SCIENTIFIC METHOD ?
I´m very happy that you participate in this little discussion with an open atitude. People did many posts after my last post to you. Most of them are about the use of acid lactic meters and training frequence in pace intensities. And what I see here? Is that physiologists, men of science, coaches –they don´t agree one with each other and they fight each other with articles, papers, data, quotes from others, individual conclusions. This is tougher than a hard run my friend. XC Junkie quotes Will G Hopkins PhD. Then Frank quotes and says - We are also aware of the physiological respond of lactic measures, during different type of training. Many studies have been done previously of scientists in East and West Germany, concerning this task.
However, I just wanted to point out that a value from a meter maybe false, or even will mislead both the coach and his athlete if he is not aware these methodical challenges – No Frank quotes the East and West Germans and later on the discussion passes for skiing sport that´s may be really interesting but that we haven´t in Portugal, how can I know about skiing in a running discussing ? – if that would be a running training experience…
Well, now after a few posts it makes sense to me my doubts about meters and my ask to Frank conclusion that - Not many coaches or athletes have enough knowledge about it, at least in Norway.
Frank, not just “many coaches” and not just “in Norway”, the best scientists all over the world they haven´t not a unique single conclusion, ther´s no unanimity, even among scientists. So, what in a earlier post by Frank seems to be as take for granted, based in the science, the same science that Frank based is statements denies Frank conclusions.
One other fact that´s amazing is that most of the times scientists and people that are physiology believers when they get any new conclusion all the rest changes to be outdate, and even undeniable conclusions that a few minutes ago they were correct, instantaneously they change to be wrong. How do you want that Knut run more anaerobic threshold runs and less intervals if in the 70s someone different coach claims that´s not the best way, he were confronted with the “last physiologic knowledge” that said that the HARD-EASY day that´s the best, or that apart from the workouts we need to run steady-state easy runs. I guess that if you did lived that 70s decade you will do the same. Now, after some 30 years that´s easier to ask “Knut don+t yoy think that would be good that….”. In the next 30 years we will have this same discussion and I guess that I can ask to you “Frank you you did you prescribe many threshold runs. If someone want´s to study and comment the past, we need to use that past knowledge, not recent knowledge, This is an absurd.
This weekend I taught a running scene over a track that makes me wonder how will we decide? I taught a runner and a coach. The coach did prescribes the track workout, but the runner says – Coach, please i´m really tired, I can´t start that workout. But the coach replies – No you aren´t tired because I take your mmol and you have 0.5 and based in all science that I know you are ok.
This is the state of science –anti scientific really ! The questions about workout frequency, or about training pace intensity I have no doubts at all. Why? Because I base my conclusion in my own experience and not in doubtful scientific conclusions, and what´s my final test to see if that works/fits into the runner training are the runner season improvement and place classifications according each runner talent.
I agree with you that we need to look for the fast pace daily that you are able to hold on.
But this is simply a concept. The reality is that are runners that are able to train everyday in that threshold pace, but there are others that really they need recover runs to hold on workouts.
Ther´s no a single training way, as ther´s no a single training direction. I coach runners improving dramatic with no LTM – lactate management training at all, and they aren´t able to run threshold runs frequently, and they are good runners. I´ve seen runners that train everyday faster than others but they don´t show major improvement or they aren´t talent runners. So, I think that you are right – if the runner wants to improve and is able to train faster – and if he does´t feel tired – that´s perfect, but I think that you are wrong if you want to impose that as unique rule. Even runners with similar PB´s they have different training capacities. There are the kind of - fast runners – those that are able to run short intervals in a good average range, the kind of – pace runners – those who feel comfortable and steady in race pace event –this is showed by very good race event pace splits in workouts, and those that are the kind - slow runners –those that feel more comfort in training in intense paces but slower than race pace. Each one type neds a different training schedule despite the principles and the concepts are universal and the same for all cases.