Renato, I am very interested in this training camp of yours. Will you be providing more information about it in the future? I unfortunately cannot make it to the Distance Summit on June 11th and 12th (I have a university function which I must attend), but would very much like to see the of your top athletes and discuss their training.
Hodgie-san wrote:
In the 70's & 80's most American Marathoners raced alot. Most of these road races were more or less exhibitions run for cash & prizes mostly all under the table payment of course.
Check out BR 1976:
http://www.bunnhill.com/bobhodge/Rodgers/Races/races76.htmA marathon in Japan against a relay team. That be some "specific endurance" running.
Runners of the time became adept at working these many races into their preparation for the really important ones.
This also helped market road racing/running in the USA as many of the same athletes competed all over the country head to head.
In Mosop schedule (thanks to Renato for posting) I see one race in three months, a half marathon.
Also see workout like 5x3000m. Substitute 15k race for 70's runner.
Accomplish much the same thing. I don't see the workouts presented as bettter or even all that much different in what is being accomplished.
Of course, the athletes continue strive for the loftier goals/faster times. Same as it ever was.
And the Mt. Washington race -- would that substitute for those long hill runs the Kenyans do?
I'm interested Rita Jeptoo who ran lisbon, santa pola, and rotterdam marathon. I think she'll run chicago marathon this year in a personal best time of 2:23:25
kenya be more clear? wrote:
J.O. wrote:But they have to have good legs on the day. .
YOU are calling out people on not being specific enough or scientific enough and you produce that gem? What the hell are "good legs"? Wanna add something by way of explaining why a runner might have good or bad legs on race day? ANYthing? You know, you being an exercise scientist and all.
*******************************************
Isn't it rather obvious, that anyone can have a good or bad marathon regardless of how good they are?
But if you're just trying to be a dick etc....?
Ross Tucker wrote:
Interesting discussion, just a few thoughts to add (not too detailed, but perhaps some time in the future more)
My personal opinion is that too much is being made of the lactate, though I recognize that this is the "measurable" molecule that is easiest for coaches to use to pinpoint the physiological stress of the exercise. I don't however believe it to be as crucial as seems to be suggested here, because lactate is really just a symptom of what is happening to the various process that produce and remove it. What it ultimately reveals, I would argue, is the degree of sympathetic response to exercise, and that's where I think there is likely a difference.
Just on lactate, remember that lactate PRODUCTION is the result of the flux through the glycolytic pathway. Lactate REMOVAL and OXIDATION are a function of lactate transporters (called MCTs in the muscle) and the enzyme LDH. And OVERALL lactate LEVELS are a function of the balance between production and removal/oxidation.
In terms of production, the capacity of an enzyme called pyruvate dehydrogenase to catalyse the conversion of pyruvate into Acetyl CoA in the TCA cycle is one of the key limiting steps in metabolism. Therefore, when the rate of pyruvate production is high (which is primarily determined by the ADP/ATP ratio, the NAD/NADH ratio and the calcium levels), the rate of production of pyruvate exceeds what can be taken up and converted into Acetyl CoA.
So when you exercise hard, and recruit more muscle, and use more ATP, everything is geared towards driving MORE ATP production and this is achieved by increasing the rate of glycolysis. End result? More pyruvate is formed. However, there's now a "bottle-neck", since the pyruvate cannot all be converted to Acetyl CoA in the absence of PDH at high enough levels. So another enzyme, Lactate dehydrogenase takes over and forms lactate.
To cut the biochemistry lesson short, what this means is that if the rate of the pyruvate production is excessively high, lactate forms simply because there's nowhere for the pyruvate to go. The key difference then, would be in the level of the PDH enzyme, and this is an enzyme that exists in the mitochondria.
As you know, the mitochondria are responsible for the chemical reactions that oxidize fat, as well as the TCA cycle and oxidative phosphorylation, and one of the key adaptations to endurance training is the production of more mitochondria. This enhances the ability of the body to produce ATP via oxygen-dependent means, and I believe this is the crucial reason why the lactate may be lower.
However, and this is very important, there is another explanation for why lactate levels may be lower, that is that lactate is used as a source of energy. For more on this, read Brooks' theories on the lactate shuttle. Now, there's been some discussion in this thread about "buffering" - that is a distinct metabolic process from lactate oxidation. I know what Renato and JT are talking about, but buffering is different from oxidation of lactate. Buffering does not produce energy per se, it simply buffers. In order to produce energy, lactate has to re-enter the muscle cell (if it is in the circulation) via MCTs, and then be converted back to pyruvate and then oxidized. Brooks' theory is that this happens in some muscle tissues (ST fibers) to reduce overall reliance on glycogen, and this is what JT mentions in his post.
To return to the question, it would be possible that this "new breed" of runner (a term I disagree with, but anyway, more on that below) simply produces less lactate. Studies are needed to look at this, for the simple reason that what you measure in the blood is the result of a balance between production and re-uptake. Therefore, those lower levels could just as easily be explained by a greater capacity to use lactate as they can the possible reduced production.
I suspect both to be true. There is evidence that good black runners have lower lactate levels than good white runners (this is for good athletes, not elite), and also evidence that they have higher levels of MCTs, the transporter that helps oxidize lactate. Do they produce less than average? Yes, of course, because they have more mitochondria and thus can take the pyruvate into the TCA cycle and use it more effectively.
Before one can convincingly argue that the lactate levels are lower because of "buffering" or oxidation, you'd have to measure production and removal (radioactive tracer studies, never been done on this level athlete), so it's a bit of guess to say this is what happens.
So you have a combination of less production and more removal. Also remember that the fat oxidation is probably exceptionally high. We measured this in elite Ironman triathletes, a sport where glycogen depletion is almost impossible to avoid. And the winners of international Ironmans have an exceptionally high capacity to use fat. The same will be true of Kenyan and other elite distance runners.
The approximate energy cost of a marathon is around 2500 KCal. If 100% of the energy for this comes from carbohydrates, that's 630 g of carbs. That's close to limiting. HOwever, even 20% of the energy from fat means 500g of carbs and 60 grams of fat, and so clearly the picture changes. 40% of the energy from fat (probably an overestimate given the intensity of a 2:04 marathon runner) means 380 g carbs and 112 g of Fat.
And note that this doesn't factor in the re-oxidation of lactate, which as I've mentioned, probably makes a significant contribution.
Anyway, is this enough to explain a jump, and a so-called "new breed of runner"? Not in my opinion, I think we're seeing marginal improvements - the last 6 world records in the marathon average 28 seconds of improvement. That is a 0.4% improvement. Even if the WR was to drop to 2:02:30 within the next year, it's still only a 1% improvement - that kind of tiny gain is not measurable through science, so physiologically, biochemically, even mechanically, I'd argue against anyone who says we are seeing "CHANGE".
What we are seeing is PROGRESSION, and it's probably driven in part by tiny metabolic differences as a result of training differences, the increase in high intensity training is likely increasing lactate removal and oxidation capacity, buffering capacity (again, two different things), and possibly, fat oxidation. There are some interesting studies in cycling that show that high intensity interval training has a profound effect on fat oxidation rates. So we're edging faster.
Still think it will be a while to a sub-2:03 though.
Ross
Ross, all stored glycogen and glucose is converted to lactate, there is no either/or.
Mr. Canova, will you have time at the distance summit you are speaking at in Colorado in June to answer questions?
If so, I will be there.
For those interested
Renato Will you ever give a speech in Netherlands or belgium?
I would certainly be a listener and pay the necessary amount of money to hear so.
JT
Relative intensity would not be of much value, comparing say, a 2:03 marathoner to a 3:03 marathoner.
They utilize CHO because they are running harder, not visa versa. Still the fixation on economy...
Most of these econonmy calculations would go out the window anyway with a strong tailwind, downhill. (Didn't Noakes publish a paper on downhill treadmill testing, showing important V02peak effects due to protocol?)
Doubtful calorie cost should be scaled/kg. And of course much data showing economy inversely correlated to V02peak and perceived effort.
The true peak lactate steady state would actually require the athlete slowing down as the run continues.
Thanks for the info,
You're right, that's not cheap. Looks like I better go sell some more equipment.
Antonio Cabral wrote:
J.O. wrote:Renato, why would the top guys use MORE glycogen and produce more lactate in a marathon? I don't agree with you.
They are producing less lactate in the early stages and using more fat, earlier in the marathon than less well trained runners, this means that they have slightly more glycogen available towards the end of the race.
But they have to have good legs on the day. We have seen how many of the best marathon runners can have good and bad days, just like any other runner.
If what you say is true why do long runs ? No need, because then the marathon run energy question would be to "produce less lactate using more in early run stages" and this would be done while train by short runs and not on long runs where the runner attempt to continue while to keep on the pace after the depletion point, that some call the "wall".
? That doesn't make any sense. The fastest marathon runners use lactate more efficiently because they are better trained.
Antonio Cabral wrote:
J.O. wrote:Antonio, Paula Radcliffe's 2.15.25 is just 3% slower than her half marathon. You could argue that her half marathon could have been faster though.
I don´t doubt that Paula marathon WR is a outstand result.
However for soem reason she wasn´t able to win the marathon olympics or marathon of big games.
Also on her marathon HM pb she wasn´t helped by 2 male pacers as she wasn´t in the 2:15 something very wired in a woman run separate from the men field as London does.
Anyhow thanks for the information.
Do you know that Ernest van Aaken in the seventies did write that the woman can do best marathon RESISTANCE RATIO than man due to more lipid percent relate to the man that on her can act as "fuel"/energy for the marathon run ? With this Paula result i think he is right somehow.
**********************************************
Perhaps a 3% difference between half marathon pace and marathon pace is possible for men and women?
The same ratio is possible between 10k road times (not 100000m times) and half marathon times.
I think that Paula's ratio of 3% is stronger than the best men, but perhaps her track times are not as good as theirs?
Fast oxidative fibers can use fat as fuel due to the presence of carnitine palmitoly transferase, but I don't know how much and I haven't found that information yet.
dsrunner has the day off wrote:
JT
Relative intensity would not be of much value, comparing say, a 2:03 marathoner to a 3:03 marathoner.
They utilize CHO because they are running harder, not visa versa. Still the fixation on economy...
Most of these econonmy calculations would go out the window anyway with a strong tailwind, downhill. (Didn't Noakes publish a paper on downhill treadmill testing, showing important V02peak effects due to protocol?)
Doubtful calorie cost should be scaled/kg. And of course much data showing economy inversely correlated to V02peak and perceived effort.
The true peak lactate steady state would actually require the athlete slowing down as the run continues.
1. Absolutely, relative intensity is of value! Are you telling me that I should compare running economy values for a 2:03 marathoner at a pace that is relevant to a 3:03 runner? How often do 2:03 guys run 8 minute miles? The pace needs to be at a similar relative intensity so that pace is RELEVANT to each athlete and the duration of sustained exercise is similar. Thus, at a given absolute speed, the 2:03 runner will be burning a higher proportion of fat, which requires a greater volume of O2 for the same energy equivalent. This is very relevant to marathoners, and why treadmill running at altitude appears to be different, despite the energy demand being the same.
2. No, the economy values don't go out the window with a headwind/tailwind. It brings a few other factors into play (primarily the runner's cross-sectional area or surface area if running in the heat), but again, we're not comparing apples to oranges, usually. We're comparing the 55kg kenyan to another 55 kg kenyan.
3. Why SHOULDN'T economy be scaled to body weight? Do you not carry your body weight when you run?
4. Running economy (measured in ml/kg/min) is in fact inversely related to VO2peak. But, why? Does this make any sense? We know good runners have a high VO2peak AND good running economy...so why the paradoxical relationship. There are 2 studies that show this relationship:
Pate et al (1992) - Very heterogenous group. I actually have spoken to Pate about this on several occassions. The inverse RE vs VO2max relationship exists because the paces at which the good runners had to run were not RELEVANT training paces for them...they were far too slow that the runners never ran that slow, and their economy was poor as a result.
Morgan and Daniels (1994) - very homogeneous group. The relationship probably exists because in order to be a very competitive distance runner (like the subjects that Morgan and Daniels had), you either need a very high VO2max or good economy. If you are one of those runners with a low VO2max, you need to compensate for that by having very good economy. Similarly, runners with high VO2max's tend to use "additonal energy" because they can, compared to runners with low VO2max's.
This point is addressed in Fletcher et al (2009). Economy of locomotion: beyond the measurement of oxygen uptake. The inverse relationship is simply a function of how running economy is typically expressed.
5. If you are truly at "maximal lactate steady state", no, you shouldn't have to slow down as the duration of exercise continues. This is the asymptote of the intensity-duration relationship.
jT
J.O. wrote:I think that Paula's ratio of 3% is stronger than the best men, but perhaps her track times are not as good as theirs?
eh ?
Ndereba Catherine :
1:07:54
2:18:47
ratio of 2.2% which makes paula's ratio rubbish in comparison
so what are you going to make of that ?
or
Kemboi Nicholas :
13:01.14
26:30.03
who's ratio 1.8% makes even catherine's look pathetic
let's clear this up about paula
here are her pbs :
http://www.paularadcliffe.com/stats/
58.9
2:05.22
4:05.37
8:22.20 CWR
14:29.11 CWR
30:01.09 ER, CWR
some caveats :
- buy/borrow her book : she quotes a tt c millemium of 4'01 ( presumably solo, so no drafting ), so that 4'05 is nonsensical
- she split 5'37 ( 8'25 pace ) in her 8'22 - she sped up in last 1k & was clearly worth at worst an 8'21 that day off even pace & that is again solo until homestretch when szabo just eked out ahead - no drafting for paula worth 3 or 4s
- her 14'29 is vastly inferior to her 14'31 in '02 : go watch the race - she jogged for 600m & then shot off running the last 4400m at ~ 14'24 pace - no pacing, losing at least 1/2 dozen secs for lack of such to 3k which is usual expectation on the circuit
- her 30'01 was run with some uneven 1/2ves & no pacing, latter worth close to dozen secs for such which is expected on circuit
in such circumstances, here is a suggestion : very rough estimate with just 400/800 times to nearest 0.25s let alone 0.2s or 0.1s :
58.25 / 2'02.25 ->3'59.0 , 8'19.6 , 14'19.1 , 29'50.1
there was nothing wrong at all with her track runs if you bother to read her book or analyse her races
here is that great 5k ( poor quality ) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEvUJXJ-nTE
jogs for 1st 400m, taking the lead in ~ 1'13 - running last 4600m in 14'27 pace
speeds up from that point to the finish line in ~ 1'50 - running last 4400m in 14'24 pace
another slow day, so i thought i'd have a go at what greatest 1500 - 10k woman of all time woud come out as :
wang '93, prelim estimate of nearest 0.25s for 400/800 :
~ 55.00 / 1'57.25 -> 3'50.5 , 5'13.8 , 8'04.4 , 13'56.1 , 29'10.3
caveats :
- that 1500 race, they ran a huge last 700/400 - have to dig it up
- she ran pretty damn quicker last 1k in her 3k
- obviously no 5k that year
- her 10k splits were 15'05/14'26 & just kept getting quicker that last 1/2
however, 10k may have been a tad too far as far as her optimal distance goes - theoretically capable of 29'10 off her 400/800 but her actual flattened out 10k time was possibly ~ 29'20
this is a very important concept :
optimal distance
( even if you set the wr for it/around it )
every time you post, i think of the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" quote...
ventolin^3 wrote:
let's clear this up about paula
here are her pbs :
http://www.paularadcliffe.com/stats/58.9
2:05.22
4:05.37
8:22.20 CWR
14:29.11 CWR
30:01.09 ER, CWR
some caveats :
- buy/borrow her book : she quotes a tt c millemium of 4'01 ( presumably solo, so no drafting ), so that 4'05 is nonsensical
- she split 5'37 ( 8'25 pace ) in her 8'22 - she sped up in last 1k & was clearly worth at worst an 8'21 that day off even pace & that is again solo until homestretch when szabo just eked out ahead - no drafting for paula worth 3 or 4s
- her 14'29 is vastly inferior to her 14'31 in '02 : go watch the race - she jogged for 600m & then shot off running the last 4400m at ~ 14'24 pace - no pacing, losing at least 1/2 dozen secs for lack of such to 3k which is usual expectation on the circuit
- her 30'01 was run with some uneven 1/2ves & no pacing, latter worth close to dozen secs for such which is expected on circuit
in such circumstances, here is a suggestion : very rough estimate with just 400/800 times to nearest 0.25s let alone 0.2s or 0.1s :
58.25 / 2'02.25 ->3'59.0 , 8'19.6 , 14'19.1 , 29'50.1
there was nothing wrong at all with her track runs if you bother to read her book or analyse her races
Your analysis is flawed. You may have a good mathematical model (in theory) about performance but it becomes invalid when you compare personal best from years apart. An organism adapts to current stress placed on it (common sense). Why would you compare performance from years apart?
Athletes do different training and different type of stimulus (strength/endurance). You need to compare within one year or better yet within one season for analysis of performance efficiency. If this wasn’t the case no one would detrain, when they take time off from running, and would be able to maintain fitness or build upon year after year continuously regardless of injury or time off.
I don’t understand why no one has understood why these numbers do not make sense. If Canova is using these measurements that were taken prior to Boston, this is further proof that the wind helped them perform at a higher level than they were capable.
There is no “new” turbo diesel athletes. A marathon at blood lactate of 4mmol/l is too high. One would have bonked running at that intensity. It’s just too much sugar burning at that pace to complete a marathon without running out of fuel. Also, you can’t compare that to Paula Radcliffe, published studies have shown her to have very low blood lactate across all intensities, not higher.
SirAlthough you are undeniably & indisputably "A Blaggard & a Charlatan"Jeeves, has informed me that to "Blackball" such, is a
"Negligently derelict of duty to the absurdly intellectually challenged, but a laudable activity"
I "laudee" you very much...