Tinman's training

Ditto. I would love to here Tinmans training guidelines,also 1500m and 3000m training. Off seasons summer/winter.

thanks je

I think that we would all enjoy reading your personal training log, if you wouldn't mind sharing it.

Thanks for your kind words and support.

Please check out the plethora of info. captured by Carolina Runner's thread at the top of the message board. Tinman

I do agree with Dr. Noakes. He is the man. He has presents very sound logic for his theories and enough lab testing to make it all shine.

All bioenergetics lie on a continuum. No island unto itselt, so to speak!

Why does he say that there is no max VO2 plateau? I think he is saying that the quantity of oxygen goes up proportionally to the workload; plain and simple. So, if one can push a greater workload, one can achieve a higher max VO2 value. He statest that the max VO2 is far less of a predictor of aerobic success in sport as the peak velocity at which one can achieve on a treadmill or bicycle ergometer, etc. There is at least one caveat, I think. A subject being tested for peak velocity, i.e. peak workload, has to incrementally rise higher and higher predetermined prorgression steps. You simply can't expect a subject to have an enormous quantitative value for aerobic capacity if they go from standing still to running full-bore on a treadmill. Peak lacitc acid will set in quickly and there is no way that peak oxygen values for the subject can be recorded. On the other hand, if incrementally one staircases the workloads ever-higher, the one who reachest the highest speed, grade,etc will be the one with the highest recorded oxygen value, he says. Hopefully I framed his theory or premise correctly. Jack Daniels and others have said that for 30 years too. That is why he calculates velocity of max VO2 and gives f factors for training paces based on the peak velocity achieved. Jack's VDOT are hypothetical VO2 max values. What he really cares about is the correlative velocity one could achieve for VO2 max based on time against distance. Please correct me if that is not on the money, Jack.

Regarding lactate turnpoint and lactate threshold. Dr. Noakes makes a great case, one that I asked our lab technical guru back in the 1980s. I said, "what if we used smaller jumps in speed (velocity really) on the treadmill or smaller wts. on the Monarch stationary bike to increase the resistance each stage of testing? Would we still have an abrupt point on the lactate curve?" I was asking the same question that others before me asked. Was it possible to have no lactate threshold or in Noakes terms "turnpoint?" Anyway, it seems plausible that fine tuning the increments from one velocity where blood is drawn for lactate testing and the next stage would create a fairly curvilinear set-up on a plot graph rather than an abtuse angular looking picture once thought to represent some major shift in metabolism.

When it comes down to training, what we need to consider is the whole package: aaerobic endurance, aerobic power, anaerobic endurance, anaerobic power in both lactic and alactic contexts. The real question is this: "If there is no true threhsold, per Dr. Noakes, does it make the training any less effective if we use the velocity that approximates the threshold that we have using less fine-tuned protocols?" I think science and emperical evidence suggest that it is not that important to be too picky.

I use LT in discussions, but I do so as a courtesy to others who are familiar with it. If you read my posts from 3 weeks ago or longer, I have stated that I support a range of paces for stamina development. I have said that any training at paces one could hold for races in the 1-hour to 3-hour zone are good for developing stamina, my term for that area betwen what others in the past have termed anaerobic to aerobic threshold. Some call the one-hour time the lactate threshold velocity. Some call it MLSS, but that is not exactly the same, though close. Some call the 60 min mark the 4 mmol point, but that is true for not everyone, though 4 mmol itself is an excellent predictor of performance capacity for distance events 5k and longer. None of it matters that much because the region of rise falls within the paces that realate to three hour to one hour racing, perhaps faster even.

I throw out another term that I think might catch on. I did not invent it. I don't know who did, but it fills a need: CV or crtical velocity. I consider 5k pace / .9533 to place one's 5k race time near the 45 minute mark of racing. I made that number up to fit my idea of an important area that can be of great help. Some Canadian research showed that the pace just slower than 10k pace (for the subjects in the study) was ideal for improving the LT or 4 mmol pace or MLSS (almost), Lactate turnpoint, or whatever the flavor of the day is. What really matter is that subjects in that study showed more improvements in their pace at which LT occured that actually training at the slower LT pace (approximate 60 minute race pace...and this in not 100% either). By training at 45 minute CVP (critical value pace) (my crazy term) one can maximize their improvements with minimal time invested. I think it will be a new wave, but we will see. Some people out there in grad research land will pick up on this concept and try to either validate the original research of manipulate it somehow and come up with better recipes for the cake mix.

About point #1: As a general rule, 3k pace training and slower develops aerobic capacity. However, that darn energy continuum comes into play after 4 seconds of exercise, accoring to Jan Olbrecht, research scientist, and former world class swimmer. In my opinion, one of the worst things to happen to sports was the incorrect analysis of energy contributions relative to exercise duration based on the oxygen debt model. It was assumed that the amount of oxygen consumed after exercise stopped (above normal resting values) was related to how much oxygen was really needed to perform the exercise. The following is an example of what I am talking about:

A person runs at maximal effort on a treamill traveling 400m and consumes 3 liters of oxygen (measured by instruments). After running, the instruments still record his/her respriration values. Our runner huffs and puffs for a couple minutes and then continues to breath above resting value for a few more minutes consuming 27.5 liters of oxygen total . Once our runner stops breathing above his/her normal values, the test stops. We record the total amount of oxygen consumed in the three scenarios and compare them. We estimate that the real amount of oxygen consumed was 3 liters and the payback (ox debt or deficit) was 27 liters. Ridiculous, I say! The real cost of oxygen is not the same as the amount of O2 consumed after exercise because of simple reasons such as thermoregulation and hormonal concentrations in the bloodstream. If you are sitting still right now and we inject some catecholamines into your blood stream, you respiration rate will rise a bunch and that has nothing to do with anaerobic activity. Too, when you run 400m all-out, you burn a lot of kilocalories and generate a ton of heat. Your body has to get back to equilibrium, so respiration aids that intense ciruclation of blood that tries to dissipate heat. So, all that oxygen consumed after the run and above normal resting values is not due to anaerobic requirements.

I wish I head all my research folders in front of me. My ex-wife burned most of my work folders from the late 80s and early 90s but if someone out there can find the research done by two scientists in Montreal who showed (using radio-isotopes or phoshpate marked isotopes) the actual aerobic an anaerobic energy values during an all-out 90 second run you would be amazed at how much of the actual energy contribution conmes from aerobic metabolism. Karpovich also had some good info. about kcal use relative to energy contributions for various time-distance activities. He might, for example, have shown in his research that 80% of energy derived from 60 seconds of all-out running comes from aerobic kcals and only 20% comes from anaerobic kcals.

If anyone has Jan Olbrecht's new book called Science of Winning, on page 78 you can see what I mean about the amount of aerobic energy used to generate force is already extremely high for short events like the 100m swim (equivalent to a 400m run). The total aerobic energy used to compete in a 100m swim (400m run in about 45 seconds) is 65% aerobic and 35% anaerobic. The total amount of aerobic energy used to generate force for a 400m swim (1600m run) is about 82%; anaerobic is 18%. Now, here is the kicker and it relates to what those bright Canadian researchers (I think their names were Perronet and Thiebault, not 100% sure) showed: though the total energy used to generate force for a 400m run in 45 seconds may indeed be 65% aerobic and 35% anaerobic, but the amount of energy produced during that whole time frame (say 45 seconds) shifts dramatically along the continuum such that with each passing second more and more energy is derived from aerobic metabolism. The Montreal research showed that already at the 30 seconds mark about 50% of energy used to generate force was aerobic. By about a minute a little over 80% of energy is derived aerobically. By 90 seconds over 93% is derived aerobically. ...more on next post

Now, as an extension of my previous post in response to the first sentence of our poster "wondering", I will conclude here that all paces slower than an all-out short sprint have aerobic value. So, in actuality, we can say that 3k pace and slower is not the whole story. We can instruct a bunch of college non-runners who signed up for their manadatory p.e. credit, taking jogging and fitness, to test their abilities by having them run an all-out 600m in week one. Let's assume they are all healthy and can actaully run that far. Let's say the average person runs the 600m in 2:30 at 100% effort. Now, if we have them run 200m reps at the 600m pace they ran as part of our twice weekly interval workouts (doing absolutely no warm-up or cooldown running or jogging between interval 200s) and have them do that for a month, guess what happens? You got it, their aerobic capacity improves a lot. Well, if running 600m pace or the pace you can run for just 2:30 is supposed to be so darn anaerobic like those oxygen debt model charts show, then why on earth are their aerobic capacities jumping 15% in a month's time? Because, my friends, the 600m avereage pace was really quite aerobic, despite the fatigue and the huffing and puffing. The old models are seriously wrong. After about 90 seconds, more than 90% of the energy derived is from aerobic processes.

In running terms, people like Seb Coe ran a bunch of intervals and improved both their Max VO2 and vVO2 to super high levels, despite not running much slower mileage. Those darn workouts o 20-30 x 200m at 1500m pace actually do improve aerobic capacity a lot because the reps are only aout 75% his sprinting speed (21.3 seconds personal best / .75 = 28.4). Anything up to 80% of sprinting speed will improve aerobic capacity. Look at Hicham El.G or Haile G. running repeat 1000s in the winter in 2:30. Are they doing anaerobic work? No, not at all. 2:30 per 1000m equals 30 seconds per 200m. Their personal best of around 21.5 and 22 seconds for 200m relative to their average pace of 30 seconds per 200m (their mean pace for the 1k repeats) is 66.6% and 71.66%; both aerobic.

In point #1, you mentioned that one should avoid doing anaerobic endurance activity. To a point, I agree. However, their is a time and place for anaerobic training efforts. The big thing about doing long recoveries between faster intervals is to make it possible to stimulate the correct neural-motor units to fire and to increase power output. Let's use a 400m sprinter as an example. He or she needs to have a lot of anaerobic endurance, some would think. I disagree a little bit. Dr. Costill speaks of very limited transer of anaerobic endurance training to improvements in the sprint events. I think the keys to increasing 400m race performance are these:

1)improved anaerobic power;

2)improved aerobic power;

3)improved efficiency/economy...better form, for example;

4)improved pacing strategy.

I want a 400m runner to do two key workouts: short sprints of 50 to 150m at close to 90% effort (once in shape) with long jog-walk recoveries. None of this crazy 60 second rest garbage. Each rep is high speed and relaxed. You don't teach power when motor-neural units are tired. (This is one of Jack Daniels key points!). The other workout is longer repetitions at fast paces. I use 300-600m reps at close to 90% effort (when in shape). The athletes jog and walk twice the distance of the reps and maybe more. There is no sense in having them run slowly, so let them keep moving until they can hammer away again with some intensity.

To a degree, I think that short rests hurt distance runners too. Sure, if a person runs a bunch of 200s at 70% velocity they are using aerobic processes, so short rests are fine and probably a good idea. Renata Canova, Seb C., and Hicham may all run 20-30 x 200m at 70-75% velocity with short rests and be totally aerobic at 28 seconds per 200m. But, take a runner with 25 second 200m speed and have them run a bunch of 200s in 28 seconds and you creat distaster unless you plan on doing those workout 10-6 weeks prior to peaking and then get away from them and build back your aerbic capacity and generate some sharpness. Same goes for long repetitions. If I am given a choice between having my 5km runner doing 3 x1 mile at 3k pace with 5 minutes of jogging between and 3 x 1 mile at 5km pace with 2 minutes of jogging, I will likely take the faster workout with longer active recoveries. If you want to run fast, you gotta comine fast running with lots of slow to moderate aerobic endurance training.

About the continuum, I agree with you totally about running a variety of paces within that 3k race pace to marathon race pace zone. Smart thinking! You just have to be smart about spacing out your more stressful workouts so that you don't bury yourself.

I am simply saying that the energy continuum steadily shifts toward the aerobic end as time passes. In a 400m run, the first 4 seconds engery is derived from pur anaerobic alactic processes. But, after that a mix of all three systems takes place. Aaerobic glycolysis is the slowest generator per unit time of ATP, so it won't be up to snuff quickly. But, by time one gets to the 30 second mark, already at that exact moment, aerobic glycolysis is contributing an average of 50% of the ATP needed. After that, more energy is derived by aerobic than anaerobic processes. Now, the overall quantity of ATP generated during that 30 seconds or even that 45 seconds per anaerobic processes is very high, especially since ATP are generated more quickly in anaerobic alactic and anaerobic glycolytic processes. My two primary points of this topic are these:

1)energy (ATP) generation rides a continuum and the mixture changes rapidly, very rapidly, despite sensations of fatigue from ca-phophate shutdown (see poster Phoenix for details, he is an expert at this, in my opinion) or hydrogen ionds for lactic acid;

2)development of the aerobic system is even important for 400m runners, especially after 30 seconds of running.

So, a 400m runner needs long intervals at 800 to 1500m to improve both anaerobic power and aerobic power and some extra long intervals at pace closer to 1500 or 3km too plus their normal short/fast repetition runs.

An 800m runner needs the aerobic power work that often 1500m runners get in training and 400m speed training. An 800m runner will not achieve their personal best without improving their aerobic power. Aerobic power can be improved with either a bunch of short intervals at about 1500m pace with jog recoveries or from longer intervals at 3km pace. Here are two workouts from the Coe/El G./Auoita arsenal:

repeat 200s at 1500m pace or 75% of max velocity with somewhat short recoveries in quantity relative to conditioning. A simple workout of 8-10 x 200m at 1500m pace, jog 100m will be enough in the beginning. Later, up to 20 or so reps is a good idea for well conditioned runners.

repeat 600s,800s or 1000s at 3k pace with jogs about half the distance as the reps.

So, far I have garnered from Dr. Olbrecht the necessity of balancing aerobic and anaerobic elements of bioenergetics. Olbrecht's premise, that also of the many East German's he trained under, is that maximal development of either aerobic or anaerobic will not make your reach your personal best for an event, regardless of distance. He mentions that optimum development is key: balance between energy systems. As an example, if an athlete is training for the Olympic Trials marathon and they want to reach their best, then it would not be wise to overdevelop their anaerobic capacity because too much energy would be created from anaerobic pyruvate pathways. The result would be loss of pace in the last few miles of the marathon due to burning up of stored carbs (glycogen). You also would not want to have no anaerobic capacity to speak because your ability to create power would be diminished too and though your endurance is good, you simple can't go any faster.

In the shorter races, too, extremes in development will never create personal bests. A runner can put in 120 miles per week at modest paces and race every weekend (which helps improve anaerobic process some) but they will never reach their highest levels until anaerobic development is a regular part of training. It really is common sense, but too often runners, compulsive by nature, tend to overdue the elements they think are crucial. Too much mileage to the detriment of speed. Too much speed to the detriment of endurance.

Another thing that Dr. Olbrecht emphasizes is changing training every 6 weeks or less. He states that adaptationsto a given work load and intensity had two phases: fast adaptation phase (1-2 weeks) and stabilization phase (weeks 3-6). His diagram of progress shows that no more development occurs after four weeks. The following is an important excerpt explaining the process of using 6 week segments. By the way, for those who like Jack Daniels approach, he states that every 6 weeks you adapt training. He also states that you should not continue increasing the itensity, rather become more and more easy at a given pace. The soonest, he says, to drop the times for paces is after three weeks of proven progress. Very similar to Dr. Olbrecht's schema.

pg 7-8 of "The Science of Winning"

"For the improvement of the endurance capacity to take place, thousands of small cellular parts need to be rebuilt and/or newly produced. Some of them will be rebuilt quickly while others will require more time. * If the training load is increased too soon, only the cellular structures that can dapt quickly will be able to follow the imposed training rhythm. All the others will fall behind; they will not be rebuilt or, at worst, be irrevocably lost. As a consequence, there will be no homogenous development of the endurance capacity (my note, homogenous development means of both aerobic and anaerobic processes that create endurance) and, in due course, this may result in the swimmer breaking down and becoming overtrained. Moreover, it is important to reduce both the volume and intensity near the end of the stabilization phase in order to start the next training cycle in a fresh and relaxed condition."

In the next paragraph, by the way, he states that half the increase in mitochondria from 5 weeks of training may be lost in 1 week of detraining (time off). He also states the losses of mitochondria and concomittant endurance capacity are not as great for athletes who have longer, uninterrupted training periods.

Dr. Olbrecht really emphasizes the following:

The right intensity

The right amount

The right time.

Training must be individualized. This is no surprise for anyone who knew of the Bill Bowerman or Mihalyi Igloi methods of training: no two runners had the same progrmam. Even athletes competing in the same event need differing amounts of aerobic and anaerobic work, differing velocities too. Why? Because though two athletes record the same time in a track meet, one might have more aerobic power than the other, yet less anaerobic power.

Jan states that it is critical for sprinters to have well developed aerobic capacities, not just anaerobic. Aerobic contributes to sprints, even, especially as the events go past about 30 seconds. (By the way, I just found some supporting evidence to my post earlier about aerobic contribution rising rapidly, even in sprint events. Not only can your refer to Peronnet and Thibault, you can refer to classic research my Margaria that showed aerobic energy reached 50% of maximum capacity already at the 23 second mark in an all-out effort. Peronnet and Thibault showed in their research that by 30 seconds or less 50% of energy is being derived aerobically and my 60 seconds over 80% (at that point), and at 90 seconds 93% of energy is coming from aerobic processes). Maximum Aerobic Power...their term...can be held up to 240 seconds and then it declines after that). So, you can see why Jan Olbrect is adamant that sprinters need to have strong aerobic power too. In addition, any athlete competing in multiple events really needs to haver aerobic power and aerobic endurance to recover between events. Jan states that the best sprint swimmers in the world have equal aeobic power to the distance atheletes.

With stable isotope tracers, researchers like Peronnet and Thibault of Universite de Montreal have been able to moment by moment identfy contributions for each energy system. The traditional way of determining contributions are partly based on assumptions and therefore error results. If you look up Occam's razor theory, you will understand errors better. If we hook an apparatus up to a sprinter and have them run the 100m dash, we will only be able to measure ventilation during their sprint and afterward. The error of the old oxygen deficit/debt model comes in if we assume that the amount of air consumed during exercise and post- exercise (above normal resting values) is payback for what was needed during the sprint. As Dr. Daniels mentioned, there is a bunch of O2 consumed in Post Exercise that is related to continued use of thoracical muscles ventilating, the heart's continued beating faster (cardiac muscle beating faster means more O2 needed), the body's attempt to re-establish normalized body temp, catecholamines gone mad as the stress of the activity made their quantities jump through the roof, etc.

Now, if we used the methods of Peronnet and Thibault and some others out there who are physiology research scientist, then we can measure the actual, or pretty close to it, moment to moment O2 use via either the myoglobin storage of O2(stored O2 in the muscle cells) and oxyhemoglobin transfer of O2 to the the myoglobin and then to the mitochondria where oxidation takes place. Now, here is something to think about: myoglobin.

Available oxygen for immediate use is reserved in myoglobin, found in the muscle fiber membranes. In Doctors Costill and Wilmore's book entitled "Physiology of Sport and Exercise" (pg. 188-89) it is mentioned that the precise contributions of myoglobin to oxygen delivery are not yet fully understood (they didn't have Peronnet and Thibault's info., I don't think, but it has been shown that aerobic training can increase myoglobin content by 75-80%. So, if a person trains a bunch and increases their myoglobin, they surely can use more aerobic energy during their sprints and thus delay the severe "hit the wall" slowdowns we often see at track meets. In the track 100m sprint, I don't think the the supply of myoglobin is exhausted (because the event is so short in time), so I don't think that improving aerobic delivery and stored myoglobin will have much of an impact on the performance. At most, I would expect less than tenth of a second for a world-class sprinter. However, as the event reaches 200m and more, I would expect that improved myoglobin and oxygen delivery via the circulatory train would make a difference. As a simplified scenario, I see people like Maurice Green, an exceptional 100m sprinter, not able to hold pace in the second 100m of a 200m sprint. Guys who race the 400m a lot tend to dominate the 200m, I think because they have superior aerobic power. Their is some debate about aerobic endurance, by the way, according Costill and Wilmore as to weather it really does make much of an impact on short term performances. Yeah, I know, people will jump all over this comment, just like they did when I said that aerobic contributions are already playing a big role from 23 seconds or longer in competitions. On page 199 of their textbook they summarize the anaerobic energetics and how it relates to performance by saying the following: " Anerobic training bouts improve anaerobic performance, but the improvements appears to result more form strength gains than from improvements in the functioning of the anaerobic systems." Relating to what I said earlier about aerobic processes being developed with longer sprints, the authors say that "Although sprint-type exercise is anaerobic by nature, part of the energy used during longer sprints comes from oxidation, so muscle aerobic capacity can also be increased with this type of training."

The sentence before last shows that Costill and Wilmore believe that sprint-type training causes specific strength to develop and the majority of positive effects toward racing performance can be attributed to power output per unit time. Sure buffering capacity does play a role, but they are suggesting that increase power output is the real key to success. I could not agree more. I have trained sprinters by having them do no more than 1200m of short sprints on Mondays and 1600m worth of sprints on Wednesdays with super long recoveries and they have improved more than others in their conference by leaps and bounds. The amount of repetitions my athletes have done is far smaller than others and the amount of rest my athletes get is far longer. So, if my atheltes are not huffing and puffing like the other sprinters doing 8 x 300-400 with a 100m walk, then why do they improve more? Ah, the real answer is the power output, plus effective use of the primary motor units...something Jack Daniels, PhD. refers to all the time when he says that repetition workouts should have recoveries of 4-6 times as long as the time of the reps. Sprinters who have longer jog-walk recoveries have lower hyrogren proton concentrations and improved muscle and blood ph levels when they start their next repetition. Result? The next repetition is run faster at a given effort level and the primary motor units involved in generating force are effectively trained. Part of the development is related also to economy. A runner who uses sufficient recovery times learns to generate force effectively and with great ease thus using less energy to do so. Result? Lasting power in races.

Long run pace varies according to your goal and your level of conditioning. As a general rule, I suggest that long runs pace be 5k pace divided by .75 which is about 67.5%, on average, of your Max VO2. Jack uses 70% of Max VO2, I believe, which great too. I yeild to his expertise.

To be more specific, a long run can be a harder workout too, but if you run faster you must adjust your schedule so that you adquately recover before tackling another harder workout. I personally think that the zone of greatest benefit for long run is between half marathon race pace and marathon race pace, but surely it depends upon your schedule. As an example, people who know distance running history will tell you that during Frank Shorter's weekly long run (2 hours or 20 miles whichever came first....usually 20 miles) he ran the second 10 mile loop at close to marathon race pace. I think he was smart enoguht to do it on purpose, not because he was compulsive. I call the stamina zone anything from the 3-hour racing mark to 1-hour and I think that is what Mr. Shorter and others of his ilk were doing; improving stamina on a regular basis by running fast distance runs at specific efforts. Some German research has shown that the optimal aerobic endurance zone is the range of the hypothetical aerobic threshold to anaerobic threshold region. The region I call the stamina zone. For time spent in that zone, you have amazing improvements in your ability to hold pace in races. The only trouble is it is far more stressful than slower running at paces near what Jack and I say should be typical distance paces. Again, faster distance running is good, but only if it is measured into to whole cycle of training; whether weekly or longer.

I think runners can run 20% fewer miles and have even better results if they use more stamina zone training. I think though the only way to use stamina zone training effectively is to be judicious with its quantity and more importantly with its frequency. If you start doing it everyday, I guarantee that you will run into problems such as severe fatigue (due to glycogen depletion) and sore muscles. Running is abusive to the body. It isn't nearly as bad if you swim, bike, or xc ski. You have to be patient, plan well, and coodinate your training elements. Moderation, consistency, variation, and cyclical training make a big differnce in the long-term.

Yes, their is an energy continuum and the transition is non-linear.

You ask about guidelines to use when designing workouts and schedules, that is what good running books are for, like Jack's. However, you can use the following ideas when constructing your own schedules.

1) Individualize....do what you can do, not someone else.

2) Go slower for awhile until your body can handle faster.

3) Start with generalized training, go to more specific as your goal race arrives. The last 6 weeks you need to do more race specific workouts.

4) Related to point one, most of the primary workouts you do during each training period should focus on what you adapt to well. Work on your weakness prior to the last 6 weeks before you most important race.

5) Don't hammer away just because you can.

6) Enjoy your running. If you continue repeating the same workout too frequently that mentally, emotionally, you burn out your enthusiasm.

7) Simplify.

Let's use point 7 right now. If you are in doubt and are anxious about doing the wrong things, do a weekly routine something like this and you will be fine:

Monday: Long Run (20-25% of your mileage). If you are strong and adapt quickly do a portion of this run at closer to marathon race pace. If this workout compromises your Wednesday faster run, then keep the pace easier today. Do a few easy striders during (3-4 x 150m at about 3k-5k pace)

Tuesday: Easier distance run (about 10-15% of your mileage)

* Wednesday: Harder day. Hill Reps, Fartleks, Intervals, and Speed Reps, all preceded by tempo work of 15-20 minutes at about 15k race pace, give or take a little.

Thursday: Easier distance run (about 10-15% of your mileage)

Friday: Like Thursday, except do some striders during, either 4-6 x 100m at mile pace (do not sprint these) or 2-3 x 150m at slightly slower than mile race pace with jogs twice as far as the rep distance for both 100s and 150s.

* Saturday: Race, hills, fartlek, intervals, speed reps, and tempo work or any combination of the above.

Sunday: jog or run in the pool.

* = The closer you get to your key event, the more you want to simulate it. If you are running in a marathon, for example, start doing marathon, half-marathon, and LT reps in higher quantity, along with plenty of moderate distance during the workout. Every other week during the last phase of training for distance races, you still need to include a workout such as 1k reps at 5k pace. So, for a marathoner in the last 6 weeks before their event, they might do 30-45 minutes of moderate running, then 4-5 x 2 miles at half-marathon pace, followed by another 30-45 minutes of running. You can run repeat 5km reps at marathon pace or repeat miles at LT pace. It really has to fit in with what works for you and what you adapt to well. Prior to the above types of workouts, I often suggets to marathoners that they build up to a biweekly workout in which they run continuous cycles of 2 mile runs for up to 2 hours. Each cycle includes 1.5 miles of moderate paced running (about a minute over marathon pace) followed by 1/2 mile at 10k pace. If you can run this workout for 2 hours, then you are ready to tackle the half marathon reps, etc. in the last phase.

I like to use 200m speed as a reference for middle and long distance runners because, as you know, we are typically not blazing fast out of the blocks. Besides, I just like the use of 200m because most middle distance and distance runners can estimate reasonably well their 200m time, not so much with their 100m time.

So, if Hicham is running 20-30 x 200m in 28 second 200s, that is 30% more time than his 21.5 estimated best (shown on a Euro sports website that had an article on the Moroccoan training system). In velocity terms, 28 second repeat 200s is only 76.8% of his max which would put him near his MAP (max aerobic power) pace for that distance. Good middle distance runners can run at about 75% + or - 2% of their maximum sprint speed (based on a 200m sprint time) before maxing out on aerobic power for the 200m distance. Elite distance runners can run closer to 80% + or - 2% of their maximum sprint speed for 200m for short reps like 200m. Ulitimately, it is critical to maximize your 200m sprint speed and then develop your aerobic power to hold a high percentage of it. If you have two milers, the one with better pure sprint speed has greater potential to run a faster mile time. Potential, though, is only potential. Work ethic, desire, and proper training make the other 50% of the difference in performances.

I think one of the best things you can do as a runner is work on your sprint speed so that you can coast along at a lower percentage of your maximum during longer races. Bascially, if you went from being a 25 second 200m runner to a 23 seconds 200m runner it like going from a Buick to a Firebird; you have got more horsepower. Now, once you have more horsepower, you gotta tweek the carburetor so that you don't burn more fuel than necessary over the long haul.

I think the 45 minute pace is about perfect is because it is higher than the theoretical lactate threshold and very close to 90% of Max VO2 (for well-conditioned athletes). Since 90% if the critical value known as the minimum percentage to induce aerobic capacity developments for well-trained athletes, by running at the 45 minute critical velocity you achieve two training goals in one; you boost LT and your boost Max VO2, especially for type 1a and type 1b fibers.

I have long thought about what would the ideal training intensity be if I wanted to get the most results for the time spent. I am convinced that running at the paces associated with personal bests for the following distance fit the bill:

~ velocity one can hold for 40 seconds.(for anaerobic power)

~ velocity one can hold for 7 minutes (for aerobic power)

~ velocity one can hold for 45 minutes (for threshold)

~ velocity one can hold for 90 minutes (for stamina)

Hope this helps. tinman

I really think that the key to training for the marathon is teaching your body to endure the seemingly endless pounding of the miles and to burn fuel efficiently. One final element of marathoning that I think about a lot is elastic recoil. I noticed when I ran marathons that my legs simply could not rebound well after about 16 miles. I wasn't tired and depleted, but my strides were shorter. I think that teaching your legs to keep on springing, so to speak, is a desirable training goal. Hill reps (both uphill and downhill) aid leg power in the later stages of marathoning, I think. The downhill running done before the last 4 weeks prior to the race are crucial because your muscles get better at not losing their eccentric strength.

It is my opinion that there are only a handful of key workouts that will help one become a solid marathoner, besides modertely high mileage held for many weeks. First, the generalized long run. Second, the long run with fast aerobic running during, especially after 30 or more minutes of running (better marathoners can run 60-80 minutes before doing faster running). Third, hill running at least every 10 days. You can run your LT, half-marathon, or marathon reps over a hilly course and derive enormous elastic recoil benefit in addition to increased stamina. Fourth, 5k reps for aerobic power, done more often in the phases prior to the last 6 weeks, and as maintenance every other week during the last 6-week phase. Fifth, long fartlek runs in which you rotate 1.5 miles at a pace 1 minute over marathon race pace with 1/2 mile at 10k pace. The cycle repeats every two miles until you are ready for a cooldown jog. If you can do 20 miles of this workout, your strength is high enough to really benefit from the stamina workouts: long runs with LT, half marathon pace, and marathon pace over hills.

The keys, as I see it to marathoning are fairly straightforward. Your plan hits them head on.

1)Long runs and long hard/progressive runs;

2)Faster reps at close to 5k pace farther out from the race (in addtion to the long runs) for aerobic capacity development plus strength which can allow one to do the MP type workouts with ease.

3)More and more MP miles/ LT as part of the weekly or bi-weekly schema as the marathon approaches, thereby creating simulation and specificity

4)Higher mileage

5)Consistency

Good job! tinman

Hadd, it appears to me, is a follower of the late great Dr. Ernest Van Aaken who instructed lots and lots of miles of slow running over for a few years as a builder of high aerobic endurance. Personally, I don't agree with all of his ideas, but I am sure he doesn't agree with my approach of tempo work all year round and 4-6 week cycles rotating through the key primary performance elements. I even recommend some anaerobic capacity training during transition training. The similarities are that we both believe the aerobic mileage are part of the big picture. We disagree about faster training; I am more aggressive than he is. We agree that without a high threshold it is nearly impossible to reach one's potential. We agree that slow running is valuable, I just think it is not something to do for more than about 30-40% of the total training. I would push a person more in the aerobic miles, I think.

I agree with you. The ex. phys. guys or gals do go into a lot of detail at times in attempting explain what is known from a science point of view. That is fine but not what the average person needs, necessarily. Perhpas the most important thing the average runner can take from our discussions are principles to apply to their own training. Bill Bowerman said many times in interviews that each runner is different and the only way to train each one correctly is apply "the principles" such moderation, progression, adaptation, recovery, pacing, specificity, individuality, callousing - simulation, rest, nutrition, etc.

I will add that everyone sits upon overlapping continuums which go in differing directions. Here are just some from off the top, so to speak:

Genetics (ability to respond to stimuli such as training)

(types of muscle cells one has, etc.)

Disposition (attitude, often base on nuturing and successes)

Emotional Stability (affective moods)

Background (experiences such as running to school, multi-

(sport participation...motor-neural elements)

Training (what workouts one has done and whether the effects

(are still in existence)

I am sure there are many more. The art of coaching is often related to understand what each person brings to the fore.

It is my hope that that each person understands themselves well enough to apply training principles. It is my hope that satisfaction is derived from participation in running or whatever endeavors one undertakes. Ultimately, we must decide if our time spent in running is worthwhile in terms of both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. To me, now older, slower, and unable to produce my best performances, running brings on new meaning. Now, I seek to help others. I open my doors and let in wanderers looking for rest, consoling, and encouragement. I listen. I clarify if asked. I provide guidance when needed.

I am an old warrior now, but my spirit for the sport never dies. Though I did not know it as a youngster, the real reason for being involved in the sport was not a reason at all, but rather a feeling. I can still have that feeling, though my feet are slow. I am satified now because I understand that what is most important is to be passionate about what one chooses to spend time doing. I hope each person knows that passion too.

Not really. However, if you use 4 mmol as a standard for comparison then it has an accuracy probability of greater than .90 for predicting performance changes in competitions (see Lactate.com for more information or order their software which outlines all the heavy duty research on the subject). Even for people like Al Salazar who could only produce about 5 mmols of peak lactate when incrementally tested during his peak racing years could have used 4 mmols as a comparitive tool to evaluate training effectiveness. As long as the peak lactate reached 5 mmols on subsequent tests and the peak workloads at 5 mmols were similar, then improvements for the velocity at which 4 mmol was achieved would strongly indicate improved fitness and probable improved race performances. You could use 3 mmols if you wanted to really and have similar results, I think. We typically refer to 4 mmols because of the original resaerch published by standout scientists such as Doctors Mader, Madsen, Hollman, Sjodin, etc. Their research showed that the majority of endurance atheletes, especially swimmers, were showing a quick rise in plasma lactate at 2 mmols and then later at about 4 mmols. So, they used that as a standard for measuring progress, fitness, and fatigue. As I mentioned, more recent research (per Dr. Olbrecht) shows that peak lactate is a huge factor too in determining whether reductions in recorded plasma lactate at a workload really show improved fitness for competing, so keep that in mind.

The difference between proper 10k training and that of marathoning are not substantially different. To be successful at both, you need to put in enough mileage, do enough tempo runs at paces that are just slower than 10k pace, do long intervals at close to race pace, do some max VO2 training, improve running economy at racing pace, and just enough speed to never worry about not having enough to surge or kick.

For the 10k, I think you will find that once you establish a strong weekly or bi-weekly schedule of mileage and long runs at modest paces, the most importan to types of training you can do are threshold type workouts and intervals at improve aerobic power (5k pace down to 2k pace). If you didn't have time to do everything, just run reps at your current 10k pace plus or minus 5-10 seconds with sufficient jogs to get in enough reps to run at least 200 minutes per workout. Literally, I think that a person can reach about 90-95% of maximum 10k ability if they did the mileage and the long interval workouts close to race pace in enough volume. I emphasize long intervals because too many people, I think do shorter intervals at faster paces but find they stalemate in progress despite the repetition times improving. You simply can't fake improvements with long reps. If your previous 4 x 2km workout was at 80 seconds per 400m with 400m slow jogs between at 85% effort and now you can run 77-78 with the same effort, then you can be confident that your ready to run a faster 10km race. On the other hand, if you started doing 800s at 80 second pace and in a matter of 4 weeks you are running 75s, I am certain that you are not going to run a bunch faster in a 10km race. Your speed has improved, but that doesn't usually corrlate to significant changes in 10k performance like the improved times on long reps do. Ideally, you want to balance faster reps of modest distance with not quite as fast reps that are longer. I really don't think you can go wrong alternating 1000s or 1200s as 3k-5k pace with 1500-2000s at 8km to 10km pace.

I think that you also could really have outstanding transtional training success with doing workouts that put you at a pace that would take you about 45 minutes to do in a race, which is just a bit faster than LT pace; slightly faster than LT is better at improving LT than actual LT training.

Just to clarify, all of the above posts with my username are from Tinman in that thread from Carolina runner's good threads. Thanks again to Tinman for all of his advice and training ideas. I will have a look for more later...Matt

For now, you can just add about a minute to your 5k time to put yourself close the Aerobic Threshold, what I call ATR (aerobic threshold running). If I had to write it another way, I would say that adding 20% to your 5k average per mile time would be more exact. However, If you are near the 1 minute rule, you are close enough. I say this simply because, though you might be 54 seconds, if you use my 20% rule, you probably ran your 5k race in flats or spikes, had eased up in training a little, and were psyched for the race. So, my thinking is this: one minute over 5k is close enough when you are running in training shoes and not tapered.

Historically, there have been numerous runners who follow this 1 minute rule, but they don't state it definitively. Take even our lauded Malmo, he did many distance runs in his career in which he picked up the pace in the last few mles so that it was moderate to moderately hard, but not hard. Intuitively guys like Malmo know the benefits of training at this effort/pace. You simply push your lactate curve to the right, faster velocities. This is akin to runing at LT, which is faster.

I have mentioned a few times on letsrun.com the need to consider the continuum of energy that runners deal with in training and racing. I do not beleive there is one perfect pace to train at, nor does any successful veteran run every run accordingly. Varying the intensity levels is essential to evolvement of the performance engine you use to get you from point A to point B. Runing a variety of paces along the continuum is the way to go. More later. Tinman

Adjust your velocity accordingly. If you raced on Sat. morning and you ave. 5k pace was 5:30 per mile, meaning you ATR is 6:30 per mile and your LT is 5:56 per mile and the temp was 70 degrees, then add some time to your ATR and LT paces if it is hotter. At 80 degrees, add 2% more to your time. At 90 degrees, add 5% (total) to your time.

Your new LT at 80 degrees (instead of 70 degrees) would be 6:03 and your ATR would be 6:38. At 90 degrees, your LT would be 6:14 and your ATR would be 6:49-50.

Regarding wind, I have never created a formula to use for adjusting paces. I will think about it this weekend when I have a chance to read about drag. For now, I would adjust pace about about 2 seconds per mile for every 5 mph of headwind. This is merely a guess, so wait for further details. I suspect the change in velocity due to a headwind would be exponential, say +1 second at -5mph, +3 seconds at -10 mph, + 5-6 seconds at -15 mph, etc. Tinman

Actually, for marathoners who run 3:30 or faster, it is slower than marathon race pace (about 20 sec. per mile). I will pull out my charts and calculate some examples when I get home tonight.

Aerobic threshold is the first significant rise in plasma lactate. It typically occurs at around 2 mmol of lactate, but it can vary according to muscle fiber population. If you have a lot slow twitch fibers, it will occur at a lower lactate level. It doesn't matter what the actual mmol level is. Tinman

Ok, at home now. I pulled out "Lactate Threshold Training" written by Peter Janssen, M.D., an authoritative book on endurance training and this is what I found:

Jannsen -

2:31 marathon time = 5:46/ mile

= 5:58/ mile for Aerobic Threshold

Tinman - = 6:02/ mile for Aerobic Threshold based on an equivalent 5k time of 15:36 (5:02/ mile)

------------------------------------------------------

Jannsen -

3:01 marathon time = 6:54.5/ mile

= 7:10.3/ mile for Aerobic Threshold

Tinman - = 7:02/ mile for Aerobic Threshold based on an equivalent 5k time of 18:02 (6:02/ mile)

------------------------------------------------------

You can see that isn't much difference, except I use an easy measure (5k time) and just add one minute per mile to the pace. It ballparks you to Aerobic Threshold without having to run a marathon or doing a fancy lactate threshold field test to determine it. Tinman

3:01 marathon time = 6:54.5 / mile

Sorry for the calculation error. Sure, just add a minute to 5k pace, whatever it really is. That will get you where you need to be to improve your aerobic threshold.

By the way, this is not a new concept. Mader, Madsen, Hollman, and Heck of Germany developed the concept 30 years ago in East Germany as they tested and trained swimmers.

The simple fact is this: few people recognize that you don't have to hammer away to get results. Aerobic Threshold training is a valuable part of any program. Also (this next point eludes to what malmo has talked about), you can do aerobic threshold training often because it isn't too hard and doesn't hold you up from the planned training on the subsequent day. Tinman

There isn't a cut and dry answer to you question, unfortunately. It depends upon your mileage, you fitness level, the time of the year, etc. In the off-season, I suggest you work up to 8-12 miles at aerobic threhsold pace (5k pace plus about 1:00 per mile). Do this at least once per week, perhaps twice. Other times of the year, while during a competitive season, you may have to integrate it into other workouts such as long runs or prior to interval workouts. Just consider having some of it throughout the year for continuous development. Tinman

Like any workout, you can overdo it and fail to adapt. An aerobic threshold workout can be as easy or difficult as you want it to be, depending upon the purpose of its use. If you extend the workout and run 10 miles, then it probably a stressful workout, but not super hard. If you alternate aeorobic threshold 10 milers with intervals, then you are going to fail to adapt because you won't have enough recovery time. Both of the workouts cause a lot overload.

Now, if you run just a couple miles of aerobic threshold at the tail end of a distance run that wasn't designed to be fast, then your probably won't be too tired to do your interval workout the next day. You may have to alter the interval workout if you did too much though...or postpone the interval workout.

There are many ways to make aerobic threshold training fit in your training plan. You could run aerobic threshold for 10 miles and consider a stress day and follow it with a slower paced run the next day. You could run aerobic threshold as a precursor to your interval workout or as a after-thought. For example, you might run 2 miles easy, 5 miles at aerobic threshold, then do three miles of intervals, followed by a cooldown of 2 miles. You could reverse the order of the intervals and the 5 mile aerobic threshold run too.

You might run 2 aerobic thresholds and one long per week as you set your base for a marathon. You might run 2 aerobic threshold run 8-12 milers and one short fartlek with quick pickups of 30 seconds each in the summer as you prepare for fall x-country or road racing. You might do the same thing in the winter as you prepare for the first week of indoor track season. Whenever you are broken down and beat up, you can do aerobic threshold runs to regroup your aerobic fitnessa and get back into serious training. Better to do some quality aerobic but not too hard than start hard anerobic stuff immediately after doing just slower mileage, isn't it? Tinman

this is a good thread obv. I have put a run of this type into my running once per week. I consider it a workout though- i wouldnt try to do it as a recovery day. You could get away with doing what tinman says but hes right u have to be super careful esp if you dont know yourself as well- doing the pick it up the last couple miles can screw the workout for the next day if you get carried away. Also if youre younger obv there is a better chance of doing that(its like half the distance runs in college right ugh hehe) but you still have to be careful.

Heres my sched right now what do people think:

Sun : Long Run(12 miles going up to 16 eventually)

Tue : Cruise Int(8000-9000m total)

Thu : Steady Run(thats what i call aerobic thres- 7-9 miles)

Sat : Tempo Run(this is only 3-4 miles)

I have tried to listen especially to malmo(and myself from the last few years) to make sure that the tempo run and the CI workout arent too fast. Id rather RACE better than my equivalent times in daniels' book for instance and be patient with the tempo/CI pace. I try to speed up 4-5 sec per month like on a 4 week cycle. Right now what im thinking is more of a gradual approach- to do that from now until October then have like a 6 week period with more VO2max stuff. This is sort of a speedy base phase also but not too much- still thats why its good to be conservative with the pacing of workouts.

Im thinking about the 1:00 formula and it seems accurate- i just did a 5k in 16:49 (5:25 pace approx) and 6:25 seems ok but today i did a steady run which was start at 7:00 pace and go down to approx 6:40 pace to stay on the conservative side like id rather do.

Sure, tempos and aerobic threshold runs (easy tempos) should fit effort. NO DOUBT! However, if you are racing, you can determine the paces with some good exactitude. I have found that training pace based on racing times to be the most accurate way of determing proper training, so I am inclined to say shoot for the correct pace and then adjust a little to fit the goal effort.

Regarding foot speed for a person who injures easily and can't do speedwork very often: you might have deficient legs strength and power. I suggest you find a hill that is somewhat steep and do short hill sprints. There is very little pounding as you run with high effort uphill. You can walk down to save your sore heels. Try running 4 x 50m fast uphill to start with. Each week add a rep until you hit 10 reps. Once you are there, I think you will notice that you cover ground much better while sprinting. Your turnover will not necessarily have improved much, but your sprint time on the flats will improve because your stride is about 4-5 inches farther while the turnover seems about the same. This, I think, is the place to start for you. Tinman

So Tinman,

could we say then that there are atleast three different important Aerobic Zones, which develop to some degree stamina, and in which distance runners would do well to train: (1) Aerobic Threshold, which is the first significant, but still the least, spike in blood latacte (~2 mmol), and can be trained by running 8-12 miles at about 5k pace plus one minute. (2) Latacte Threshold, which is the second, and more significant spike in blood latacte (~4 mmol) and is trained at a variety of paces, dependant upon duration (10k--marathon?). (3) Max Aerobic Capacity, which is the point of using oxygen to its highest levels, and can be trained at avariety of paces (3k-10k?)

Of course there is regular aerobic conditioning and easy running, too.

Did i get them right?

Excellent synopsis! Add to your list short sprints on the flat with complete recovery, short sprints uphill with complete recovery, and 30 seconds hill or flat semi-sprints with complete recovery (usually only 1:30-2:30 for sufficiently aerobically trained runners). Runners who do more than slow mileage will recover better between fast reps, I think. Aerobic Threshold and Lactate Threhsold training concomittantly with faster reps is the best approach, I believe. Tinman

Last things first. Lydiard did not tell his runners to run hard aerobic every day. In fact, if you look at his schedules in his 1962 book entitled "Run To The TopP you would find this on page 88:

His 100 Miles a Week base training schedule -

M - 10 miles over hills, road or country at half effort

T - 15 miles at quarter effort on roads

W - 12 miles fartlek

H - 18 miles at quarter effort

F - 10 miles at three-quarter effort on a flat road

S - 20 or more miles at quarter effort

S - 15 miles at quarter effort.

Do you see that he had his athletes varying the intensity of the workouts, some easy, some moderate, some hard aeorbic as well as varying the distances of the run?

---------------------------------------------------------

Next, can you run aerobic threhsold training every day? Sure you can, provided you recover enough and grow stronger- more fit. If you aren't trying to run more miles of quality aerobic than your body is ready for, then you will have failing adaptation. It is my opinion that varying the intensity as Lydiard suggests is wise.

I am not convinced that a runner who does 3 runs of 8-12 miles per week at aerobic threshold is going to be any better off 3 months from now than someone who run 7 runs of 8-12 miles at aerobic threshold. However, it is a personal issue. I think you should consider upping your total mileage while including some quality running 2-3 times per week. The rest of the runs, besides the 2-3 quality days (workouts) per week should be easy to moderate in intensity for continued growth.

If you do run at aerobic threshold often, try varying the distance you run at that intensity. So, perhaps 4-5 miles one day at aerobic threshold followed by 8-12 miles another day will work better because you get more recovery in there. You could run 2-3 miles easy, then do 4 miles quicker, then 2-3 miles easy, for example, so that you are doing some easier, restoration running in the mix.

Revise the above to this: "If you are (not aren't) running more miles of quality aerobic thanyour body is ready for, then you will have failing adaptation."