By entering these forums you agree to our Rules
click on the logo to return to our homepage
| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| D.Jozast |
| ||
 Seems like the author of Lore of Running, Tim Noakes, MD, is inclined to take some very different views in regard to training & ExPhys. Am I reading correctly that he does not believe in the standard MaxVO2 theory of the Max plateau? Is he also saying that that there is no Lactate turn point? I need to read closer but he appears to say that there is not correct training zones similar to most coaches/experts are saying here on this board. All in all his view points seem to fly in the face of commonly held training dogma, or my understanding of them. !?? |
| tinman |
| ||
|
I do agree with Dr. Noakes. He is the man. He has presents very sound logic for his theories and enough lab testing to make it all shine. All bioenergetics lie on a continuum. No island unto itselt, so to speak! Why does he say that there is no max VO2 plateau? I think he is saying that the quantity of oxygen goes up proportionally to the workload; plain and simple. So, if one can push a greater workload, one can achieve a higher max VO2 value. He statest that the max VO2 is far less of a predictor of aerobic success in sport as the peak velocity at which one can achieve on a treadmill or bicycle ergometer, etc. There is at least one caveat, I think. A subject being tested for peak velocity, i.e. peak workload, has to incrementally rise higher and higher predetermined prorgression steps. You simply can't expect a subject to have an enormous quantitative value for aerobic capacity if they go from standing still to running full-bore on a treadmill. Peak lacitc acid will set in quickly and there is no way that peak oxygen values for the subject can be recorded. On the other hand, if incrementally one staircases the workloads ever-higher, the one who reachest the highest speed, grade,etc will be the one with the highest recorded oxygen value, he says. Hopefully I framed his theory or premise correctly. Jack Daniels and others have said that for 30 years too. That is why he calculates velocity of max VO2 and gives f factors for training paces based on the peak velocity achieved. Jack's VDOT are hypothetical VO2 max values. What he really cares about is the correlative velocity one could achieve for VO2 max based on time against distance. Please correct me if that is not on the money, Jack. Regarding lactate turnpoint and lactate threshold. Dr. Noakes makes a great case, one that I asked our lab technical guru back in the 1980s. I said, "what if we used smaller jumps in speed (velocity really) on the treadmill or smaller wts. on the Monarch stationary bike to increase the resistance each stage of testing? Would we still have an abrupt point on the lactate curve?" I was asking the same question that others before me asked. Was it possible to have no lactate threshold or in Noakes terms "turnpoint?" Anyway, it seems plausible that fine tuning the increments from one velocity where blood is drawn for lactate testing and the next stage would create a fairly curvilinear set-up on a plot graph rather than an abtuse angular looking picture once thought to represent some major shift in metabolism. When it comes down to training, what we need to consider is the whole package: aaerobic endurance, aerobic power, anaerobic endurance, anaerobic power in both lactic and alactic contexts. The real question is this: "If there is no true threhsold, per Dr. Noakes, does it make the training any less effective if we use the velocity that approximates the threshold that we have using less fine-tuned protocols?" I think science and emperical evidence suggest that it is not that important to be too picky. |
| D.Jozast |
| ||
Tinman you say you agree with Noakes/Non-LT, but you are still concerned with the velocity at an apprx LT. You can't have it both ways. Why not be more concerned with using MLSS where you are trying to pin point that absolute fastest velocity over time where there shows little to no rise in lactate concentrations (pg 158 Fig 3.22D Noakes). Not trying to get picky but is Noakes-Turnpoint the same as MLSS? Is this point in the Lactate profile the Holy Grail? From what I read of HADD', I got the feeling he believed that this turn point should not be crossed over too often to gain a better Lactate profile. Noakes seems to fly in the face of the popular view. Sorry about the questions being so long. |
| tinman |
| ||
|
You may want to consult a computer software program produced by Lactate.com to get your full answer. Statistically, MLSS (maximum lactate steady state) is not as reliable as either LT or 4.0 mmol at predicting performance capacity for racing the 5km and longer. I use LT in discussions, but I do so as a courtesy to others who are familiar with it. If you read my posts from 3 weeks ago or longer, I have stated that I support a range of paces for stamina development. I have said that any training at paces one could hold for races in the 1-hour to 3-hour zone are good for developing stamina, my term for that area betwen what others in the past have termed anaerobic to aerobic threshold. Some call the one-hour time the lactate threshold velocity. Some call it MLSS, but that is not exactly the same, though close. Some call the 60 min mark the 4 mmol point, but that is true for not everyone, though 4 mmol itself is an excellent predictor of performance capacity for distance events 5k and longer. None of it matters that much because the region of rise falls within the paces that realate to three hour to one hour racing, perhaps faster even. I throw out another term that I think might catch on. I did not invent it. I don't know who did, but it fills a need: CV or crtical velocity. I consider 5k pace / .9533 to place one's 5k race time near the 45 minute mark of racing. I made that number up to fit my idea of an important area that can be of great help. Some Canadian research showed that the pace just slower than 10k pace (for the subjects in the study) was ideal for improving the LT or 4 mmol pace or MLSS (almost), Lactate turnpoint, or whatever the flavor of the day is. What really matter is that subjects in that study showed more improvements in their pace at which LT occured that actually training at the slower LT pace (approximate 60 minute race pace...and this in not 100% either). By training at 45 minute CVP (critical value pace) (my crazy term) one can maximize their improvements with minimal time invested. I think it will be a new wave, but we will see. Some people out there in grad research land will pick up on this concept and try to either validate the original research of manipulate it somehow and come up with better recipes for the cake mix. |
| TyGrand |
| ||
|
I'm not very familiar with Noaks yet, just bought the book. However I do know that Hadd did say not to cross the line too often, and if you did only at the end of a run for a very short period. That might not help much, but i thought i would share :) |
| jtupper |
| ||
|
Tinman: I coined the term vVO2max (the slowest velocity that coincides with your VO2max, when you matematically extrapolate your economy curve out to your max) for a couple reasons. (1) It puts some sense in the labs that come up with 92 VO2max for runners who don't run that fast,or who are beaten by runners with a 78 max. Often this (high maxes) is due to poor equipment calibration. So I figure if system A is giving high Vo2 values, the max may be high, but by the same token submax data will also be high so they balance each other out. (2) It gives real credit to runners who are economical and don't have that high a max. I never tested Shorter, but I understand he falls in that category. I have tested a marathoner who ran under 2:10 at Boston (20 years ago) and never tested with higher than a 70.4 VO2max. His economy was outstanding however so his vVO2max was up there. Another male marathoner and a good female marathoner had nearly identical max (very high for a female, average for a male elite), but they didn't run similar marathons because of superior economy and a higher vVO2max in the guy (men are not always more economical, but in this case he was). vVO2max varied by enough to give the male over a minute advantage in every 13-1/2 minutes of running -- maybe 10 minutes in a marathon (they were 12 minutes apart in a marathon). As often happens, my original definition of vVO2max has been changed ( I guess people liked the term, but wanted a different definition) by various individuals -- ie. the fastest speed you reach in an incremental test. The threshold thing is another matter. I like to think there is a steady-state of lactate accumulation, but it probably varies from day to day. I have had runners repeat miles with 1minute rests and have a 7 mmole lactate after each one, and feel pretty good doing it. I've tested a couple runners who couldn't get higher than a 5 at the end of a max test. There is a positive about using a standard value (4.0 for example) if you will be testing the same person periodically -- if the velocity of running associated with 4 keeps going up, you certainly must be improving. No doubt it is hard to find a sharp deflection point with small velocity increments. More important may be at what point along that curve will the value stay stable if you were to continue running for 20 minutes at the same speed. And the ventilatory threshold can be manipulated almost at will. Good thing it isn't all that clear cut or we wouldn't need any coaches -- just scientists. |
| wondering |
| ||
|
Hey tinman: Thanks for all the information! In trying to make sense of all this, I get two distinct and somewhat contradictory impressions. I wonder if you could tell us which is right (or if neither, then tell us that). 1. CONTINUITY Aerobic development is stimulated by all work between 3K pace (not something you refered to here, but elsewhere) and 3-hour race pace. The two keys are to avoid anaerobic endurance (for the faster stuff, that means you should have generous recovery periods between efforts) and to visit all regions of the continuum regularly. Don't do all aerobic endurance at marathon pace, or 5K pace, or any other single pace. Mix it up, with the balance depending on your physiological type and the race you're preparing for. (Also do some striders, hills, etc., but my question here is about aerobic development.) 2. ISLANDS Within the aerobic continuum above, there are certain key paces that are more effective than others. Maybe it's 5K pace and 45-minute race pace, for example. You appear to be suggesting the latter with your critical velocity comment, though I may be misinterpreting it. The continuity model is more appealing, at least to me, because my pace/effort ratio varies widely enough in training to obliterate all the significant digits that one usually sees in training zone prescriptions. But my liking it better doesn't make it true. Any comments appreciated! |
| tinman |
| ||
|
Wondering: Good points you make! About point #1: As a general rule, 3k pace training and slower develops aerobic capacity. However, that darn energy continuum comes into play after 4 seconds of exercise, accoring to Jan Olbrecht, research scientist, and former world class swimmer. In my opinion, one of the worst things to happen to sports was the incorrect analysis of energy contributions relative to exercise duration based on the oxygen debt model. It was assumed that the amount of oxygen consumed after exercise stopped (above normal resting values) was related to how much oxygen was really needed to perform the exercise. The following is an example of what I am talking about: A person runs at maximal effort on a treamill traveling 400m and consumes 3 liters of oxygen (measured by instruments). After running, the instruments still record his/her respriration values. Our runner huffs and puffs for a couple minutes and then continues to breath above resting value for a few more minutes consuming 27.5 liters of oxygen total . Once our runner stops breathing above his/her normal values, the test stops. We record the total amount of oxygen consumed in the three scenarios and compare them. We estimate that the real amount of oxygen consumed was 3 liters and the payback (ox debt or deficit) was 27 liters. Ridiculous, I say! The real cost of oxygen is not the same as the amount of O2 consumed after exercise because of simple reasons such as thermoregulation and hormonal concentrations in the bloodstream. If you are sitting still right now and we inject some catecholamines into your blood stream, you respiration rate will rise a bunch and that has nothing to do with anaerobic activity. Too, when you run 400m all-out, you burn a lot of kilocalories and generate a ton of heat. Your body has to get back to equilibrium, so respiration aids that intense ciruclation of blood that tries to dissipate heat. So, all that oxygen consumed after the run and above normal resting values is not due to anaerobic requirements. I wish I head all my research folders in front of me. My ex-wife burned most of my work folders from the late 80s and early 90s but if someone out there can find the research done by two scientists in Montreal who showed (using radio-isotopes or phoshpate marked isotopes) the actual aerobic an anaerobic energy values during an all-out 90 second run you would be amazed at how much of the actual energy contribution conmes from aerobic metabolism. Karpovich also had some good info. about kcal use relative to energy contributions for various time-distance activities. He might, for example, have shown in his research that 80% of energy derived from 60 seconds of all-out running comes from aerobic kcals and only 20% comes from anaerobic kcals. If anyone has Jan Olbrecht's new book called Science of Winning, on page 78 you can see what I mean about the amount of aerobic energy used to generate force is already extremely high for short events like the 100m swim (equivalent to a 400m run). The total aerobic energy used to compete in a 100m swim (400m run in about 45 seconds) is 65% aerobic and 35% anaerobic. The total amount of aerobic energy used to generate force for a 400m swim (1600m run) is about 82%; anaerobic is 18%. Now, here is the kicker and it relates to what those bright Canadian researchers (I think their names were Perronet and Thiebault, not 100% sure) showed: though the total energy used to generate force for a 400m run in 45 seconds may indeed be 65% aerobic and 35% anaerobic, but the amount of energy produced during that whole time frame (say 45 seconds) shifts dramatically along the continuum such that with each passing second more and more energy is derived from aerobic metabolism. The Montreal research showed that already at the 30 seconds mark about 50% of energy used to generate force was aerobic. By about a minute a little over 80% of energy is derived aerobically. By 90 seconds over 93% is derived aerobically. ...more on next post. |
| tinman |
| ||
|
Now, as an extension of my previous post in response to the first sentence of our poster "wondering", I will conclude here that all paces slower than an all-out short sprint have aerobic value. So, in actuality, we can say that 3k pace and slower is not the whole story. We can instruct a bunch of college non-runners who signed up for their manadatory p.e. credit, taking jogging and fitness, to test their abilities by having them run an all-out 600m in week one. Let's assume they are all healthy and can actaully run that far. Let's say the average person runs the 600m in 2:30 at 100% effort. Now, if we have them run 200m reps at the 600m pace they ran as part of our twice weekly interval workouts (doing absolutely no warm-up or cooldown running or jogging between interval 200s) and have them do that for a month, guess what happens? You got it, their aerobic capacity improves a lot. Well, if running 600m pace or the pace you can run for just 2:30 is supposed to be so darn anaerobic like those oxygen debt model charts show, then why on earth are their aerobic capacities jumping 15% in a month's time? Because, my friends, the 600m avereage pace was really quite aerobic, despite the fatigue and the huffing and puffing. The old models are seriously wrong. After about 90 seconds, more than 90% of the energy derived is from aerobic processes. |
| tinman |
| ||
|
In running terms, people like Seb Coe ran a bunch of intervals and improved both their Max VO2 and vVO2 to super high levels, despite not running much slower mileage. Those darn workouts o 20-30 x 200m at 1500m pace actually do improve aerobic capacity a lot because the reps are only aout 75% his sprinting speed (21.3 seconds personal best / .75 = 28.4). Anything up to 80% of sprinting speed will improve aerobic capacity. Look at Hicham El.G or Haile G. running repeat 1000s in the winter in 2:30. Are they doing anaerobic work? No, not at all. 2:30 per 1000m equals 30 seconds per 200m. Their personal best of around 21.5 and 22 seconds for 200m relative to their average pace of 30 seconds per 200m (their mean pace for the 1k repeats) is 66.6% and 71.66%; both aerobic. |
| CarolinaRunner |
| ||
Ouch!
According to Essentials of Exercise Physiology (McArdle, Katch, and Katch), "In intense exercise that lasts 2 minutes, about half of the energy is supplied by the ATP-CP and lactic acid systems, and aerobic reactions supply the remainder." This is from the 1994 edition, so maybe more recent research displaces these numbers. A table adapted from Astrand and Rodahl Textbook of Work Physiology gives the following numbers: 10 seconds = 90% anaerobic/10% aerobic 30 seconds = 80% anaerobic/20% aerobic 60 seconds = 70% anaerobic/30% aerobic 2 minutes = 50% anaerobic/50% aerobic 4 minutes = 35% anaerobic/65% aerobic 10 minutes = 15% anaerobic/85% aerobic 30 minutes = 5% anaerobic/95% aerobic 1 hour = 2% anaerobic/98% aerobic 2 hours = 1% anaerobic/99% aerobic Just throwing these numbers out there. |
| tinman |
| ||
|
In point #1, you mentioned that one should avoid doing anaerobic endurance activity. To a point, I agree. However, their is a time and place for anaerobic training efforts. The big thing about doing long recoveries between faster intervals is to make it possible to stimulate the correct neural-motor units to fire and to increase power output. Let's use a 400m sprinter as an example. He or she needs to have a lot of anaerobic endurance, some would think. I disagree a little bit. Dr. Costill speaks of very limited transer of anaerobic endurance training to improvements in the sprint events. I think the keys to increasing 400m race performance are these: 1)improved anaerobic power; 2)improved aerobic power; 3)improved efficiency/economy...better form, for example; 4)improved pacing strategy. I want a 400m runner to do two key workouts: short sprints of 50 to 150m at close to 90% effort (once in shape) with long jog-walk recoveries. None of this crazy 60 second rest garbage. Each rep is high speed and relaxed. You don't teach power when motor-neural units are tired. (This is one of Jack Daniels key points!). The other workout is longer repetitions at fast paces. I use 300-600m reps at close to 90% effort (when in shape). The athletes jog and walk twice the distance of the reps and maybe more. There is no sense in having them run slowly, so let them keep moving until they can hammer away again with some intensity. To a degree, I think that short rests hurt distance runners too. Sure, if a person runs a bunch of 200s at 70% velocity they are using aerobic processes, so short rests are fine and probably a good idea. Renata Canova, Seb C., and Hicham may all run 20-30 x 200m at 70-75% velocity with short rests and be totally aerobic at 28 seconds per 200m. But, take a runner with 25 second 200m speed and have them run a bunch of 200s in 28 seconds and you creat distaster unless you plan on doing those workout 10-6 weeks prior to peaking and then get away from them and build back your aerbic capacity and generate some sharpness. Same goes for long repetitions. If I am given a choice between having my 5km runner doing 3 x1 mile at 3k pace with 5 minutes of jogging between and 3 x 1 mile at 5km pace with 2 minutes of jogging, I will likely take the faster workout with longer active recoveries. If you want to run fast, you gotta comine fast running with lots of slow to moderate aerobic endurance training. About the continuum, I agree with you totally about running a variety of paces within that 3k race pace to marathon race pace zone. Smart thinking! You just have to be smart about spacing out your more stressful workouts so that you don't bury yourself. |
| tinman |
| ||
|
Sorry, but that book is wrong. It uses the same old flawed oxygen debt/defict model. It simply relates oxygen consumed during exercise to that which was measured after execise until the athlete returned to resting values. It has always been wrong, but it is the most common piece of rubbish, in my opinion, still being used. Someday people will look back smugly and say "what were we thinking." |
| thin man |
| ||
|
Is "tinman" saying that McArdle, Katch, and Katch is rubbish? What widely used textbook has tinman ever published? Tinman won't even tell us what his credentials are. What and where he received his degrees? Who is he to call McArdle rubbish? |
| CarolinaRunner |
| ||
|
He didn't say it was wrong, just outdated. Astrand's book (where those #s came from) was published in 1977. |
| JonnyO |
| ||
|
tinman, as i understand it, correct me if i'm wrong, a 45 second 400m runner does his race mostly aerobically. after the race he starts to pay back the oxygen debt, and this takes more than 10 minutes. of that 10 minutes a significant amount must be anaerobic metabolism for a few minutes and a significant amount aerobic for a few minutes more. now this observation is simplistic i know, but i need to explain it to young 400 and 800 runners, so they can understand what is happening. how do you think i should explain the energy processes to them, given your observations of aerobic metabolism in flat out 400m running? this concept will certainly be new to a 100/200 runner who is moving up to 400. cheers JonnyO |
| thin man |
| ||
my bad. thanks for the clarification |
| tinman |
| ||
|
I am simply saying that the energy continuum steadily shifts toward the aerobic end as time passes. In a 400m run, the first 4 seconds engery is derived from pur anaerobic alactic processes. But, after that a mix of all three systems takes place. Aaerobic glycolysis is the slowest generator per unit time of ATP, so it won't be up to snuff quickly. But, by time one gets to the 30 second mark, already at that exact moment, aerobic glycolysis is contributing an average of 50% of the ATP needed. After that, more energy is derived by aerobic than anaerobic processes. Now, the overall quantity of ATP generated during that 30 seconds or even that 45 seconds per anaerobic processes is very high, especially since ATP are generated more quickly in anaerobic alactic and anaerobic glycolytic processes. My two primary points of this topic are these: 1)energy (ATP) generation rides a continuum and the mixture changes rapidly, very rapidly, despite sensations of fatigue from ca-phophate shutdown (see poster Phoenix for details, he is an expert at this, in my opinion) or hydrogen ionds for lactic acid; 2)development of the aerobic system is even important for 400m runners, especially after 30 seconds of running. So, a 400m runner needs long intervals at 800 to 1500m to improve both anaerobic power and aerobic power and some extra long intervals at pace closer to 1500 or 3km too plus their normal short/fast repetition runs. An 800m runner needs the aerobic power work that often 1500m runners get in training and 400m speed training. An 800m runner will not achieve their personal best without improving their aerobic power. Aerobic power can be improved with either a bunch of short intervals at about 1500m pace with jog recoveries or from longer intervals at 3km pace. Here are two workouts from the Coe/El G./Auoita arsenal: repeat 200s at 1500m pace or 75% of max velocity with somewhat short recoveries in quantity relative to conditioning. A simple workout of 8-10 x 200m at 1500m pace, jog 100m will be enough in the beginning. Later, up to 20 or so reps is a good idea for well conditioned runners. repeat 600s,800s or 1000s at 3k pace with jogs about half the distance as the reps. |
| D.Jozast |
| ||
|
Yes, I have Jan Olbrecht's new book called Science of Winning, do you think he on to anything we haven't seen before in training knowledge? Is he the Maestro as they say over on www.lactate.com? What secrete does he have that you could expose here, Thanks, Dj |
| tinman |
| ||
|
I am really tired...up late. I am on vacation, but still, the late hours of reading get to a person afterwhile. About Jan, he had an amazing mentor in Dr. Mader, along with Madsen and Hollman, pioneers of lactate research on world class athletes. Add to that the guy was a Belgian record holder in swimming and you can quickly surmise he has the balance between scientist and athlete. So, far I have garnered from Dr. Olbrecht the necessity of balancing aerobic and anaerobic elements of bioenergetics. Olbrecht's premise, that also of the many East German's he trained under, is that maximal development of either aerobic or anaerobic will not make your reach your personal best for an event, regardless of distance. He mentions that optimum development is key: balance between energy systems. As an example, if an athlete is training for the Olympic Trials marathon and they want to reach their best, then it would not be wise to overdevelop their anaerobic capacity because too much energy would be created from anaerobic pyruvate pathways. The result would be loss of pace in the last few miles of the marathon due to burning up of stored carbs (glycogen). You also would not want to have no anaerobic capacity to speak because your ability to create power would be diminished too and though your endurance is good, you simple can't go any faster. In the shorter races, too, extremes in development will never create personal bests. A runner can put in 120 miles per week at modest paces and race every weekend (which helps improve anaerobic process some) but they will never reach their highest levels until anaerobic development is a regular part of training. It really is common sense, but too often runners, compulsive by nature, tend to overdue the elements they think are crucial. Too much mileage to the detriment of speed. Too much speed to the detriment of endurance. Another thing that Dr. Olbrecht emphasizes is changing training every 6 weeks or less. He states that adaptationsto a given work load and intensity had two phases: fast adaptation phase (1-2 weeks) and stabilization phase (weeks 3-6). His diagram of progress shows that no more development occurs after four weeks. The following is an important excerpt explaining the process of using 6 week segments. By the way, for those who like Jack Daniels approach, he states that every 6 weeks you adapt training. He also states that you should not continue increasing the itensity, rather become more and more easy at a given pace. The soonest, he says, to drop the times for paces is after three weeks of proven progress. Very similar to Dr. Olbrecht's schema. pg 7-8 of "The Science of Winning" "For the improvement of the endurance capacity to take place, thousands of small cellular parts need to be rebuilt and/or newly produced. Some of them will be rebuilt quickly while others will require more time. * If the training load is increased too soon, only the cellular structures that can dapt quickly will be able to follow the imposed training rhythm. All the others will fall behind; they will not be rebuilt or, at worst, be irrevocably lost. As a consequence, there will be no homogenous development of the endurance capacity (my note, homogenous development means of both aerobic and anaerobic processes that create endurance) and, in due course, this may result in the swimmer breaking down and becoming overtrained. Moreover, it is important to reduce both the volume and intensity near the end of the stabilization phase in order to start the next training cycle in a fresh and relaxed condition." In the next paragraph, by the way, he states that half the increase in mitochondria from 5 weeks of training may be lost in 1 week of detraining (time off). He also states the losses of mitochondria and concomittant endurance capacity are not as great for athletes who have longer, uninterrupted training periods. Dr. Olbrecht really emphasizes the following: The right intensity The right amount The right time. Training must be individualized. This is no surprise for anyone who knew of the Bill Bowerman or Mihalyi Igloi methods of training: no two runners had the same progrmam. Even athletes competing in the same event need differing amounts of aerobic and anaerobic work, differing velocities too. Why? Because though two athletes record the same time in a track meet, one might have more aerobic power than the other, yet less anaerobic power. Jan states that it is critical for sprinters to have well developed aerobic capacities, not just anaerobic. Aerobic contributes to sprints, even, especially as the events go past about 30 seconds. (By the way, I just found some supporting evidence to my post earlier about aerobic contribution rising rapidly, even in sprint events. Not only can your refer to Peronnet and Thibault, you can refer to classic research my Margaria that showed aerobic energy reached 50% of maximum capacity already at the 23 second mark in an all-out effort. Peronnet and Thibault showed in their research that by 30 seconds or less 50% of energy is being derived aerobically and my 60 seconds over 80% (at that point), and at 90 seconds 93% of energy is coming from aerobic processes). Maximum Aerobic Power...their term...can be held up to 240 seconds and then it declines after that). So, you can see why Jan Olbrect is adamant that sprinters need to have strong aerobic power too. In addition, any athlete competing in multiple events really needs to haver aerobic power and aerobic endurance to recover between events. Jan states that the best sprint swimmers in the world have equal aeobic power to the distance atheletes. I am really tired. It is past midnight. Perhaps more another time. |
| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
LetsRun.com Get an Extra 10% off on Spikes/Flats from the leader in track and field/racing shoes Eastbay.com. You'll automatically see the discount at checkout. Email us at letsrun@letsrun.com if you have questions.
Watch European Track and Field Live only $4.95 a month on WCSN
Nike Pegasus Starting at $49.99. Special LetsRun.com savings on the Nike Air Pegasus. Save $17-$36 with $5 shipping.
Nike Mayfly $49.99. Plus LetsRun.com visitors get an extra $10 off if you spend $50 (just 1 penny more).
20% off the adidas AdiZero at Eastbay.com. LetsRun.com visitors get 20% off (orders of $89.99 up) using this special link. Eastbay has all the varieties of the AdiZero. So save on the AdiZero Pro, PR, Tempo, and more. You will see the coupon code in the checkout process. If you have questions email us at letsrun@letsrun.com.