
| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | |
| Leonard Luchaine |
| ||
| Hello, I am a young distance runner without much experience. I have seen your other works where your athletes use long threshold work like 4x5K, but I am sure I am not capable of such programs as I do not run 20K of intervals. I normally do sessions like 3x2K. My 2 questions: Can you provide 2-3 workouts directed that are particularly improving the lactate threshold 2 months before a racing period (cross-country)? 2nd question: I have no measurements like lactate monitors, etc. How do your athletes monitor that they are staying below the threshold? Is there some method that can be used to know this? I thank you for your help if you are able to answer. |
| XC Junkie |
| ||
|
I am not Renato, however I think that I could be of help here.... to improve lactate threshold in the preparatory period one should do the following: Run aerobic every day with on long run of at least 90:00 each week. When this long run becomes relatively easy you are now ready do start training lactate threshold. Key workouts are as follows: 1. 2000M trial: which will determine the key paces once every 4-6wks. 2. Reps of 10-20:00 @ 2000M pace + 1:30-2:00 once a week. Try to accumulate a total of at least 40:00 of such work. For you this may look like this: 4X 1.5-2mi, with 400M RE 3. Reps of 4-8:00 @ 2000M pace + 1:00-1:30 once a week. Try to accumulate at total of at least 20:00 of such work. For you this may look like this 3X 2000M, with 400M RE Finish off each of these workouts with 6-8X 100M strides and then warmdown. Good luck... |
| Tinman |
| ||
|
Lactate Threshold pace is about 8% slower than your 5k/3-mile pace. If you run 5:30 per mile (330 seconds), for example, then your LT is 330 x 1.08 = 356.4 seconds or 5:56.4. You can run a local race and then use the pace from it to calculate your LT. Otherwise, just ran at a strong effort, but slower than 5k pace. Make sure your breathing is not labored. I also suggest that you work on the Aerobic Threshold, which occurs at a slower pace than LT. Just add 1 minute per mile to your current 5k pace. For a high schooler, run 6-8 mile runs at this pace once or twic per week. Do striders to improve your leg speed, but not more than 600m worth total. For example, you might run 6 x 100m striders with 200m jogs. Tinman |
| dddddddddd |
| ||
|
tinman......easily my favourite poster on the boards.....you're like the gift that keeps on giving.....thanks |
| Predictions |
| ||
|
TINMAN TINMAN:I always save bits and pieces of your posts,because they are always so informative.Could you some day when you have time, put together all your knowledge.Your personal coaching experiences with runners is an accumulation of years of experience that many of us will never get. For example I just read a recent post of yours,how you have found that runners improve 15 second per mile in a race, for every 10 miles of increase in weekly mileage up to 60 miles,when the time improvment decreases at slower rate.Anything you could come up with would be greatly appreciated. thanks je |
| mplatt |
| ||
|
actually, my rate of improvement barely moves between 35 and 60, between 60 and 100 it increases dramatically. If I don't run 85 miles in a week it is barely what I consider training, it is more like resting. Even at the age of 42.8 a 60 mile weeks feels like recreational-weekend warrior type training. Sure, there are some pretty talented guys that are okay runners on light mileage, but I ain't talented. |
| Leonard Luchaine |
| ||
|
Yes, I thank you Tinman. Perhaps Renato can also answer? |
| Tinman |
| ||
|
You are proof positive of the Socrates philosophy: Know Thyself. Thanks for sharing your story. Tinman |
| Tinman |
| ||
|
You are quite welcome. Glad to help you! Tinman |
| mplatt |
| ||
You are welcome. |
| Tinman |
| ||
|
An interesting thing to think about: Is there an intensity threshold below which improvements will not occur? If you run 40 miles per week at 8:00 pace and you are quite fit (fit enough that 8:00 pace is about 55% of your max VO2), will running 60 miles per week improve your performance, automatically? Just because you increase your mileage, it doesn't mean you will become more fit if the intensity is below your personal fitness threshold (let us say 60-65% of max vO2). Now, pay attention, because the following is tricky. Let us say that you increase your mileage to 90 miles per week, instead of just to 60 miles per week from your original 40 miles per week. Let us say also that you run the same easy pace that is about 55% of aerobic capacity. Based on the statements that no improvement occured when you increased your easy running mileage from 40 to 60 per week, we might therefore assume that increasing from 40 to 90 at an easy pace would create the same dismal result; no improvement. Ha! Now, I've got you! Somewhere around 70-75 miles per week you started getting really tired and depleted in your muscle fibers that usually generate all the force for running at 8:00 pace. So, what now? You stimulate your body to use newer fibers to create force and they improve their fitness, which was never challenged before. As Peter Snell has said often, you stimulate fast oxidative fibers to contribute to the power output because the slower ones become exhausted as mileage rises high. So, in essence, you work on those fibers that are normally not called into play until you run at a pace about one minute per mile slower than 5k pace (we call this the Aerobic Threshold pace). In other words you end up stimulating your faster fibers to become better at using aerobic processes when your slow twitch, endurance fibers get tired and fall by the wayside at generating force to keep on chugging along at 8:00 pace. Do you see now that when you run slowly, you have to run a lot of miles to fatigue fibers? This will result in improved aerobic performance and result in improved racing peformance. Now, if we go back to 40 miles per week, but run it at 7:00 pace, which for this example is 70% of max VO2, well above the minimum stimulus threshold previously mentioned, we experience a different situation if we increse mileage from 40 to 60 per week. Instead of having no improvement in performance, we have a 30 second per mile increase in peformance, if we do this long enough to adjust to the new workload. This scenario is what happens to a lot of high school kids who run 18 minutes for a 5km race on 40 miles per week of training, then improve to 16:30 when they up their mileage to 60 per week. They had sufficient stimulus all along (they were 5-10% above the minimum threshold while running at an average of 70% of max VO2). After such a wonderful improvement in performances, increasing mileage from from 60 to 80 miles per week, running at the same intensity, about 70% for an average, as you up the mileage seems like a great idea. Will there be a similar improvement of 30 seconds per mile? Probably not! Why? Because somewhere around 70 miles per week a runner's body stops responding in the same proportions as before when the workload was increase from 40 to 60 per week. Maybe improvements of 15 seconds per mile happen when one goes from 60 to 70 per week, perhaps just 10 seconds per mile, but when you move from 70 to 80 per week, you only gain 4 or 5 seconds per mile, perhaps none. Once you reach 70 per week at the arbitrary intensity of 70% average of your max VO2, you have to figure out how you are going to gain improvements. Your choices? Increase mileage, but by this time, you realize that if you going to get more from your muscle fibers, you either gotta up the intensity or the mileage a lot. Realize what I am saying. Either increase the quality of some or all of your runs, some being smarter, theoretically, or increase your mileage by a big bump. Why a big bump? As described earlier, increasing 10 miles per week from 70 to 80 does not improve your performance more than about 4-5 seconds per mile and probably not at all form 80 to 90 per week. So, you gotta fatigue your muscle fibers a bunch in order for the mileage bump to work. I say, therefore, you better bump it at least 20 per week, perhaps 30 per week, if you are not going to increase the intensity of training. This is critical to understanding why small bumps in mileage, assuming you are above the initial minimum threshold, will not improve performance, generally. Once you are past about 70-75 per week, you gotta bump it a lot if you are not going to increase intensity. Think about it and consider your own history of training and racing. Tinman |
| Mucheru |
| ||
|
Another bump for Renato |
| Mucheru |
| ||
|
one more bump |
| jman |
| ||
|
Tinman: What is your "hypothetical runner's" VO2max? |
| Tinman |
| ||
|
Probably about 70 ml/kg/min. I just looked at my example, which is purely hypothetical, and the example of 8:00 per mile being 55% of max VO2 fits in with a runner who can a 5k in about 15:00. Don't sweat the details. The points about intensity or mileage increases being necessary if minimum threshold is not being reached was the focus of the discussion. Tinman |
| HHH |
| ||
|
Tinman, Thanks for your insight as always. I am curious as to what you would consider the different training zones are for a middle distance runner (5/10k)? For instance I have seen you mention aerobic and anaerobic threshold training, what is the difference physically here? I know that Coe advocates 5 different zones and I think it is the same for Daniels. It would almost seem like you are splitting threshold training into 2 distinct zones. Once again thanks for your insight. Matt |
| Tinman |
| ||
|
I do not intentially split aerobic and anaerobic threshold (aka Lactate Threshold) into zones. All is continous, I contend, in the energy spectrum. For example, in my view, running 4 miles at 4 mmols (LT) is equal to 8 miles at 2 mmols (Aerobic Threshold) is equal to 16 miles run slowly at 1 mmol. Tinman |
| KAN |
| ||
|
At the 70-75 point discussed before, does an increase in intensity or mileage tend to yield better results on average? Is the best route perhaps an increase in mileage to ~100 and THEN once comfortable an increase in intensity? |
| SolRichards |
| ||
|
I have read in runners world, that ''JD says that there is no point in running over 70 miles a week''. And I had allways thought that when running experts, cite that fact. They are not looking at all the data. Or they are just reading into the data what they would like. I had a gut level feeling that, people had miss read your ideas about training. And cited part of one of your studys to prove there point. I am very glad, that this feeling I had was true. You should make a point of letting more people know the whole picture when it comes to the effects of training. And what they can or cannot gain from doing high milage. Or high intensity. Or I fear that your going to end up being, accused of being the guy who told eveyone to run low miles and easy. Which for some reason ended up produceing proformace levels that where lower then people would have liked. Imagen that, you no matter what you do it turns out that you have to do that style of training with 100% commetment to get to where you want to go as a runner. I fear that the great work that you are doing to explain training theory, will be lost in the shuffle. As lazy people who find that they cannot run low miles, easy. And still race as they would like, will blame you. And the fact that ''JD'' says there is no need to run over 70 miles a week. And the true information and vlue of training theory will get tossed out with aloing with the whole notion that you dont have to work hard to be a good runner. Bottom line is that I think that you need to make sure to let people know know that. There is more then one road to the top, and you have to work hard at whatever path you cuse, be it high miles, or high intensity. From reading runners world I allways get the idea that you felt that one only need run 30 miles a week, with a three mile tempo, a few 400m reps to run to the top. |
| Tinman |
| ||
|
Are you talking to me or to Jack Daniels, PhD? I don't recall ever saying that people should just run 30 miles per week and expect to reach their potential. I tell high school coaches often that they need to not focus on intervals until their kids are running 50 miles per week. Actually, if I could be assured that the kids wouldn't hammer every single run like a lot of collegiate kids do, I would say that running 60-70 miles per week without much fast, sustained interval work is better for them than running 40-50 with lots of intervals. I like the idea of juniors and seniors running 60 miles per week with lots of aerobic and anaerobic threshold training and sprints, uphill and on the flats, instead of lactic acid reps such as repeat 400s. For collegiate runners, they better realize that if they aren't hitting at least 65 miles per week, they are not going to come close to what is possible. In my opinion, 70-80 miles per week should be a goal for people seeking to run well, and more than that for people who are wanting to hit the elite levels in college and beyond. The training plan needs to include more than just putting in mega-mileage slow. Figure that 75 miles with fast aerobic, sprints, and a small amount of max vo2 for a junior and senior in college is better than 100 miles slow with 400m reps in high volume. No matter how you do it, you gotta reach some high volume, include some fast aerobic running (AT to LT), and sprints plus Max VO2 for mature runners. So simple, yet so many people want to train like runners did in the 50s, but without the high volume of the 60s and 70s. Doesn't work. Moderate volume training, say 70 miles per week with the mix previously mentioned, done for several weeks, is a lot better training than 100 miles per week done with no regard to balance. Tinman |
| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | |
20% off the adidas AdiZero at Eastbay.com. LetsRun.com visitors get 20% off (orders of $89.99 up) using this special link. Eastbay has all the varieties of the AdiZero. So save on the AdiZero Pro, PR, Tempo, and more. You will see the coupon code in the checkout process. If you have questions email us at letsrun@letsrun.com.