So what's the hubub about threshold training?

Obama's healthcare plan will do away with it. Actually government will take over all training.

So no good answers? I was told that all people talked about anymore is how awesome Lydiard is and that there is no threshold anymore.

I think it's not a new rumor. Near as I can tell, what's being said is that lactate threshold doesn't exist, as a threshold. There's no single point where lactate accumulation switches on or off, but it just kind of starts happening, somewhere in the middle.

It just seemed like a threshold because of they way only a few points are measured, and lines are drawn between the points, giving different slopes which cross in the middle.

I think -- I didn't really dig into the subject. Seems to me that lactate management, tolerance, clearance, or whatever, still needs to be trained to be improved, with "stamina" training like tempo runs, steady-state runs, cruise intervals, etc.

rekrunner wrote:

I think it's not a new rumor. Near as I can tell, what's being said is that lactate threshold doesn't exist, as a threshold. There's no single point where lactate accumulation switches on or off, but it just kind of starts happening, somewhere in the middle.

It just seemed like a threshold because of they way only a few points are measured, and lines are drawn between the points, giving different slopes which cross in the middle.

I think -- I didn't really dig into the subject. Seems to me that lactate management, tolerance, clearance, or whatever, still needs to be trained to be improved, with "stamina" training like tempo runs, steady-state runs, cruise intervals, etc.

you're pretty much right. and yes, it's not all that new. nevertheless, tempo, LT, or whatever you want to call them runs are still baller.

Not quite. The issue is that lactate doesn't seem to fatigue muscles. Yes - muscles fatigue around the same time that lactate rises - but, if you were to inject someone with lactate they wouldn't slow down. It's a mystery - nobody knows what causes the fatigue - we just know it happens around the same time that lactate increases in the blood.

So, the point is that calling it a "lactate threshold" is a misnomer - because lactate isn't what slows us down. LT training is still important - we just don't know why.

neuromuscular endurance rather than energy system endurance....

1) Nothing in human physiology works like "a light switch." Which is a common misconception. Just as their is not a distinct line between aerobic energy production and anaerobic energy production. Both energy systems work simultaniously, it's just that the intensity of the exercise determine which energy system is the PRIMARY source of energy production. Even while sprinting at maximal velocity, the aerobic system is functioning to supply the muscles with energy, it's just that the PRIMARY source of energy produced is done so anaerobically.

2) Neb, I believe what you are refering to is the process by which the body converts glucose to energy (glycolysis). In short (and extremely dumbed down), glycolysis converts glucose to pyruvate, pyruvate is then broken down to lactate AND a hydrogen ion. The lactate is used as a source of energy. The hydrogen ions is the waste and as they accumulate in the blood stream cause muscle fatigue. This is the common misunderstanding most people have with exercise physiology. Lactate is not the "enemy;" it's actually a fuel source. It's the hydrogen ions that are the "enemy."

*I'm not an exercise physiologist, but I believe, from my readings, that I am pretty close. If anyone with a PhD in Exercise Physiology cares to confirm or refute my statements, please do.

Neb wrote:

Not quite. The issue is that lactate doesn't seem to fatigue muscles. Yes - muscles fatigue around the same time that lactate rises - but, if you were to inject someone with lactate they wouldn't slow down. It's a mystery - nobody knows what causes the fatigue - we just know it happens around the same time that lactate increases in the blood.

So, the point is that calling it a "lactate threshold" is a misnomer - because lactate isn't what slows us down. LT training is still important - we just don't know why.

While the original idea of LT does not hold up, there is still a connection between the velocity at LT and endurance performance. Of course, LT is operationally defined in numerous ways (30?) in the scientific literature and they all have a pretty good correlation to endurance performance.

Noakes believes that a threshold does not exist, but I see it as his playing word games. There is an exponential rise in lactate's presence in the blood as exercise intensity increases.

Training around this "LT" coincides with what is needed for endurance performance (or one factor at least).

I'm no PhD, but AFAIK you are correct. Any kind of physiological 'threshold' is going to be a bit fuzzy because, as you said, there's no light switches in the human body. Even something like the hearing threshold, the point at which you can and cannot hear a tone, isn't quite exact.

Also, yes, hydrogen ion buildup (known as acidosis) is now the generally-accepted culprit that causes fatigue during maximal and high-end submaximal exercise (read: running fast). Lactate, however, remains an ideal "measuring stick" of acidosis, both when the body is at equilibrium and when the body is in crisis. However, John Kellogg mentions the "isocapnic stage," when lactate ions are accumulating exponentially but hydrogen ions are NOT--this is when your body's buffering system (bicarbonates and phosphates in the blood) are "sucking up" the H+ ions being churned out by forming ATP anaerobically. JK recommends doing some training in THIS zone too.

Noakes' theory is different. He proposes that all exercise fatigue is a result of the brain "throttling down" the body in order to protect against damage. He believes that there are no thresholds, and that any pace is not sustainable indefinately (which, of course is true--it's the "why" that is the point of contention). A mainline ExPhys student would say that paces below the aerobic threshold are not sustainable indefinitely because of things like muscular fatigue and damage, as well as running out of glycogen, while Noakes would claim that the "central governor" in the brain will limit performances at all speeds, proportional to the body's perceived risk.

I do believe that Noakes does have SOME credence--it is clear that the brain affects performance in conditions such as extreme heat, where the brain diverts blood from the muscles to the skin in order to fend off hyperthermia at the expense of athletic performance. However I think there is sufficient physiological evidence to support the mainline acidosis-fatigue connection.

Run More.... & luv2run nailed it. I don't have a PhD in Exercise Physiology but I have a master's and those statements are consistent with what I was taught and what the evidence in my texts suggested.

Finally, some smart people on here who actually have some Exercise Physiology training and aren't just trying to sound like they know what they're talking about! refreshing...

Anyway, the "threshold" never really was a threshold at all, it was always veiwed more as a "lactate inflection point" in where the body starts to produce more lactate than the body can clear, thus building up a specific amount of lactate and H+ ions (depending on intensity)

The body is always making lactate, even when you are sitting down. It's just getting cleared at a much faster rate than it is being produced. As the guy said before, when you are running, it is a combination of multiple energy systems and one is dominant over the other at different intensities. When you are running fast, your body creates more lactate. What you are doing when you train is to teach your body to be able to clear that lactate more effectively. (As everyone knows already)

Hydrogen ions aren't the enemy, they are also an aerobic fuel, used in the electron transport chain. Also lactate production reduces acidosis by accepting hydrogen ions.

Yes acidosis has to be buffered also by bicarbonate and a lot of bicarbonate buffering is associated with hyperventilation, which increases the workload by the muscles used for breathing.

But if lactate production/accumulation is more gradual than in previous races you can avoid acidosis, reduce heavy breathing, reduce the workload of the muscles used for breathing and run faster.

So, at least and this point in our understanding of what is happening (no existence of threshold, etc.), the actual training paces are still valid.

Train at easy effort/pace, medium, medium-hard, hard, etc.

All of these paces can be correlated to some race pace.

wilco will love you baby wrote:

So, at least and this point in our understanding of what is happening (no existence of threshold, etc.), the actual training paces are still valid.

Train at easy effort/pace, medium, medium-hard, hard, etc.

All of these paces can be correlated to some race pace.

Yes, all the training paces are still valid. I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once told me....

"Coaches figure out WHAT training methods work, and scientist figure out WHY training methods work. Doing it the other way around is just madness."

wilco will love you baby wrote:

So, at least and this point in our understanding of what is happening (no existence of threshold, etc.), the actual training paces are still valid.

Train at easy effort/pace, medium, medium-hard, hard, etc.

All of these paces can be correlated to some race pace.

Exactly. Ex phys clown Owen Anderson, on the other hand, used to advocate LT training (he even wrote a book about it). Then some scientists started to question the existence of a lactate threshold, and suddenly Anderson went out and said that LT training was more or less useless and that runners should do only Vo2max.

So here's the time line,

In the beginning there was Lydiard, he advocated, among other things, the importance of tempo runs, extended efforts at a sub max pace. And he had lots of fast runners, so people thought maybe he was on to something.

Then, we had science, and science said the reason for this was because of the Lactate threshold. Lydiard was so great that he discovered it without science, but with science now we know why this is the most important type of training you can do. Now we have to call it an LT workout, instead of tempo, or whatever you called it before.

Now, science comes along and tells us that the idea of a lactate threshold is misleading for several reasons, one of which being that lactate is actually fuel, and not responsible for anything negative in the body. Anyone who calls a workout LT run, will be shunned by those in the know. However, this is still one of, if not the most important workouts you can do, only the name has changed.

My, how far science has brought us in training knowledge.

Lydiard never did training at the lactate threshold. Or if they did, they never knew it.

Lydiard's runners did a lot of "strong aerobic" runs--these were, at the fastest, at aerobic threshold. Mostly, though, they were in the 5:30-6:00 range. Hardly lactate threshold for an elite. Jack Daniels is mostly responsible for popularizing lactate threshold training, and he has used it (as have many others) to great success. The lactate threshold is not the aerobic threshold. They are very different.

Lydiard's runners did threshold type runs on a very regular basis. In addition to his 3/4 effort runs that we high end aerobic running (5-6 min. miles for many of his elites), a common type of run for Lydiard athletes were "time trials." Most of these were run at a fast, controlled pace. Both his 3 mile and 6 mile time trials were LT tempo runs.

eojtlc wrote:

Now, science comes along and tells us that the idea of a lactate threshold is misleading for several reasons, one of which being that lactate is actually fuel, and not responsible for anything negative in the body. Anyone who calls a workout LT run, will be shunned by those in the know. However, this is still one of, if not the most important workouts you can do, only the name has changed.

My, how far science has brought us in training knowledge.

Other than a small number of researchers who unsuccessfully tried to dabble into the performance training domain, there's been nothing wrong with the science nor the identification and existence of a lactate threshold and different performance characteristics at intensities lower and higher than LT. Nor is there anything wrong with the theory of training AT one's lactate threshold.

What's misleading is how many coaches and other "experts" have misinterpreted the LT phenomenon and used their faulty logic to try justifying certain types of training.

Blood lactate concentrations do not rise significantly unless the body is working at a level too high to process all of the produced lactate as a fuel source. No, it's not the lactate that becomes a limiting performance factor and whether or not you want to get into the acidosis it doesn't matter. Rises in blood lactate concentrations are ASSOCIATED with, not the cause of, decreased performance capacity. Under normal conditions there is no other reason than increased intensity for the rise in blood lactate concentration so whether or not the lactate is the cause or an association is moot.

The lactate threshold is trainable, and without an elaborate laboratory protocol it's not possible to tell if you're truly running precisely AT your LT. However, any run near your LT is going to help improve it so it's completely valid to call such a run an LT run.