Physiology questions about Lydiard training.

Some of you, you mean about the danger of doing anaerobic training during the aerobic build up phase, you mean about the danger of acidosis, you mean about to avoid of peak too soon while doing anaerobic training, you say that anaerobic training confines or reduces the aerobic condition, you mean about many things you never did or experienced as coach, you never tested, you have no idea how much acidosis one runner does produce after some kind of anaerobic training.

In fact some of you you just read some books, hear the others say, what some supposed experts told you, and you just took it for granted and youy spread the same idea as a right conclusion. This is how is made the dogma on the running community.

The Dudley study that John Hadd posted on the mine and John’s thread 2 kinds of runners. Which are you?

was, for the first time to my knowledge, scientific proof that backed up our contention that there are 2 types of runners.

Now this is no little study, it has been extensively quoted in the literature (176 citations until 2008) and, it has also used over the years by those with a personal “fast” agenda to argue that we should all be doing short, fast intervals.

I quote Owen Anderson by instance, “…For example, just 10 minutes of fast running per day fattened cytochrome c as much as 27 minutes daily at 85% VO2max or 60 to 90 minutes at 70 to 75% VO2max.”

Of course, Owen Anderson neglects to say that this only happens in Type IIb fibres (the fast ones)… and won’t be of much use to you if you don’t have any or just a little !

So, certain coaches, Frank Horwill and O. Anderson by instance, who should know better, have repeatedly used the Dudley study conclusion over the years to sell their own agenda and confuse young kids and coaches into thinking that intervals are king of training.

To my knowledge, on Cabral & Hadd “2 kind of runners. Which you are” is the first time this study has ever been cited to back up a claim that those with 80% ST fibres actually do benefit more from a form of training that is radically different to those with 50% ST fibres.

So for someone to say, they “knew that already” is somewhat disingenuous. Or to say that ther´s no physiologic or scientific prove is disingenuous again. Or to say that this study does practice application just when you do biopsy it´s disingenuous as well.

They might have known from experience that Runner ST should not train like Runner FT, but I do not believe that they were aware that the science actually supported their experience.

One kind of runners goes better with more interval training dosage, shorter intervals in faster pace. Some others goes better with more mileage, less intervals, long intervals.

If you are a 400m/800m runner, you start to be outside the boundary of the applicability of Lydiard's training.

The danger of anaerobic training is mainly one of peak management. In a Lydiard program, the anaerobic phase might be up to 3 hard sessions a week, each requiring 48 hours of recovery. This is not something you can sustain for more than a few weeks without degrading your performance. This brings you quickly to a peak, and just as quickly past it.

But you can certainly rearrange your training (and Antonio will tell you how) to include faster paces weekly, without pushing you past your peak.

Danger of wrong peak by doing anaerobic training is another fantasy, just invented to justify the need of aerobic-first.

Marathon requires from 1 week to 2 weeks taper with easy training JUST, HM one week, 800m, 1500m, 5000m 1000m from one week to 3 days before the goal run. There what´s the problem of doing anaerobic training 1 month, 2 months, 3 months...6 months before the goal runs ? ! No problem at all absolutely.

If the anaerobic training done long before the goal competition is devastating, the runner got plenty of time to correct that fast training and move to softer anaerobic training, the way he got plenty of time to be in his top shape condition right before the competition season.

About the other fantasy that the anaerobic training done too early in the season doesn´t enable shape up condition due to high the shape condition too soon, that just might happen if it´s done too much or too much chronologic frequency or too fast relate the momentary shape condition of the runner during the build up aerobic phase. That is the "sexy training" i did write above.

Otherwise, as i wrote above, and i hope it´s clear for all of you, the introduce and include anaerobic training during the early stages of preparation and done with parsimony "helps" the progress of the aerobic system, as the aerobic system also "helps" anaerobic enhance combined with the anaerobic training during the same period of training. All depends how much and how long, how fast an long.

Wow, I don't know about the rest of you, but I just had an Epiphany. Happy (belated) feast of the kings.

What I mean by "peak management" is avoiding the danger you described as what "might happen if it´s done too much or too much chronologic frequency". When "anaerobic training" is defined as intense workouts (which lower arterial blood pH) that requires 48 hours of recovery, and they are done 2-3x a week, then it is not unusual to caution "don't do this every week of the year".

If we follow your approach, which includes anaerobic training in early stages with parsimony, then we don't risk peaking before it matters. Lydiard/Livingstone warnings about peaking prematurely are not applicable to another training structure which manages the risk differently.

Here's a related practical, coaching advice, question for you: If a seasoned (mature), but not necessarily elite, athlete takes 3 months off completely from running (e.g. as often happens between fall cross-country and spring track), would you, as the coach for this hypothetical athlete, have a short introductory phase (e.g. 2-3 weeks) that is pure "aerobic", or would you introduce "anaerobic" training from the very first week?

I guess that i understood your comment, my intention isn´t deny your comment, but enforces that both peak too soon or peak out of the right moment it´s based in false arguments that got no physiology or methodology support. I also agree that too much anaerobic training - as too much of any pace zone or too much volume (or both) , more than the benefit is useless if not damage.

To answer your question i answer with a concrete case take out from the reality, my coach reality.

One 28 years old runner that i coach. He didn´t train for about 1 1/2 year. He got overweight. 15kilos more than his usual 57kilos when he was in good shape condition. There he wants to come back. Since he is a distance road runner, we didn´t timed yet the first run of his comeback, and also he didn´t schedule this goal season, that in any case wouldn´t be before late April.

He decides to start training then new year´s day January 1 2013. What he did ? Hardly 20min very easy in the first day. From the day day until last friday (the day before yesterday) he did progressively 30 to 40min easy. Don´t forget he is out of shape and 15kilos overweight. Yesterday (saturday) he did start with something fast outdoor. 20min easy warmup + 5X5min/fast recovery=1min/walk+1min/easy jog. How fast, we didn´t time yet, we didn´t control, but relate to his actual poor shape condition it´s anaerobic training for him, and i guess that despite the fast his slow relate to what he would run on thios 5X5min/fast it´s faster relate to his actual shape condition. I know he get some high tax of acidosis. i did plan or him that on the next wednesday he will run this track session 10X300m recover=50m/walk+50m/jog in about 35-40secs (the recover). I know that with this both kind of intervals that for him

isn´t aerobic training, his aerobic pathway will enhance as would be impossible with just aerobic training and with tempo runs or continuous runs of fast pace.

i know that despite he just have a few days of comeback training what he does

is better than just runs or long runs in this phase. Today (sunday) he was able to run for one hour what is not bad for the just 6 days of training after 1 1/2 year out of training and become fat. Today he did report me that despite he did that 1 hour of run in about the same pace that the ays of the easy runs he felt more comfort and undoubtly it was saturday 5X5min interval workout what permits him to run fast and longer on the sunday daily run.

I guess that the fact that one runner is out of shape or poor aerobic condition if he wants to move up his aerobic condition ther´s nothing as some fast training but done by intervals, not by tempo or continuous fast run. The recovery periods is essential to someone that is in bad shape or poor aerobic condition. Later on when the the aerobic condition will enhance it´s when is the right moment to introduce long intervals and/or tempo runs and continuous runs.

I guess that you question is answered. I will got benefits to introduce progressively and parsimony some kind of anaerobic training, the training that will take you closer and closer to the pace that is faster than your race pace, or closer to your VO2max or faster.

Thanks Antonio. Very interesting.

I can say something more.

To maximally provoke this runner anaerobic capacity, he may run short, all-out as fast as possible with long rests (1:3 1:4 or 1:5, like 100m in 15 secs, stand and walk the bend in 60 secs and repeat). For THAT kind of training you do NOT want pyruvate to accumulate (hence the proportionally long recovery).

However, to improve AnP (another way of saying; the power to create lactate transporters and better get the pyruvate/lactate out of those muscle cells which cannot deal with it internally), you MUST create very high lactate conditions within the cell. You MUST accumulate tons of pyruvate, like the cell is gonna burst with pyruvate/lactate, which will best stimulate your cells to create transporters in order to get rid of it.

Some other kind of workouts I may advise him doing in the next weeks:

- all-out AFAP (As Fast As Possible) reps with EXTREMELY short recoveries. 4 x 200m AFAP recovery=15 secs/stand or 6-8 x 100m AFAP rec=5 secs/stand

- all-out AFAP reps with SHORT BUT ACTIVE recoveries. 7-10 x 300m AFAP recovery=30 secs/100m jog or 10-15 x100m AFAP recovery=

- 1-3x500m all out AFAP very long stand recovery or 3-5 x 400m all out AFAP with very long stand recovery

It´s done with long frewuencty

Anaerobic training so soon ? Let's see why.

Remember the norm: we want to use our anaerobic lactate energy system as much as possible, but not too much that it slows us down before the finish line.

The runner is already using more of that anaerobic energy system (but (under controlled conditions !)... so how can we make him use even more again?

Remember the cascade pyramid. Should we go on trying to add more and more tiers to our champagne/lactate pyramid? Simply aerobic training on and on?

No. We must always maintain that ability, and even try to increase the (aerobic) tiers over time... but there is something we must also take care of that in itself would allow our runner to run significantly faster in races. And it would allow him to do so very very soon!

It is not high blood lactate that slows runners. High blood lactate is simply a symptom of trouble elsewhere (and I once wrote a metaphor of a fire alarm in a corridor that did not tell you that there might be a raging inferno in one room). We measure blood lactate because we cannot measure intercellular lactate.

Accumulated pyruvate/lactate IN THE MUSCLE CELL is the problem. We've said repeatedly that if it over-accumulates then the muscle cell will be forced to shut down. However, if you can get the lactate out of the cell, the cell will keep working and you can deal with the lactate elsewhere (in the ST fibres in the lower tiers of the pyramid).

And if you can get it out in rapid enough quantities, you can go on using your powerful FTb and FTa fibres for longer and longer in any race without having their power compromised by overuse.

All runners know that encroaching "dead legs" feeling of rising lactate in a race. Many probably mistakenly believe it has something to do with "rising blood lactate". I don't believe so. I think that feeling is drastic loss of power brought on by a large number of FT fibres shutting down through over-internal-accumulation of pyruvate. It's like your 4 cylinder car suddenly running on only 3 cylinders and it struggles on the uphills...

What is this kind of training to provoke lactate transporters?

I received some emails where it´s said that many US college coaches apparently overuse it: in a word, "puke/vomit training”. Although you do not have to go to that way, to that extent ! And not every day on !

Pyruvate doesn't accumulate in muscle cells, it must be converted to lactate.

And I think you misread Northern stars point about 'anaerobic training'.

Thank you for sharing your training theories. How fast do you think that your athlete will eventually run in his chosen discipline once he gets down to his racing weight? Also, given that your training approach will theoretically give him more lactate transporters in his muscle cells than a "conventional" aerobic-first approach, how much faster do you think he will run than if he followed a classic Lydiard approach?

Lactate transporters? Really? This was flavor of the month stuff back in 2002, Antonio has no idea about lactate transporter protein expression.

For some people, Lydiard training was the flavor of the month since the 1950's, so what's your point?

And, why yes, Pyruvate *does* accumulate in the muscles, unless Dr Larry Moran, Prof of Biochemistry is wrong

(http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2012/08/muscles-and-lactic-acid-myth.html).

Regardless of the biological mechanisms inhibiting performance, i think Cabral has found training techniques that help mitigate dead longs and extend FTa/b usage. I'm still unclear on how to do so throughout a training season (though i find racing XC helps!).

I recall reading a Kenyan interval technique that was to improve the "lactate shuttle": they ran ~24k, alternating 1k at marathon pace, and 1k 20 seconds slower. This was at 7000ft over hilly terrain, so much much harder then it sounds, maybe at sea level its equiv to Half Marathon pace. I've tried 12k and struggled, though it was a little early in the season. Would this workout help with lacatate transporters? Is it fast enough?

as a 400/800 runner the primary goal of training is to progress in 4x400m relay capability while managing to build stamina as well, not visa versa. the best 400/800 runners have 44.5-46 relay capability.

zero evidence to show intensity is detrimental to stamina, excluding cases of overtraining which can be either too much hard work or too much easy work.

zero evidence that heavy reps are superior to medium. 2b fiber tends to disappear with serious endurance work anyway, be it quality or volume, therefore no need to target 2b specifically.

recruitment in fatiguing exercise (endurance or strength work) is far more complex. motor units do not work in isolation --ever. the size principle is archaic. neurological adaptations are inescapable whatever the strength work.

Mr. Amused,

1) Why Anaerobic work - Lydiard's Hill Phase (4-6wks) also contributes to Anaerobic activity and stride efficiency, turnover, and neuromuscular comfort.

2) Heavy Weights/Low Reps - Kenyans and Ethiopians don't lift heavy weights, but there are always hills and plyometrics.

coachkritter wrote:

Mr. Amused,

1) Why Anaerobic work - Lydiard's Hill Phase (4-6wks) also contributes to Anaerobic activity and stride efficiency, turnover, and neuromuscular comfort.

It´s true, but some runners do miss the classic Lydiard hill phase and they

did perform well and they didn´t show signs of less stride efficiency, less turnover, less neuromuscular comfort -less biomechanics efficiency.

I got no doubt as well that specific training done when the runner shape condition shape condition moves up (the training approach relate with race pace distance event) is crucial to maximize the runner ability.

While i say that aerobics is all right, i don´t deny the interest of strong aerobic training, and ther´s no doubt in my mind that strong aerobic training is essential as distance training approach, simply shall be combined with some other training that stimulus other training systems with a sustained combination for better efficiency of the AEROBIC SYSTEM, i got some doubts of the range of efficiency of hill training - the Lydiard hill way.

There is 50 ways to leave your lover (Paul Simon song) and ther´s also many ways to kill a cat.

Here i go again. My training OPTION is as it is, with the use of some anaerobic stuff right from the season intro, got to do with the training organisation, season organisation, season management, and promotes be competitive during a long season period, opposed to Lydiard training that thinks that we can´t be on top shape just twice in one season. My season proposal is very different from the one that thinks that we might confine competition during the base phase, to those that think that some anaerobic training compromises the competitive season some months later, or that they think if you don´t do aerobic-first all the season is compromised.

Somehow the one mile 50-50 that is one of the late season Lydiard advise i would say that in my opinion that´s the kind of first workout to run in the aerobic build up phase. Just to let you know, because in reality i got better workouts that this one of 50-50.

Of course that the question that´s to fit my training with the Lydiard one, or to preserve Lydiard norms while introduce my training it´s very ineffective. Would be a melting pot. That´s the reason why the usual question "how you will do what you do on the Lydiard training " is a impossible answer.

fizzyology detector wrote:

Pyruvate doesn't accumulate in muscle cells, it must be converted to lactate.

And I think you misread Northern stars point about 'anaerobic training'.

i´m right. I try to avoid rocky physiology, and here is the reason. I refuse to present my physiology background, that suports my training methodology. The physiology is one, but for each one "his own" different physiology.

My physiology is one, but the fizzyolog detector is different.

Here is something from Renato that appeared on page 26 of the giant thread:

But, what is important to know, is that, after using repetitions on track at high intensity (for example, 4 x 600m at 1:22 rec. 6/8 min for an athlete able running 1:47) without adequate aerobic support, for a time longer than 3 weeks, you can check that your Threshold decreased. Instead, after using circuits with adequate aerobic support, your Threshold increases. I suppose that this fact is due to the more global involvement of a higher percentage of fibres during the training, having a combined effect with the aerobic work able to push the Threshold, while fast tests on track have an OPPOSITE effect on the Threshold.

I want to write an experience that we had in Italy in 1990. At that time, we had a problem with 800m runners, having nobody able running under 1:46. There was a good group of very young athletes, born in '69-70 (Benvenuti, D'Urso, Giocondi, Bonamici, Chiavarini and some other less strong) that we wanted to follow for solving the problem.

In December 1989, we tested all the athletes (using a very simple Conconi-test) for detecting their AnT, after one month of long run, not very fast. Here are the data :

D'Urso 20,2 km/h (2'58" / km)

Benvenuti 19,1 km/h (3'08" / km)

Soffietto 18,8 km/h (3'11" / km)

Giocondi 18,8 km/h (3'11" / km)

Chiavarini 17,7 km/h (3'23" / km)

Bonamici 17,5 km/h (3'26" / km)

The athletes were assembled together in Turin (were we had an indoor track always open) from December for preparing their indoor season.

After some work non yet very fast (for example, 10x200m in 28", or 10x500 in 1'18" rec. 2'/3' depending on the athlete), they went for the first competition (10th of January) with split every 200m. The result was :

1) Benvenuti 1:51.2 (28.8 / 56.8 / 1:24.2 + 27.0)

2) Bonamici 1:51.6 (29.0 / 57.4 / 1:24.6 + 27.0)

3) Chiavarini 1:52.2 (28.5 / 56.2 / 1:23.7 + 28.5)

4) Soffietto 1:52.6 (28.7 / 56.6 / 1.24.0 + 28.6)

D'Urso and Giocondi didn't compete.

The athlete, during the next period, went for a training based on speed and lactic workouts, reducing long run very much (also for the bad conditions of weather, often snowing and under 0°).

Particularly Andrea Bonamici was able to improve very much in speed. One his workout, for instead, was 3 sets of 4x200m recovering 45" (5 min among the sets) in about 24"5/24", with the last 200m in 23"7.

They competed some time (2-3 times) in national races, improving only a little, but nobody was able running under 1:51.0.

After 40 days (20th of February) they went for Italian Championships, for qualifying European Championships.

The race was fast, as we had a rabbit pushing the pace in 25.8 / 52.4 / 1:18.8. All the athletes were destroyed, and Benvenuti won in 1:50.9 (last 200m in 31.2, because he was n. 3 after 600m !).

We were not able to understand soon what could have happened during the period of training. Few days later, we went with all the group in Tirrenia for beginning the preparation for the outdoor season. We tested another time the athletes using the same system (Conconi-test), and we found the following values :

D'Urso (non training with the group because he did't compete in any indoor race) 20.6 km/h (2'55" / km)

Giocondi (like D'Urso) 19.4 km/h (3'06" / km)

Benvenuti 18.1 km/h (3'19" / km)

Soffietto 17.7 km/h (3'23" / km)

Chiavarini 16.8 km/h (3'34" / km)

Bonamici 16.3 km/h (3'41" / km)

So, the results regarding AnT for the athletes, after 3 months of training, was the following :

Group A : Athletes NON USING very much LACTIC TRAINING :

D'Urso + 2 % (from 2:58 to 2:55)

Giocondi + 3 % (from 3:11 to 3:06)

Group B : Athletes using mainly ANAEROBIC WORKOUTS :

Benvenuti - 6 % (from 3:08 to 3:19)

Soffietto - 6 % (from 3:11 to 3:23)

Chiavarini - 5 % (from 3:23 to 3:34)

Bonamici - 7 % (from 3:26 to 3:41)

More the athletes used speed endurance at high level, with short recovery, WITHOUT HAVING ANY AEROBIC BASE, more they lost Aerobic Power, going into anaerobic system only for moderate speed.

More the athletes used workouts for increasing their Aerobic Power, more were able to be fast at the end of a very hard work.

Thru this experience we changed our systems, giving more importance to the aerobic basic work (not only long run, but long intervals on track and short intervals not very fast, reducing recovery times).

Thru this system, in 3 years we had Benvenuti 5th in OG '92 able running 1:43.92, and then to win European Ch. '94 ; D'Urso silver medal in WCh '93, able running 1:43.95 ; Giocondi 7th in WCh '95 and able running 1:44.85 ; and also Chiavarini ran 1:45.02, while Soffietto and Bonamici disappeared. The same school was used with Longo.

So, for us, the importance of having a high level of AnT (due to mythocondrial situation) is a fact now well known, and who was in our group at that time (like Gianni Ghidini, coach of Andrea Benvenuti) continues to use these systems also with kenyans like Bungei (1:42.34), Yiampoy (1:42.91), Kimwetich (1:43.03), Mutua (1:43.33) and many others, with different levels of speed."

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=458338&page=25#ixzz2HKeU0EU0

Paradigm-shift evaluator wrote:

How much faster do you think he will run than if he followed a classic Lydiard approach?

Here is the million dollar question. The question that got no answer. Go ahead and ask to the Lydiard coaches.

Antonio,

Do you have your athletes use heart rate monitors for easy runs, workouts, etc...

I think that Dr Larry Moran, Prof of Biochemistry is wrong.

How is that scenario of pyruavte accumulation even possible?. The mitochondria only convert what they need from the accumulation of lactate, and any excess lacte is shuttled into circulation.

The way to avoid excess aciodis is to get a good warm up so that when you race you are more fuel/oxygen economic.

The winner of a 400 or 800 is not the one who can stand the highest levels of acidosis/low pH because that is an inneficient way to run and causes hyperventialtion. Look at the best 400 and 800 meter runners, they are not gasping after a good race, because they don't have extreme acidosis.

There is no way that a healthy well trained runner can have a lack of sufficient lactate transporters. That should not be a concern in your training or racing.

Neither should you worry about optimize your lactate shuttle. The only concern should be proper pace judgement in training and racing.