Aerobic Threshhold Training

I don't doubt that training will improve, athletes will improve, and coaches will improve. But you've given some very concrete "incredible" (as in unbelievable) predictions of the results of 50 years of these progressive advances.But then again, 50 years is about 3 generations of evolution for humans, and it only requires one "break through", so anything can happen.Let's hope we're still both around to see if you're right.

hhhg wrote:

You´re talking about power training=short term, I was talking about capacity training=long term. I haven´t heard about this "reputable coaching strategie". Mitochondrial buildup won´t happen under high acidosis, that´s why you should avoid HIGH lactates like I wrote earlier. I didn´t wrote "avoid lactate".

Does this mean that if you are doing high mileage (100mpw) with a 5k pace workout, a long run, and a tempo (20 to 40, sometimes longer), the 5k pace workout is going to decrease your aerobic gains from all the mileage? So, would it be more beneficial to drop the 5k pace stuff until the last month or so before goal race? Maybe substituting strides and 12-20 200s/400s for speed development/efficiency?

welInow wrote:

So a decent American distance runner could start at 28 seconds and get quicker, averaging under 27. He could then do 20x400 in an average 57 etc etc.

The important thing is to improve pace progressively to get the best average pace.

This simple training philosophy, which has been around forever, can be extended more and more as time goes by. We can store enough glycogen to do these sessions without to much stress, but you have to want to apply yourself to the task in gradually improving steps, and keep the focus to get the results. A very ambitious runner also needs a very smart coach, and that combination is probably an extreme rarity.

20x400m in 57secs means that you are running 8000m at or near ~1500m race pace at least, if you´re talking about the training of an elite 1500m runner which a "decent american distance runner" isn´t. This with short recovery? I bet everyone will generate overwhelming lactate values and reach very high overall training stress from the session. This is nothing else than a very hard or IMPOSSIBLY hard lactate tolerance workout. No matter how carefully you progress towards this session. Or if the runner uses shorter active recoveries allowing the lactate levels drop between the work intervals it would be closer to some sort of rhythm and specific endurance workout for fast twitch muscle fibers. And you say this is a session for neuromuscular coordination only?

Do you think that you are "a very smart coach"? Or are you coaching anyone?

hhhg wrote:

20x400m in 57secs means that you are running 8000m at or near ~1500m race pace at least, if you´re talking about the training of an elite 1500m runner which a "decent american distance runner" isn´t. This with short recovery? I bet everyone will generate overwhelming lactate values and reach very high overall training stress from the session. This is nothing else than a very hard or IMPOSSIBLY hard lactate tolerance workout. No matter how carefully you progress towards this session. Or if the runner uses shorter active recoveries allowing the lactate levels drop between the work intervals it would be closer to some sort of rhythm and specific endurance workout for fast twitch muscle fibers. And you say this is a session for neuromuscular coordination only?

Do you think that you are "a very smart coach"? Or are you coaching anyone?

No doubt. 20x400m (or fewer) when done at these paces (adjusted for my ability) will leave me bagged for days. Even if one's sole focus is to develop "neuromuscular efficiency", I still don't see why such a session should be done overly frequently. You need to run a _lot_ to develop your efficiency, and it seems to me that doing these types of sessions too often will render you incapable of covering the mileage necessary to develop.

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

Does this mean that if you are doing high mileage (100mpw) with a 5k pace workout, a long run, and a tempo (20 to 40, sometimes longer), the 5k pace workout is going to decrease your aerobic gains from all the mileage? So, would it be more beneficial to drop the 5k pace stuff until the last month or so before goal race? Maybe substituting strides and 12-20 200s/400s for speed development/efficiency?

It probably won´t decrease the gains from high mileage but it does create a high overall stress on the body if you accumulate too high lactate values, causing possibly some kind of overtraining and/or staleness when continued too long. These "too high lactate values" will make you stop the session quickly. Because a glycogen depletion in working muscles is one signal for mitochondrial biogenesis, you won´t be able to reach this state of fatigue optimally. The high acidosis harms the cellular activity causing the work of "the aerobic engine" slowing down.

Keep the 5k pace work in your schedule, but in base training period just make sure that you won´t build high lactates. Sessions like 50x300m@5k pace with 200m active recovery probably will create a high glycogen depletion in your specific muscle fibers used at 5k pace without high amounts of lactate. But this is just an example.

After developing the oxidative capacity of the different muscle fibers it´s time to start the harder aerobic power work.

Here's an interesting question for wellnow:

An athlete with a VDOT of 92.3 can run a 1:53:00 marathon.

An athlete with a VDOT of 83.6 can run a 2:03:00 marathon.

Given these VDOTs, what does that tell us about these athlete's VO2max, compared to today's elite athletes? Running economy? Neuro-muscular coordination?

************************************************

Yes, it's 20x 400 @ 1500m pace, for a 5000/10000m runner But the first one is somewhat slower and with a rolling start, 200 jog recovery and each rep getting faster, last one flat out. Hard but do-able, 2 days of easy running to recover.

The earlier session of 20 x 200 makes the 400 pace tolerable. This process continues with longer reps.

Yes, you're right that the runner must avoid too much early lactate production. The important thing is to avoid producing high power outputs in the first few seconds with the creatine phosphate system, because this inevitably would be followed by too much lactate production. There is still a reliance on all the systems, the anaerobic systems being:

Creatine Phosphate, Adenylate kinase, Glycogenolysis, Glycolysis,

And the aerobic, being the oxidation of Lactate and some fat oxidation in the recovery jog.

This concept of maximizing overall power output by limiting early power output is easy to demonstrate by the power output cranks used by cyclists. If they produce 900-1000 watts in the first 2 seconds, they struggle to reach 450-500 watts in short reps, but if they reduce the acceleration to 650-700 watts, they can maintain a high overall power output.

I think this is what Lydiard was trying to explain.

***************************************************

Yes, you're right this is not a session to be done more that twice per year.

rekrunner wrote:

Here's an interesting question for wellnow:

An athlete with a VDOT of 92.3 can run a 1:53:00 marathon.

An athlete with a VDOT of 83.6 can run a 2:03:00 marathon.

Given these VDOTs, what does that tell us about these athlete's VO2max, compared to today's elite athletes? Running economy? Neuro-muscular coordination?

VO2max is the same for the runners of 2060 as 2010 and 1960. Running economy is simlar, Neuromuscular coordination is improved in the faster runners with regard to speed endurance.

But you don't get that information from staring at VDOT charts, you just get an inferiority complex.

Interesting response. I would expect that all 3 must improve, and more, but I'd be pulling that opinion out of my, umm, out of thin air. We'll have to wait and see how the science and race times evolves.But you got the trick question right! (Well mostly.) You don't get any of that physiological information from the VDOT chart. The VDOT rating, per se, doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know, from your race time.

welInow wrote:

VO2max is the same for the runners of 2060 as 2010 and 1960. Running economy is simlar, Neuromuscular coordination is improved in the faster runners with regard to speed endurance.

But you don't get that information from staring at VDOT charts, you just get an inferiority complex.

This response is definitely interesting. Where did Lydiard address this?

Also, what about the effect of momentum? When you work hard at the start of an interval, it seems much easier to 'coast' from there. Also, I assume that the same applies in the 800m? What is your view on the initial sprint off the gun?

rekrunner wrote:

Interesting response. I would expect that all 3 must improve, and more, but I'd be pulling that opinion out of my, umm, out of thin air. We'll have to wait and see how the science and race times evolves.

But you got the trick question right! (Well mostly.) You don't get any of that physiological information from the VDOT chart. The VDOT rating, per se, doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know, from your race time.

welInow wrote:

VO2max is the same for the runners of 2060 as 2010 and 1960. Running economy is simlar, Neuromuscular coordination is improved in the faster runners with regard to speed endurance.

But you don't get that information from staring at VDOT charts, you just get an inferiority complex.

Well I'm glad we agree on that. My big gripe with Daniels is the lack of inspiration. That's why I'm a big fan of the Lydiard Philosophy, because no other coach gives it to you straight like he did, that you can be an awesome runner if you get the training right, you can just get faster and faster and the development is limitless.

Of course Lydiard called it aerobic development, and Daniels showed us that that isn't true, we develop aerobically normally and naturally as a result of growing and exercising the way a young person should if they are healthy and active. The true development which is limitless is neuromuscular, which is why drug free runners will always be able to beat the times of those who try to beat the system.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

*************************************************

Lydiard didn't address the problem in the same way that I have. He didn't have access to the same information that I have. He believed as most athletes and coaches did that there was an Anaerobic threshold, above which an increasing oxygen debt was induced, and that caused muscle acidity (acidosis) and fatigue.

The reality is somewhat different. As well as the obvious point that you have to pace yourself well to avoid a drop in pace in any run, regardless of how fast or slow, short or long the run may be, there are significant breakthroughs in exercise physiology which have been made in the last 30 years which show how the old ideas about lactic acid, aerobic/anaerobic etc must be disregarded.

But that doesn't change the undeniable fact that we have to practise and learn perfect pace judgement.

Lydiard new by experience and insight that pace judgement could be constantly improved in training and racing. I'm applying the same logic to the early anaerobic output, as we go from mostly anaerobic to more aerobic. Just because we can produce enormous amounts of power in the first few seconds, doesn't mean we should. We use most of our energy when we accelerate, that's fundamental phsyics, Newton's second law of motion: Force = Mass x Acceleration, so obviously there must be an optimum rate of acceleration at the start of any effort in an interval session or race, above which you are using fuel inneficiently and below which you are not trying hard enough.

If you follow this logic and put it into practise in training and racing as best you can, then you can get closer and closer to your sprint pace and hold the fast paces for longer and longer. This can be extended to longer reps.

In the 800m race, we have the perfect example of how easy it is to go off too quickly, but then again every race is different. There is no race quite like the 800 for tactics. Have you noticed lately just how unpredictable the 800 has become amongst the elite men? In a major Championship these days you just never know who is going to win.