Is it just as effective to do a tempo run off of the bike as it would be dong it as a stand alone workout? assuming you can keep the proper pace.
They are 2 different workouts. Note: I am assuming by “tempo run” you mean a run at anaerobic threshold pace. Doing a stand alone tempo run accomplishes 2 primary things: (1)it raises your anaerobic threshold by running at that pace and (2)it provides a neuromuscular stimulus of improving efficiency, especially at paces near threshold (this is a really good thing for 5k-marathon types, not as big a deal if you are training for the 1500m or an IM).
Doing a tempo/threshold run following a ride will accomplish goal number (1) above but instead of doing a good goal accomplishing goal number (2), it will train you to be able to run fairly hard off the bike. It is important to note that a threshold run following, for example, a steady 50 mile ride will be slower than a stand alone threshold run. This is because your pace at anaerobic threshold is a dynamic thing. It is slower after a 50 mile ride than after a week of sharpening, taper, and rest. Therefore, if your goal is to improve anaerobic threshold, you should really be going for the appropriate EFFORT and not be too concerned with pace (for the record, I’m as guilty as anyone of forcing the pace on a tempo run).
i dont think your definition of either threshold or tempo is correct. threshold is a large training class and tempo is one of the subclasses of that, the other being cruise intervals
most runners could do really well making all of their quality work at tempo/ sub threshold @ marathon pace.
if triathletes did this theyd actually be decent runners:
50+mpw
stop making their long run 50pct of their weekly mileage.
run more at their M or T pace depending on the event.
stop worrying about where they land (footstrike)
Is it just as effective to do a tempo run off of the bike as it would be dong it as a stand alone workout? assuming you can keep the proper pace.
no its not. to hold the same pace youd probably be working harder. bricks are mental and as worthless as 25mile runs when your weekly mileage is 45.
.
They are 2 different workouts. Note: I am assuming by “tempo run” you mean a run at anaerobic threshold pace. Doing a stand alone tempo run accomplishes 2 primary things: (1)it raises your anaerobic threshold by running at that pace and (2)it provides a neuromuscular stimulus of improving efficiency, especially at paces near threshold (this is a really good thing for 5k-marathon types, not as big a deal if you are training for the 1500m or an IM).
Doing a tempo/threshold run following a ride will accomplish goal number (1) above but instead of doing a good goal accomplishing goal number (2), it will train you to be able to run fairly hard off the bike. It is important to note that a threshold run following, for example, a steady 50 mile ride will be slower than a stand alone threshold run. This is because your pace at anaerobic threshold is a dynamic thing. It is slower after a 50 mile ride than after a week of sharpening, taper, and rest. Therefore, if your goal is to improve anaerobic threshold, you should really be going for the appropriate EFFORT and not be too concerned with pace (for the record, I’m as guilty as anyone of forcing the pace on a tempo run).
There should be nothing resembling anything anaerobic for a tempo run. Running just below this threshold would be way too fast/hard. The generally accepted pace for a tempo run is 1 hour TT pace, and the duration of the run should be 15-30 minutes. Anaerobic pace would likely be 20-25% faster than tempo pace, as such an effort is likely less than 5 minutes in duration.
Absolutely true, a tempo run (as commonly defined) should NOT be anaerobic. Rather, they are typically done at or slightly slower than anaerobic threshold pace which, as you stated, is somewhere around the pace you could hold running a 1 hour TT. Not sure where the disagreement is there??
Absolutely true, a tempo run (as commonly defined) should NOT be anaerobic. Rather, they are typically done at or slightly slower than anaerobic threshold pace which, as you stated, is somewhere around the pace you could hold running a 1 hour TT. Not sure where the disagreement is there??
maybe just the use of the term “anaerobic threshold”? As it is misleading… since it is neither.
comfortably hard as i have been told… and i thought tempo and threshold were the same thing?
It’s really just a terminology thing. In running circles, it seems that the terms “tempo run” and “anaerobic threshold run” used to be synonymous. I think this stemmed from some of the work and terminology used by guys like Daniels, Martin, and Anderson.
These days, it seems as though “tempo run” has gained a broader meaning, encompassing any fairly fast but still predominantly aerobic run. This would make a threshold run a type of (relatively fast) tempo run with things like marathon pace runs being slightly slower tempo runs.
That said, all tempo runs (including runs at anaerobic threshold pace) provide a nice stimulus for improving pace at anaerobic threshold (typically this is measured in mmol lactate although a better definition should probably be provided given that lactic acid isn’t the evil-doer we used to think it was). As you said, tempo runs are not the only way to work on threshold. Things like cruise intervals and long hills at the appropriate effort are good as well.
“Anaerobic threshold (AT)” is indeed a threshold. It is the point beyond which lactic acid begins to accumulate ever faster in the blood. At or slower than anaerobic threshold, one is running (or cycling, or playing the piano…) predominantly aerobically. AT is often equated with the lactate turnpoint (the point of inflection on a graph of speed vs. lactate concentration). As I noted in another post, this definition may change since the role of lactic acid is much different than used to be thought.
On a related note, we’ve been putting all of these training methods in nice little boxes like “aerobic” and “anaerobic.” Fact is, mammilian physiology isn’t nearly so simple as that. Fact is, a “threshold run” certainly doesn’t work just on threshold, and no run is purely aerobic or anaerobic.
So you’ve mentioned twice now that “lactic acid” doesn’t do what we once though it did… I’m just curious when you learned what it actually does?
Here’s the short story on what lactic acid really does (I’m making it short because (1)I don’t want to write a book on this and (2)I don’t know enough to write a book on this).
Back in the day (meaning a couple of years ago), most people figured that when too much lactic acid accumulated in the blood it directly caused fatigue and caused you to slow down.
These days, it appears that lactic acid is actually a fuel that can be used by the body. What happens is that, when there is not enough O2, the pyruvic acid formed during glycolysis turns into lactic acid (via some fun chemical pathways that I don’t know much about). This lactic acid can then be used to fuel further exercise. Note also that lactic acid is always being produced, even during low intensity exercise. It’s just that it really starts to accumulate (rate of production > rate of clearance) at higher intensities. So, lactic acid can actually serve a positive purpose (fuel) during both low and high intensity exercise.
That said, high blood concentrations of lactic acid are definitely correlated with fatigue. This does NOT mean they are directly causing the fatigue, however. As far as I know (and someone please chime in if you’re up on the latest), the fatigue we feel when operating using primarily the anaerobic glycolytic pathway is primarily due to either (a)the release of H ions (which would be a side effect of the lactic acid accumulation) and/or (b)as a result of not completely understood reasons based in the central nervous system.
On a somewhat related note, it has been pretty well established that lactic acid accumulation is NOT responsible for delayed onset muscle soreness.
Isn’t it worth considering that doing the ‘tempo’ run off the bike is a better simulator of race conditions? Not to mention actual race pace? (ie. in a triathlon we actually do run slower than we would in a standalone race of the same duration).
It’s really, really hard for any conditioning that more closely simulates race conditions to be less than optimal no matter how much physiology we try to throw at it!
Isn’t it worth considering that doing the ‘tempo’ run off the bike is a better simulator of race conditions? Not to mention actual race pace? (ie. in a triathlon we actually do run slower than we would in a standalone race of the same duration).
It’s really, really hard for any conditioning that more closely simulates race conditions to be less than optimal no matter how much physiology we try to throw at it!
Not necessarily. Not if the cycling beforehand negatively affects the quality of your running work out. This is one reason why, for example, football players will lift weights after a period of rest rather than lifting wights directly following a 40yard sprint. A rested weight lift builds muscle better than one after a full sprint.
Not if the cycling beforehand negatively affects the quality of your running work out. This is one reason why, for example, football players will lift weights after a period of rest rather than lifting wights directly following a 40yard sprint. A rested weight lift builds muscle better than one after a full sprint.
So Barry you are saying for muscle devolpment that a morning bike followed by a lunchtime run or vica versa would be better for muscle building and/or speed devolpment?
Here’s the short story on what lactic acid really does (I’m making it short because (1)I don’t want to write a book on this and (2)I don’t know enough to write a book on this).
Back in the day (meaning a couple of years ago), most people figured that when too much lactic acid accumulated in the blood it directly caused fatigue and caused you to slow down.
These days, it appears that lactic acid is actually a fuel that can be used by the body. What happens is that, when there is not enough O2, the pyruvic acid formed during glycolysis turns into lactic acid (via some fun chemical pathways that I don’t know much about). This lactic acid can then be used to fuel further exercise. Note also that lactic acid is always being produced, even during low intensity exercise. It’s just that it really starts to accumulate (rate of production > rate of clearance) at higher intensities. So, lactic acid can actually serve a positive purpose (fuel) during both low and high intensity exercise.
That said, high blood concentrations of lactic acid are definitely correlated with fatigue. This does NOT mean they are directly causing the fatigue, however. As far as I know (and someone please chime in if you’re up on the latest), the fatigue we feel when operating using primarily the anaerobic glycolytic pathway is primarily due to either (a)the release of H ions (which would be a side effect of the lactic acid accumulation) and/or (b)as a result of not completely understood reasons based in the central nervous system.
On a somewhat related note, it has been pretty well established that lactic acid accumulation is NOT responsible for delayed onset muscle soreness.
http://mzungofire.blogspot.com/2009/05/lactic-acid-myths.html
Barry, I know what you are saying…but to use your analogy…if an athlete’s competition consisted of running 40 yards all out then testing their max strength…they WOULD train that way.
Of course, they’d have dedicated weight training sessions to develop increased maximum strength as well as those run/weight sessions to deal with fatigue resistance.
So with running, you would have long and fast runs to develop running ability PLUS you’d have race specific training situations that would include biking and tempo running. Right?
I knew this thread was going to swing this direction. While I normally keep silent about this, it is becoming more and more puzzling to me hearing about this adverse effect of biking on running during a brick, and how the quality is compromised.
Well, don’t we do that racing, correct. Well there is a principle of specificity that dictates a need to train that way. What happened to effort based measurement of quality.
Run after a bike is a quality run when run at tempo or threshold pace. The fact that the pace is slower after a bike does not mean that the run is less quality. As a matter of fact it is more realistic of your triathlon run capability. With the same logic, run in hot conditions where paces are slower are somehow runs of a lesser quality, even if executed at a correct effort level in accordance with assigned heart rate zones. I don’t think so.
I love listening how people label these runs as somehow runs of lesser quality.
But than what do I know.
Perceived effort is the key, not a particular pace or a particular heart rate. But you need to train your ‘perceptions’ so that they correlate with the numbers. Too many folk rely on numbers, be they HR or pace. Both can vary for many reasons, but your perceived effort will always be the same. You know when you are going hard or easy. You don’t need numbers to tell you that.
A hard run off a hard bike will always be that no matter how fast your heart is beating or how fast you are running. Get to know and rely on how you feel, rather than chase numbers all the time.