and tempo training? I thought that interval training was to increase your speed so isn't that tempo training? I'm fairly new to all this and am a little confused.

[Huff]

I aint no expert but simply
Interval Running is where you do a set of shorter faster runnning with recovery periods
Tempo Running is where your faster running is over a more prolonged period.
Eg gradually lifting your pace over 2/3rds of your run.

[Jason M]

Check out this article for a bit of discussion on the pros and cons of interval versus tempo running: http://www.pponline..../encyc/0437.htm

[lactatehead]

Jason M, on Jul 2 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

Check out this article for a bit of discussion on the pros and cons of interval versus tempo running: http://www.pponline..../encyc/0437.htm

I find a major flaw in all of these studies. The study groups are always made up of very mediocre runners who obviously have not developed good aerobic conditioning. If the same studies were done on groups of runners who had all run sub 30 minutes for 10k you would probably see that they all had different methods of speed training but the one thing they all have in common is a large aerobic base. If anyone cares to read the training schedules of any decent runner you will always see that there is a large component of steady running whether it is 120kms a week or 220kms a week.
If you see training in terms of a pyramid, the bottom section would be steady running, the middle would be tempo running and the top would be pure speed work. It seems so obvious yet many people still think that they can put the tempo or intervals at the bottom of their training pyramid.

[Rudolf]

I will just address the terminology as I see it, not the comaparison of the methods:

tempo training is run at a constant pace, close to anaerobic treshold, typical lenght is 20-40 minutes

it is NOT gradual increase of the pace, and is done after proper warm up. some runners use funruns 5-10 km run at noncompetitve speed, without racing for the finish.

interval training is interupted by recoveries. running speed usually is faster that tempo run would be, but is not necessarily anaerobic, could be used for aerobic developmenet as well.
teh term interval originaly applied to the time period of teh recovery (standing, walking, jogging...), the running portions of the sessions were called repetitions.

since then terminology got mixed up and interval is used for teh active phase.

in some interval methods the pace and lenght of the repps is important as is their number - the total distance of the reps,
in some method the most important part is teh recovery period with exact tuning of the type of activity of recovery and its time lenght.

sometimes nearly complete recovery is targeted, sometimes only partial recovery is targeted.


fartlek in some cases could be refered to as very unstructured interval session.

[bruncle]

lactatehead, on Jul 4 2008, 09:01 AM, said:

I find a major flaw in all of these studies. The study groups are always made up of very mediocre runners who obviously have not developed good aerobic conditioning. If the same studies were done on groups of runners who had all run sub 30 minutes for 10k you would probably see that they all had different methods of speed training but the one thing they all have in common is a large aerobic base. If anyone cares to read the training schedules of any decent runner you will always see that there is a large component of steady running whether it is 120kms a week or 220kms a week.
If you see training in terms of a pyramid, the bottom section would be steady running, the middle would be tempo running and the top would be pure speed work. It seems so obvious yet many people still think that they can put the tempo or intervals at the bottom of their training pyramid.

A VO2 Max of 54 is not stellar, but it suggests pretty good basic fitness. I'd have liked to see a comparison of 5k times before and after. In my opinion though, the study still has a lot of relevance. I like the comment about specificity. Tempo runs have more value for athletes aiming for goal events over 10k and interval workouts have more value for runners aiming for goal events under 10k.

[Rudolf]

bruncle, on Jul 4 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

Tempo runs have more value for athletes aiming for goal events over 10k and interval workouts have more value for runners aiming for goal events under 10k.

I would be very careful with this generalization, not neccessarily true in my view,
my guess would be that this statement somehow imply not complete understanding of both tools and limited range of use

[Morley]

Here are some notes I've collected on intervals and tempo runs.

Intervals - Sessions are made up of a set of short, faster paced runs over fixed distances from 200 to 1600 meters, interceded with periods of light recovery jogging. Although there are many variations of intervals, the three basic types are:

1.Repeats - the distance of the repeating running segment does not change (ex: four 400 meter repeats with a 200 meter recovery jog in between each).
2.Pyramids - the distance of the repeating running segments peaks and then returns to the beginning distance (ex: repeats of 200, 400, and up to 1600 meters before returning to 400 and then 200 meters).
3.Ladders - the distance of the repeating running segments either steadily increases or decreases (ex: 200, 400, 800, up to 1600 meters or run in the reverse order of 1600 down to 200 meters).

Tempo Runs - Are the easiest of all the speed workouts to implement. No distances to keep up with and no split times to remember. Just run faster than your usual training pace and maintain a single sustained effort.

Tempo training is useful because it:

Increases the body's anaerobic limit in order to maintain a faster pace over a longer period of time.
Boosts speed as the body becomes accustomed to running at close to its upper limit.

A tempo session consists of:

1.Complete your normal warm-up routine.
2.Run for about 1500 to 2000 meters at an easy training pace.
3.Once you have warmed up, pick up your pace to a level you can maintain for predesignated time or distance. Your pace should be 80-85% of your maximum heart rate (if using a heart rate monitor) or your 10K race pace.
4.Run for about 1500 to 2000 meters at an easy training pace.
5.Cool down.

Cheers.

[bruncle]

Rudolf, on Jul 4 2008, 02:35 PM, said:

I would be very careful with this generalization, not neccessarily true in my view,
my guess would be that this statement somehow imply not complete understanding of both tools and limited range of use

Ok fair enough, if you're doing 7x10 minutes off 2 minutes, then that's gonna help with running marathons. But in my experience when people think of interval sessions, they're thinking about a VO2 max workout, and that has most value for 10k or less. It may not have been semantically correct, but I think in practice, my statement is valid.

[Rudolf]

bruncle, on Jul 5 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

Ok fair enough, if you're doing 7x10 minutes off 2 minutes, then that's gonna help with running marathons. But in my experience when people think of interval sessions, they're thinking about a VO2 max workout, and that has most value for 10k or less. It may not have been semantically correct, but I think in practice, my statement is valid.

yeah, I was not after who is correct or not, but I used this space to point how in practice the wide available aplicable field
of use of any tool can shrink to just 1 task, and than this practice passed down spreads out and everything else is lost,

which is a pitty, but also does not help with deeper understanding of the training systems.


from different angle - Lydiard in training his middle distance runners would use lots of tempo runs in specific stages

[moby]

I believe that the popular definition of a tempo run was 20-40mins at a pace that you could race at for 1hr. Many runners had been doing this type of training for a long time before it became so named.

Over time people have realised that this type of training can be done in a variety of different ways. One is by breaking the run up into a number of shorter periods – commonly called cruise intervals. So for example 3 x 15mins at the same pace (not faster).

You can also do tempo runs over longer distances/times and stimulate the same training adaptations. One set of principles is outlined below.


Training Pace:

Assumptions: 5K PB = 18:57 minutes which is 3:47 min/km or 227 secs.

Long Tempo (60-80mins): 227secs / 0.87 = 261secs (4:20 pace)
Medium Tempo (40-60mins): 227secs / 0.90 = 252secs (4:12 pace)
Short Tempo (20-40mins): 227secs / 0.93 = 244secs (4:04 pace)

[Rudolf]

yes Mobby, You right, I was thinking to write about long intervals or not.

usualy teh tempio run can be split into 2-3 parts, but at teh original pace.

The recovery periods are not about cardio recovery as teh pace should not create oxygen debts.

It is more about mental recovery - say neuromuscular, so the brain can take a break and than focus on proper biomechanics again.
it is also about some stretching etc to relieve some weaker parts tendons or muscles so teh proper technique can be kept and no damagae is done and the body is fresh next day.


as an ilustration if I do tempo 40 minutes of racewalk technique, I might get niggles in the knee.

If I break it into 3x15 or 4x10, and do some stretch and bend the knees do some squat etc, I can keep correct technique and not have the sore joints, this way I can go every day and accumulate much more kms, however the pace or effort is teh same as if done continuolsy - controlled by watch and or HR.


I woukld prefere the name : tempo per partes, which should be clear to everybody that this is not about running flat the long intervals, not having breaks so it can be run faster.


The time translation by coaches for teh runners, than looks like 2 x 5000, or 3 x 3000, for slow runners 3x 2000m

or even using 1600 or 2400 m

[lactatehead]

We used to go for mid week club runs which would start off easily and become progressively faster until the last 5-8kms were all out efforts. These runs were never predetermined, they used to just end up like that because of our natural competitive urges. I think this was a pretty common way of training for many club runners before we all knew about the term tempo runs. I am sure that even Lydiard knew that many of his endurance runs would end up like that but they were still just endurance runs.

[shortarse]

Rudolf, on Jul 6 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

as an ilustration if I do tempo 40 minutes of racewalk technique, I might get niggles in the knee.

If I break it into 3x15 or 4x10, and do some stretch and bend the knees do some squat etc, I can keep correct technique and not have the sore joints, this way I can go every day and accumulate much more kms, however the pace or effort is teh same as if done continuolsy - controlled by watch and or HR.


I woukld prefere the name : tempo per partes, which should be clear to everybody that this is not about running flat the long intervals, not having breaks so it can be run faster.

Thanks evryone for your help. It makes for most interesting reading. Thanks Morley for your succinct explanation and others for the elaboration and variations. Rudolf, would the "tempo per partes" you talked aboiut be suitable for starting agin after injury? Also as a beginningish runner with quite strong aerobic fitness, how would I incorporate tempo and interval traing into my weekly schedule if my aim is to better my time over HM distance? Should I do one, or the other, or both?