"Also John, if he says something different about the LT ot LTp that he says in that McMIllan thread you might read it at the interpretation that there are zone of LT depending of what´s been the event considered. It´s quite simple. As there are aerobic zones of training, different aerobic paces [...]"
This I understand of course, but actually in the McMillian thread HADD explicitly and very clearly distinguished the "LT intensity" (which, in this thread, he referred to be 90-100min pace) and "LT training" paces, see the excerpt I give in by previous post (or his original post). So, he really means that, according to him, there is a "real" threshold @90-100min pace, he is not talking about some LT training pace specific to the marathon.
Second, he gives a pretty clear and precise definition for this LT in the McMillian thread which corresponds to a MLSS measured during test up to exhaustion (again: see my excerpt or original post). This definition differs from the LT definition he gives in the "2 kind of runner" thread.
So what bothered me is not so much that the definition of LT in McMillian thread is not compatible with the current academic consensus, it is more that HADD is not consistent with himself in the terminology he uses. In the McMillian thread, he should have talked about something like "true MLSS" instead or something like that to refer to the threshold he his mentioning there. But ok, this is not a big issue.
What interested me most actually (and I come back to the original point I've made in my first post in this thread), is that the definition he gives in the McMillan thread for LT corresponds to an MLSS measured up to exhaustion, and he made the point that with this definition MLSS is closer to a 90-100min pace than the usual 60min (measured during 20min increment test usually). I found this point interesting, and I wondered wether this is his own guess/experience, or if it has had this information from some scientific source (scientific publication or personal conversation).
But again, if nobody knows, this is not so much an issue. Knowing or ignoring it wouldn't change the way we know how one's should train. This is just by sheer curiosity and will of understanding that I asked. I agree of course one doesn't necessarily have to have a clue what's going on physiologically (many good coaches didn't in the past, and some still don't).