Is "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated?

just run baby

C. Bass wrote:

just run baby

Thank you. Best post ever. (Seriously.) End thread. Out.

I don't rigidly stick to the zones, but I've found them to be pretty close if not exactly to what most elites are doing anyway. Anaerobic threshold isn't necessarily a certain pace, it's an effort the self-aware athlete can sense. As far as aerobic capacity and anaerobic capacity, those are just interval sessions. Long intervals at 3k-5k pace and short intervals at 800-1600m pace are both standard workouts and have been for a long time. The secret to optimal training isn't working out in the right zones, it's finding the right mix of workouts at the right times to bring you to your best. For some that means almost nothing but miles and steady/threshold runs. For others that means weekly 400m sessions. If it were really as simple as DRF, there'd be no need for coaches and everyone would be doing the same thing.

In short, zones are not outdated, but they should be used more of as a guide than a strict set of paces one MUST adhere to.

Training zones is an outdated concept in every respect. What you see in the book is just a toss in as filler but also to overlay old ideas to a new system of training.

Truth is Peter Coe threw out 98% of what he read on training and focused on what worked. He also rightly recognized that speed and stamina progression was essential,that excellent speed was officially inescapable to international success.

The actual approach Coe employed is much closer to the power-duration research from cycling. The bottom line: training velocities can be adjusted and volume often reduced for superior effect. We see the trend now towards more quality running year round. Moreover, the immense talent from Kenya and Ethiopia forces faster runners worldwide to attempt longer distances.

Skuj wrote:

But that was 20 years ago, and detailed analysis of the training of the greats (El G, Geb), as well as recent insights into USA resurgence, indicates that training within the specific parameters / distributions of the Subj Zones is no longer a priority for many at the top of the world.

Discuss.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Energy system training is still the critical component of any successful training regimen. It make look different, but a careful analysis reveals the same focus.

iCoach wrote:

Skuj wrote:

But that was 20 years ago, and detailed analysis of the training of the greats (El G, Geb), as well as recent insights into USA resurgence, indicates that training within the specific parameters / distributions of the Subj Zones is no longer a priority for many at the top of the world.

Discuss.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Energy system training is still the critical component of any successful training regimen. It make look different, but a careful analysis reveals the same focus.

Good question Skuj. Yes "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated because these concepts ignore the role of the Central Nervous system.

For example the long held dogma that we can continually improve 'aerobic conditioning' is false. Aerobic capacity peaks in well trained athletes when we stop growing. Further improvements are possible for many years despite the ageing process, because we can improve endurance by improving neuromuscular coordination, in other words, we can hold our stride rate and stride length for longer because we can improve our ability to concentrate on the task.

There is a general mythology surronding anaerobic capacity also, partly arising from a misunderstanding of what anaerobic metabolism actually is, but also from the fact that energy release is regulated by adrenaline and noradrenaline and thus you might see big improvements in sprinting speed which have nothing to do with improvement in 'anaerobic capacity' but rather from a higher state or arousal, the 'fight or flight' response, which naturally changes in response to how the nervous system reacts.

wellnow wrote:

Good question Skuj. Yes "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated because these concepts ignore the role of the Central Nervous system.

Not true. Any physiologist worth his salt understands the role of the CNS in training and how it dovetails with energy system training. They are inextricably linked.

Any physiologist worth his salt? Yes, but how many is that? Not many. Things are changing rapidly, but this has been a long time coming.

iCoach wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Good question Skuj. Yes "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated because these concepts ignore the role of the Central Nervous system.

Not true. Any physiologist worth his salt understands the role of the CNS in training and how it dovetails with energy system training. They are inextricably linked.

Don't bother with wellnow. His post made it pretty clear he's unqualified to speak on this matter and is just talking out his ass. Sorry, wellnow.

Grow up. I know my stuff.

If we can get past the very strange editting of this thread, I might have a lot more to say. Some very good posts have disappeared. WTF?

I really don't think that many physiologists are aware of how important the role of the CNS is. If they were they wouldn't keep talking about VO2max, nonexcisting anaerobic thresholds and nonsense lactate values all the time.

Fact is that you can run nothing but 7 minute miles for many months and still find that pace challenging and then suddenly after 20 x 200m a few times your normal training runs gets much faster without changing the effort at all. Why does sprint training even help long distance runners? Im pretty damn sure that 10 x 100m at top speed leads to absolutely no increase in oxygen uptake at all! And if the dramatically increased ability in transportation and utilization of oxygen should come from nothing else than a few session of 200m reps at 1500m pace really strange things should happen in the body. Strange things that could never happen!

Do we go from running 7 minute miles to 6.40 minute miles merely by increasing oxygen uptake? I really don't think so. I think we do that because we simply get better at activating muscle fibres - our neuromuscular coordination increases.

wellnow is not talking shit - he is damn right!

I agree with you and wellnow. The question I have is how do we improve this stride efficiency/capacity/whatever you wanna call it? Can someone please address that question from the neurological perspective?

the informer wrote:

I agree with you and wellnow. The question I have is how do we improve this stride efficiency/capacity/whatever you wanna call it? Can someone please address that question from the neurological perspective?

There's a section on "Neuromuscular" training in Run Strong. This isn't anything new, though it is often ignored by athletes and coaches. Just do stuff like 16x100m with FULL (2:00+) recovery between each rep, with the first 4 being kind of a warmup. The focus is on running as fast and relaxed as possible, which means you should avoid fatigue as much as possible, hence the short reps with long recoveries. If you do this you'll stay largely alactic since the phosphagen system will be doing the bulk of the work and glycolysis won't be revved up long enough to build up any lactate. Even 200m repeats are too long. You can't run very many 200m reps at near 100% effort before getting tired, and that's not the objective of this kind of work.

When I was in good shape in high school, the season I ran 1:56 and 4:13, after a good warmup I would start at 14.x for the first four and then every one after that would be between 12.0 and 13.5, working down, so like the first four in 14.x, second four in 13.0-13.5, third four in 12.5-13.0, last four in 12.00-12.5. That kind of training REALLY helped me in the 800 and 1600. Going out in 27 for the first 200m no longer felt like a chaotic all-out effort, and 63s 400m pace felt relaxed. Hill sprints are good too, but there you're working on power more than speed. Neither should be ignored. And don't stress this stuff too much. One of these workouts every other week is plenty. Just be sure to do strides after your runs and/or workouts often for maintenance.

There've been threads on this stuff before. Use the search function.

I probably should've used "neuromuscular" instead of "neurological", but your post helped shed some light on this often overlooked aspect of training. Thanks. How about ideas concerning weight/strength training? Any good links on exercises of this nature?

Strength training? There's WAY too much information on that for a single post, even a single thread. RunningArt2004 has posted a lot on this though. You can use the search function. There's a strength training section in most running books, or you can just pick up an actual strength training book and combine it with some more running specific info. Serious Strength Training is a good one.

An extremely brief summary:

1) strength training should be supplementary. Don't overemphasize it. Twice a week is usually good.

2) Try to focus on exercises that work a lot of large muscle groups (squat, deadlift, cleans, etc) and keep things short and sweet.

3) Ease into it. It takes a long time for tendons and ligaments to strengthen, months to years. Take things very slowly

4) Lift for strength, not endurance. High reps low weight are useless for a distance runner.

I could go into more detail and the physiology of it a little, but it's all out there. Go pick up a book. There'll be more info and it'll most likely be explained much better than I'm capable of.

Yeah, thanks. I'll def do my own searching around. Just didn't know if maybe someone had a quick reference pertaining to the training/enhancement of the contractile properties of muscles through a modality such as weight training. If I come across anything along these lines I'll post it here.

Guppy's comments are golden. A combination of various training methods is the best way to develop runners. Yes, runner's benefit from easy to moderate paced distance work, but they need a variety of intensities (many of them fast)to maximize performance capacity and efficiency. And, yes, absolutely, neuro-muscular control is vital to success. Improving force production while minimizing energetic cost optimizes speed maintenance.

Keep up the good work!