Increase your LT by running LT's?

A friend on DM posted his run today which was suggested by the technician who did the LT test on his friend. Said doing a portion of your LT in this fashion will increase your threshold.

(3 min @ LT-10, 3 min @ LT +10) x 3 followed by 4 min recovery then repeat. You can repeat once for a total of 36min (not including wu/cd) or twice to make it harder. Giving you 54 minutes.

Example my LT is 7:10... I would do 7:00 for 3 min, 7:20 for 3 x 3 and repeat 1 or twice. Avg would be 7:10 but with the added benefit.

This seemed like a really good work out and this person uses it as a replacement to FCR runs every so often.

Thought I would share it with the group.

Interesting workout. Couple of thoughts/questions:

1. You start with the LT-10 first, and then run LT+10? That's a little counter intuitive, as usually you want to gradually increase towards your true LT. Any specific explanation for the reverse?

2. 4 minutes seems like a long interval. Daniels and other coaches that prescribe cruise intervals usually call for only 60-120 second intervals. Why so long? 4 minutes is a full recovery. Is this just to allow for a larger volume spent at LT?

So is the workout 18 minutes of continuous running with a 4 minute recovery? I think that is actually closer to tempo intervals than cruise intervals. It's seems like a good workout, although LT-10 can be a lot harder for someone on the faster end of the spectrum as it's a larger % of their pace per mile. Anyway, I like runs like that to break up the monotony and it seems like it would be a workout you could build up to.

GregC wrote:So is the workout 18 minutes of continuous running with a 4 minute recovery? I think that is actually closer to tempo intervals than cruise intervals. It's seems like a good workout, although LT-10 can be a lot harder for someone on the faster end of the spectrum as it's a larger % of their pace per mile. Anyway, I like runs like that to break up the monotony and it seems like it would be a workout you could build up to.

I thought it was: (3:00 at LT-10, 3:00 at LT+10, 4:00 recovery) X 3.

Kenny, clarify?

Dave-O wrote:I thought it was: (3:00 at LT-10, 3:00 at LT+10, 4:00 recovery) X 3.

Kenny, clarify?

I think it's (3 @ LT-10, 3 @ LT+10, 3 @ LT-10, 3 @ LT+10, 3 @ LT-10, 3 @ LT+10), 4 minute break, repeat till exhaustion.

Oh. At first, I thought Dave-O was right. Now I think it's 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4(recovery). If so, that sounds a lot like the "at/above/around" LT workout, which I've seen suggested for cycling in Friel's books.

GregC wrote:

I think it's (3 @ LT-10, 3 @ LT+10, 3 @ LT-10, 3 @ LT+10, 3 @ LT-10, 3 @ LT+10), 4 minute break, repeat till exhaustion.

That's a pretty tough workout, especially since the LT-10 is dipping awfully close to 10k pace.

For me this becomes a 2 x 3.3 mile tempo interval workout, which is hard enough in its own right, but now with the added difficulty of constantly dipping below your actual threshold. Not sure about that.

Seems Greg got it right, 18 minutes, 4 minutes recovery.

But I don't think I can repeat. Heehee. The most I have done is FCR for 4 miles about 25 minutes.

My second thought is why -10 for 3 minutes, then +10? Practice surge? Not a useful tactics at my capacity except risk for injury. My LT pace is very close to HM. I always like to run as steady as I can as sort of a HM pace run. In other words, during HM, when I feel the same as the LT, I know I need to back off a little.

Seems to me a workout for high trained runner, like Greg. Not for me.

GregC wrote:

Dave-O wrote:I thought it was: (3:00 at LT-10, 3:00 at LT+10, 4:00 recovery) X 3.

Kenny, clarify?

I think it's (3 @ LT-10, 3 @ LT+10, 3 @ LT-10, 3 @ LT+10, 3 @ LT-10, 3 @ LT+10), 4 minute break, repeat till exhaustion.

Correct!

Mike MacLellan wrote:Oh. At first, I thought Dave-O was right. Now I think it's 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4(recovery). If so, that sounds a lot like the "at/above/around" LT workout, which I've seen suggested for cycling in Friel's books.

Yes he mentioned that "at above around".

Dave points out this is not for the faint at heart. Seems quite hard IMO but not necessarily harder then 7 @ LT FCR. Something about easy off helps

Also Dave I would agree to run the slower part first but that is not what was suggested.

Jerry wrote:

My second thought is why -10 for 3 minutes, then +10? Practice surge?

I think one big goal for a workout like this is to get you used to being able to recover while still near LT or Marathon Pace. By dipping below LT for 3 minutes, your muscles will be accumulating lactic acid. You then will have 3 minutes to clear that while still moving at a pretty good pace. That's why this is something you will need to build up to. It definitely is tough, but I also think runs like this do a have a place for working on very specific, but very useful skills.

Edited to add: that is also why they have you do the first part fast. You're working on clearing lactic acid, so the real adaptation happens during the LT + 10 or the second portion.

GregC wrote:

Jerry wrote:

My second thought is why -10 for 3 minutes, then +10? Practice surge?

I think one big goal for a workout like this is to get you used to being able to recover while still near LT or Marathon Pace. By dipping below LT for 3 minutes, your muscles will be accumulating lactic acid. You then will have 3 minutes to clear that while still moving at a pretty good pace. That's why this is something you will need to build up to. It definitely is tough, but I also think runs like this do a have a place for working on very specific, but very useful skills.

A still fast run as recovery. That makes sense now. Thanks Greg!

But let me grasp a little better at FCR first.

To borrow Kenny's cliche, this is something on my list for the future.

Jerry wrote:

GregC wrote:

Jerry wrote:

My second thought is why -10 for 3 minutes, then +10? Practice surge?

I think one big goal for a workout like this is to get you used to being able to recover while still near LT or Marathon Pace. By dipping below LT for 3 minutes, your muscles will be accumulating lactic acid. You then will have 3 minutes to clear that while still moving at a pretty good pace. That's why this is something you will need to build up to. It definitely is tough, but I also think runs like this do a have a place for working on very specific, but very useful skills.

A still fast run as recovery. That makes sense now. Thanks Greg!

But let me grasp a little better at FCR first.

To borrow Kenny's cliche, this is something on my list for the future.

My list keeps growing sort of like my hair.

Greg good explanation and I agree I think one has to build up to this. Might be a good work out to do a few times during pre-marathon training when the mileage is a bit less and get you ready for FCR!

I originally thought of this the way that Dave did. Now that it's been explained a bit more, it makes a lot more sense. It's not an easy workout by any stretch of the imagination. It's like a combination of LT, fartlek, and intervals, all of which can be tough on their own.


It kind of reminds me of a workout that my coach did back in his prime, alternating 30 sec and 40 sec 200s continually as long as he could (which ended up being 2 miles or so). That's a slightly different purpose, but similar in the up and down pace.

Matt W wrote:

It kind of reminds me of a workout that my coach did back in his prime, alternating 30 sec and 40 sec 200s continually as long as he could (which ended up being 2 miles or so). That's a slightly different purpose, but similar in the up and down pace.

I've done a similiar workout - albeit not nearly as fast - and can confirm its a bitch.

Matt W wrote:
It kind of reminds me of a workout that my coach did back in his prime, alternating 30 sec and 40 sec 200s continually as long as he could

Was he an Oregon man? I think that's a Prefontaine workout.

GregC wrote:

Matt W wrote:
It kind of reminds me of a workout that my coach did back in his prime, alternating 30 sec and 40 sec 200s continually as long as he could

Was he an Oregon man? I think that's a Prefontaine workout.

Indeed it is. Rupp lasted 6 miles.

Kenny B. wrote:

Jerry wrote:

GregC wrote:

Jerry wrote:

My second thought is why -10 for 3 minutes, then +10? Practice surge?

I think one big goal for a workout like this is to get you used to being able to recover while still near LT or Marathon Pace. By dipping below LT for 3 minutes, your muscles will be accumulating lactic acid. You then will have 3 minutes to clear that while still moving at a pretty good pace. That's why this is something you will need to build up to. It definitely is tough, but I also think runs like this do a have a place for working on very specific, but very useful skills.

A still fast run as recovery. That makes sense now. Thanks Greg!

But let me grasp a little better at FCR first.

To borrow Kenny's cliche, this is something on my list for the future.

My list keeps growing sort of like my hair.

Greg good explanation and I agree I think one has to build up to this. Might be a good work out to do a few times during pre-marathon training when the mileage is a bit less and get you ready for FCR!

Yep. I would definitely try it, if ever, in a non marathon training cycle first.

Since you are going for ultra, it may be appropriate in the marathon cycle.

GregC wrote:

Matt W wrote:
It kind of reminds me of a workout that my coach did back in his prime, alternating 30 sec and 40 sec 200s continually as long as he could

Was he an Oregon man? I think that's a Prefontaine workout.

Well, he did grow up in Oregon, but went to school at my alma mater, in Nebraska. He placed 7th or so in the 1988 OT steeple, so he was no slouch, but not quite world class. He had some interesting stories about Willie Gault and Gwen Torrance.

Dave-O wrote:

GregC wrote:

Matt W wrote:
It kind of reminds me of a workout that my coach did back in his prime, alternating 30 sec and 40 sec 200s continually as long as he could

Was he an Oregon man? I think that's a Prefontaine workout.

Indeed it is. Rupp lasted 6 miles.

http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=500&ATCLID=1610164

[edit] Didn't see Dave's hyper link at first - same, but different article

Matt W wrote:
I originally thought of this the way that Dave did. Now that it's been explained a bit more, it makes a lot more sense. It's not an easy workout by any stretch of the imagination. It's like a combination of LT, fartlek, and intervals, all of which can be tough on their own.

Sure does look like a tough workout! After readings Matt's description of this workout it sounds like something Bill Squires would have his runners do.

charles wrote:

Dave-O wrote:

GregC wrote:

Matt W wrote:
It kind of reminds me of a workout that my coach did back in his prime, alternating 30 sec and 40 sec 200s continually as long as he could

Was he an Oregon man? I think that's a Prefontaine workout.

Indeed it is. Rupp lasted 6 miles.

http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=500&ATCLID=1610164

[edit] Didn't see Dave's hyper link at first - same, but different article

Another way I have heard about doing a workout like this is 200 meters @ 10k effort, the same amount of time as an interval, and repeat for up to 20 minutes.