I’ve been thinking about quantifying different types of threshold work after hearing about Marcus O’Sullivan talk about the idea of production percentages when using cruise interval type workouts. There are many things that go into measuring what a workout does for an athlete, both physically and mentally, and everyone is doing their best guessing to figure out what works best. With that being said, it is interesting to think about what effect certain efforts have from a more quantitative basis.
The chart above breaks down a few different workouts and uses the idea that on average, about 45 seconds of each rep in a broken threshold is spent getting to point where you are at your lactate threshold. For the 25 minute straight run, I just subtracted a minute although it likely takes longer to get to threshold, but maybe you are working above your lactate threshold later. This isn’t perfect, but it does create a model for discussion.
I think most runners are of the mindset that longer intervals are harder and harder is always better. Two mile repeats are better than one mile repeats and of course three mile repeats must be better than two, right? I’ve thought that for a long time, but Marcus has really made me reconsider.
Let’s take the example of 6 x 5 mins vs. 3 x 10 minutes, assuming we are using a 5:1 work:rest ratio between reps. For someone training for a marathon, these are pretty standard type efforts and both pretty doable for a fit athlete. However, 6 x 5 is much more “doable” than 3 x 10. The 6 x 5 is far less intimidating, less demanding mentally, and you are losing 2 minutes 15 seconds of total stimulus between the workouts.
If you think about 7 x 5 minutes vs. 3 x 10 minutes using the same model, you would get 2 minutes more of stimulus with the 7 x 5 minute workout, despite it being more approachable for many when comparing it 3 x 10 minutes.
In the 6 x 5 minute workout, a runner is more likely to be running with better mechanics and running at the proper effort when comparing it to longer efforts. The danger of longer intervals and straight tempos are an athlete’s tendency to run them too hard. There is a place for straight tempo and longer repeats for sure, especially the mental component they offer, but maybe they are better used sparingly. There also is probably benefit in going above your lactate threshold at the end of steady runs or longer reps, but those are demanding efforts and I’d argue training shorter reps at paces slightly faster than lactate threshold may be a better way to trigger that adaptation.
I don’t think this hypothesis is perfect, but it has made me think a lot more about why certain workouts are done and what they are actually accomplishing. If we’re trying to solve the problem of having athletes run faster, I do think smarter can be better than harder in most cases.
If athletes can do workouts successfully and feel good doing so, there is a lot to be said for that. You can still do a lot of work, but approaching it from a more efficient mindset may allow an athlete to stay motivated and increase fitness simultaneously. When it comes to putting in a lot work, both are important. If an athlete is constantly being beaten down mentally and physically, race day rarely goes as planned. I’ve been there many times before and I am trying to learn from those experiences.
Just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should.
