Pascoe's Euro race
Pascoe's Euro race
Thanks Renato. You must be quite busy this week?
Great post, Renato. Thank you for your time.
Renato,
You mention that all of your athletes have the SPEED to run PRs, so they need to work on SPECIFIC ENDURANCE.
Have you ever coached any elite runners who were unnaturally gifted in SPEED? So to ultimately improve race times, SPEED had to be a main focus of the training program.
I am a college runner (not good by any means) who has run 4:47 mile, 16:22 5k but can only manage a 60 flat 400. My 400 speed has not improved in 6 years although my mile and up times have gradually improved. I am also strong in XC. At this point, would I have to base my program on SPEED to ever get to the level of mid to low 15s for 5k? Or are there other training approaches that I could take?
malmo posted the following in another thread, and I know that most of us know that VO2 max numbers alone mean very little or nothing. But it makes me ask, for the sake of furthering the original discussion, why we have invented those "Vo2 max workouts". Is the main purpose of 6x800m with 90sec rest at 3k pace to "increase VO2 max"?
.................................................................................................................................................................................
VO2 Max doesn't mean anything
It's an oft-used and little understood term used by grad students to justify to their parents that their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this sciolistic fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up with impunity? Parents and other intelligent, rational thinking adults could not possibly decipher this code. Do not try to yourself. You'll only make yourself look foolish reciting the catechism of the exercise-physio-geeks.
This nascent science of exercise physiology was born out of a failed genetics experiment in the early 60s; the breeding of an economist and a sociologist. The offspring from this pairing would say more and mean less than the combined blather of the two parents put together. Common sense would have told us how this experiment would have ended, but stubborn researchers pushed ahead, nonetheless.
The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called PLACE, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are segregated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to infinity, the worse you've done.
One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is TIME. TIME is always secondary to PLACE in it's value. Neither PLACE nor TIME are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call COMPETITION. TIME does not supersede PLACE, but it is a way of comparing the PLACE of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of TIME and PLACE is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny from the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.
Long ago, TIME was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that TIME should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!
Physicists have proven, through complex mathematical machinations, that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either TIME or PLACE in value. Physicist Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."
So far, in the history of sports, not one award has been given, nor has there ever been remuneration for VO2Max results.
There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show...the list is endless.
92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist
92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder
91.0 Harri Kirvesniem, Finnish cross country skier
90.0 Bjørn Dæhlie, Norwegian cross country skier
88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist
87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder
85.0 Dave Bedford, 10k world record
85.0 John Ngugi World XC Champion
84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner
84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner
84.0 Lance Armstrong, professional cyclist
82.7 Gary Tuttle, US runner
82.0 Kip Keino, Olympic 1500 champion
81.1 Craig Virgin, twice World cross country champ
81.0 Jim Ryun, US miler WR holder
80.1 Steve Scott, US miler 3:47
79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner
78.6 Joan Benoit, 1984 Olympic Marathon Champion
78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner
77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner
77.0 Sebastian Coe. WR mile, 1500
76.6 John Landy, WR miler
76.0 Alberto Salazar, 2:08:51 marathoner
74.3 Amby Burfoot, US marathoner
74.4 Johnny Halberstadt, 2:11:44 marathoner
74.2 Kenny Moore, US marathoner 2:11:36
73.5 Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon runner
73.3 Bruce Fordyce ultramarathoner
73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman
73.0 Buddy Edelen, 2:14:28 world record marathoner (1963)
72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner
72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion
72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner
71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner
71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder
71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder
70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner
69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35
67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner
----------------------------------------
RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY
Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.
Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.
Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.
For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).
The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.
The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).
Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.
Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.
------------------------------------------
As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."
Bump
Bump - awesome thread.
The main purpose of "Vo2max workouts" is to raise the vV02max (speed at Vo2max).
vVo2max wrote:
The main purpose of "Vo2max workouts" is to raise the vV02max (speed at Vo2max).
But why is that particular speed so important? What about raising the speed at Marathon Pace, by practicing that, for efficiency and economy at that pace, if you are a Marathoner?
Hammmy wrote:
vVo2max wrote:The main purpose of "Vo2max workouts" is to raise the vV02max (speed at Vo2max).
But why is that particular speed so important? What about raising the speed at Marathon Pace, by practicing that, for efficiency and economy at that pace, if you are a Marathoner?
It is very important if you run 3000-10000m since those distances are run at around 90-100% of vVo2max. If you´re a marathoner, training at marathon pace is very important (the law of specificity: if you want to achieve something in a competition, you must practise that in training).
You sort of answered your own question here. 3k-10k are run at some fraction of vVO2max, so it would seem fairly important that if you raise vVO2max, the same fraction of that value is a faster pace for the race. And you do run marathons at some fraction of your vVO2max as well. Of course you could also say you run a marathon at some fraction of your best 1500 time, but that value would probably not be as useful as what fraction of your best half marathon time could you race for a full marathon
jtupper wrote:
You sort of answered your own question here. 3k-10k are run at some fraction of vVO2max, so it would seem fairly important that if you raise vVO2max, the same fraction of that value is a faster pace for the race. And you do run marathons at some fraction of your vVO2max as well. Of course you could also say you run a marathon at some fraction of your best 1500 time, but that value would probably not be as useful as what fraction of your best half marathon time could you race for a full marathon
The problem is, at least for myself, that if I do a lot of training specifically to raise my vV02max, my running economy at marathon race pace suffers.
jtupper wrote:
You sort of answered your own question here. 3k-10k are run at some fraction of vVO2max, so it would seem fairly important that if you raise vVO2max, the same fraction of that value is a faster pace for the race. And you do run marathons at some fraction of your vVO2max as well. Of course you could also say you run a marathon at some fraction of your best 1500 time, but that value would probably not be as useful as what fraction of your best half marathon time could you race for a full marathon
Thank you jtupper et al.
Wouldn't fractions or percentiles of GOAL DISTANCE make the most sense though? Why do Marathoners need to do any 5k / 10k pace? Shouldn't paces surrounding the Marathon, ie Half Marathon, and "easy" pace, be of prime concern?
I understand that all events can be expressed in terms of VO2 max pace, and if we raise vVO2max, we raise all other paces....
.....but why is it that we literally try to raise vVO2 with specialized VO2 sessions? Why can't we be more "event specific", if you will, and raise our goal paces, and by association, vVO2max, that way? Cart before the horse?
Skuj and you all
I guess that this thread
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=69041
and Renato´s post there is related with some of the issues we do discuss here. I advise you to read it.
Skuj,
I'd argue that specialized V02max sessions are more "event specific." Pfitzinger explains that V02max is the number one factor in success at races lasting from 3min-30min (1500m-10k). After that I'd say LT is most important. But don't think that I place this high value on V02max as a number...because as malmo says it really doesn't show that much.
Now for the marathoners I'd think that it depends on the runner- but generally some 10k pace sessions will help complete a marathon training program/performance. I'd think they'd help with your running economy at MP. You also need to have "gears" so that you can increase (or atleast hold) your pace in the final 10k. As Renato mentioned, paces around the LT intensity/threshold are probably the best stimulus for increasing performance- esp in the long term. However, you also want to attack the body with a wide variety stimuli (also Renato's words more or less), you need to bring about a training effect that is ever-changing and challenging...otherwise you won't improve. I think goal pace and race specific work is the way to go- but it just so happens that people don't know the right intensity to do workouts at...they don't know their limitations and just running "hard" isn't optimal. If you are training to run at workout that is "race specific" you need to know the exact purpose of the workout and not be training blindly, or just for the sake of going hard and being in pain. How do you know that your goal pace is reasonable? So we bring science into the equation, and you get something that is great: Jack Daniel's VDOT table that gives you a rough guidline of how intensity and pace play a role in training your LT, V02max, etc. You want to optimize your workouts the target those specific systems and finding the right "zone" makes them most effective.
Bump
Skuj wrote:
.....but why is it that we literally try to raise vVO2 with specialized VO2 sessions? Why can't we be more "event specific", if you will, and raise our goal paces, and by association, vVO2max, that way? Cart before the horse?
Because running at paces slower than 100% vVO2max will not improve your aerobic capacity. VO2max improvements come about primarily by running very close to, or slightly above, one's 100% vVO2max. Running at MP won't do that. Running at 10K pace won't do that. If you subscribe to the belief that MP, for example, is a definite fraction of 100% vVO2max, then you can improve your MP by doing aerobic capacity sessions. There is still a place for MP sessions, but not to improve VO2max.
vVo2max has made an interesting point. He pretty much stated that your Vo2max is not important unless you are training from 3k-10k and I would say 10k is pushing it. The reality is that everyones race distance at Vo2max is different some may be able to last 5k while someone else runs 3915m) What is the point of this number in training? Why do the extra mathmatical work? It means nothing to the person running the race. You don't finish a 5k and say "I just raised my vV02 PR." All you care about is place and time. Since very few people run any race at 100% Vo2, It is a generalization. There is not 3915m race. If this person is training at there Vo2max They are training at an arbitrary intensity as it refers to specificty and race pace.
Running dog has made a common misconception about training at Vo2 max. You do not need to be running at vVo2 max to improve aerobic capacity. Lydiard believed that any running improved your aerobic capcity. although this may or may not be true it has been showen that Long Distance running at paces much slower than 100% Vo2 have contrubuted to improvement in aerobic capacity by increasing the number and density of capilarys and increasing the amounts of hemoglobin in the blood. Running at MP pace will do that, Running slower than MP pace can do that. Im not saying that there is no benifet to running at aproximatly vVo2 max speed however I am saying that it is an arbitrry speed once it is broken into race pace and/or Percentages.
Coach Mook wrote:
Running dog has made a common misconception about training at Vo2 max. You do not need to be running at vVo2 max to improve aerobic capacity. Lydiard believed that any running improved your aerobic capcity. although this may or may not be true it has been showen that Long Distance running at paces much slower than 100% Vo2 have contrubuted to improvement in aerobic capacity by increasing the number and density of capilarys and increasing the amounts of hemoglobin in the blood. Running at MP pace will do that, Running slower than MP pace can do that. Im not saying that there is no benifet to running at aproximatly vVo2 max speed however I am saying that it is an arbitrry speed once it is broken into race pace and/or Percentages.
You have confused aerobic "efficiency" with aerobic "capacity." Modern training theory considers increasing capillarization, blood volume, mitochondria size/density, aerobic enzyme concentrations, etc. to be "efficiency" work which is undertaken early in the training cycle. After this work has been done, the emphasis shifts to "capacity" work which is defined as work done to increase VO2max.
More misconceptions, You are thinking of things too simply and independently. First of all, efficiency has more to do with form, range of motion, biomechanics and things of that nature, not so much physiological factors that occur insde the body. Yes those things also effect aerobic capacity but not directly in a physiological sence. Aerobic Capacity has to do with how well the heart, lungs, and muscles work together. Think about what aerobic (oxygen use) and capacity (amount) mean. Aerobic Capacity is actually defined as the amount of oxygen that can be used by your muscles. Now think about Vo2 max, ((V)volume of (o2)oxygen (Max)maximum ) or the maximum amount of oxygen your muscles can use. Your Vo2 max is simply a measurement of your maximum aerobic capacity. (Saying they are different is like saying this is a calorie not energy, calories are simply a measurement of energy a calorie is not an actual concrete thing you cannot have one without the other, That might be a bad example)
Capillarization, blood volume, mitochondria size/density, aerobic enzyme concentrations, (Ill add a couple) heart rate, stroke volume, and so on all have to do with how well the heart, lungs, and muscles work together, hence aerobic capacity.
Doing so called Vo2 max workouts will work on things like stroke volume while slower distance runs concentrate on capillarization. They are not independent of each other each still works on everything above in different levels. They are still both workouts made to help aerobic capcity.