I warmup a mile, then I go full speed, then cooldown a mile - no stopping in between. I've read a few places (Hal Higdon is one) where they suggest speeding up gradually, peaking, then gradually slowing down. I prefer going straight to it because then I know I did exactly 5 miles at X pace (valuable info when you're training for longer races).

For shorter temporuns, I warmup a mile. If the overall run is a bit longer, say 6+ miles, may do a 2 mile warmup.

I do a 2mi w/u and c/d. My tempo is generally at the overall desired average pace, but my first mile or two (depending on the distance) may be a couple of seconds slower than the last two.

------------------
My profile[/URL" target="_blank">
Me[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by mollie63:
thanks everyone. i am like most of you--warm up a couple, then jump into the tempo pace for the given distance, then warm down. i just wondered if anyone uses hidgon's easing into it method--it seems you wouldn't get the whole benefit of the tempo workout, but, i'm no expert.<HR>

Your instinct is correct. A 4 mile tempo run that you ease into and out of is really a 2 mile tempo run.

Daniels has 20 minutes as the optimum tempo time, with a slowing of the pace for longer, but no slowing of the pace for shorter.

In addition to the physical strain, 20 minutes is ideal for the mental aspect. Getting from minute 13 to minute 17 can be really tough. You want each lap (I like to do them on a track) to be the same as every other so you only start them after a warm-up and strides, etc.

One tough workout is 2 X 20 minute Tempo with 4 minutes between.

You have to lower the pace to run a longer tempo. Daniel's has a variable pace table in his new book for longer tempos (showing how much slower to run for an hour tempo as opposed to 20 minutes).

The advantage of breaking it up is that you might be able to accumulate more total time at true tempo pace. The converse is that there may be other benefits from running a longer, but slightly slower tempo run.

I have tried both. If you are training for a fall marathon and trying to run tempos on hot days I find that it is easier if you break it up. Generally I follow Pfitzinger and run my tempos between 15k and half marathon pace. However when you get to his longest tempo (7 miles) it is darn near a race. Very tough.

Southern Man


------------------
We're on a road to nowhere. Come on along.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Never Quit:
I'm a little confused here....With regard to marathon training, I thought running longer tempo runs would be best. So why would two 20 tempo runs with a 4 minute interval be better than one 40 minute run?

Thanks

Never Quit
<HR>

Excellent question. You could go either way, but my thinking is that if the objective is to get yourself at lactate threshold and hold it, doing say 40 mins. has you going slower than that pace, although not by much. But I can hold that pace for 20 minutes and then do it again. I also find the second one to be easier than the first even at the same pace. On the other hand, there's much to be said for the mental effort of getting from minutes 20 to 35 on the long ones.

Here's something from Pfitz/Douglas (who, by the way, suggest tempos of 20 to 40 mins. for the marathon) on why you don't want to do tempos too fast:

quote:<HR>When you train faster than current lactate threshold pace, you accumulate lactate rapidly, so you won't be training your muscles to work hard without accumulating lactate. During these workouts, the more time that you spend at your lactate threshold pace, the greater the stimulus for improvement.<HR>