Physiology of lactic work counteracting aerobic work

I am always amazed at the discussion around lactate. Lactate absolutely is not the cause of delayed muscle soreness. it is essentially back to near baseline levels withing 30-60 minutes after a high intensity training. Muscle pH is also back to normal within about 30-60 min. Generally speaking lactate is taken up by skeletal muscle and converted to energy or it is taken up by the liver to form liver glycogen which is then used to maintain blood glucose. Also, everyone generates and handles lactate differently, so you absolutely can't train everyone the same. Fast fibers are lactate generators, slow fibers are lactate consumers. Your heart is a major consumer of lactate, as is your brain. Part of the reason to do basework is so that you can train the mitochondria of the slow fibers (heart included) to increase in size and number and then they can consume the lactate that is generated by the fast fibers when you get to the higher intensity training. Aerobic training compliments anaerobic training in that you will clear lactate faster during and after an activity. The consequence of this is that you can actually generate more anaerobic energy (which is quite fats) without the accumulating lactate in the muscle and blood. There are a zillion factors that impact the fate of lactate. I worked for 3 years on this single question with Dr. Bruce Gladden at Auburn University and we only scratched the surface of it. 20 years later he is still asking the same question. If you want to understand lactate metabolism, search "Gladden, LB" on Pubmed. It will give you everything you probably want to know and then some.

The goal of training is essentially to replicate the demand on the various energy systems (call it aerobic or anaerobic if you want) that will be called upon during racing sessions. If your chosen activity is 800-m then you will likely do about 1/2 or more of your training at the anaerobic intensity. If it is 2 miles, then you will want to do about 85% of your work at a moderate to high aerobic intensity with the balance being anaerobic work.

While I understand the desire to train these kids scientifically, the bottom line is that many coaches are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. If the kids don't run in the off season, it is really just a game to them. Make it fun, not complicated. Get excited for them that they ran 4 miles in a workout and managed to get under 5 or 6 min for the mile. No need for marathon pace training or lactate threshold training (this can change in just a few weeks with a novice runner). Once they "buy-in" then you can start with the complex training. Until then, a game of ultimate frisbee after a 3 mile run will likely be physiologically more productive than 8 x 400 at ...

Glad someone brought up Canova...I remember reading an article describing his "Special period" which combines long anaerobic threshold workouts with short aerobic speed workouts in the same microcycle to be used as a buildup to prepare for goal pace or race specific workouts. Granted these speed workouts are relatively low in volume and with full recovery. So its understandably important in this case to at least pepper in these workouts, to stay in touch with speed. I think it's the anaerobic speed workouts that have a negative effect on aerobic power. Someone posted a link to another thread that says anaerobic speed workouts early in the training phase or with no aerobic base can have negative effects on aerobic power.

I've coached high school runners. Forget the whole base followed by speed concept. Runners who take winters off between XC and track are not going to have time to do real base training. In college runners are expected to train year round. Not so at the high school level.

Get them doing reasonable mileage ( varies per runner ) and put in light speedwork and let them race themselves into shape. They'll get there just the same without injury. You can't effectively shoe horn runners into shape.

The best runners trained in between seasons. Winter and summers. You can force them to do it, but the best are motivated to do it anyway.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

Here on page 2, 10th post down, is a long quote from Renato about this:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=717995&page=1

Thanks for that. I am a (previous! a long time ago) 1:49 guy whose performances would drop off around 2 months into the season every year. I would start feeling "weird" like I was missing something about 2/3-3/4 into an 800 or mile and would no run as fast as I had prior to the season. In retrospect I imagine it was overtraining, something with which I was not familiar at the time. We definitely did plenty of speed work and I definitely had a base, but I think my recovery runs were too fast and I possibly didn't get enough time to recover between workouts given my personal physiological makeup.

Anyway, it's interesting to see what happened with the Italians when they had no base built up and did fast stuff. As I said, I think there is something that goes on, whether it is simply fatigue or something enzymatic, that either takes some time for recovery or actually counteracts aerobic gains.

I am happy for the informed replies on here.

Original Runner wrote:

There is no proof that Lactate is bad for recovery or bad for endurance training. I thought this for years and years myself. I asked the same question over and over and got no replies. Much of distance running advice is based upon mythology and quotes. To the contrary cyclists follow research closely and train accordingly. I went to many clinics in my day. But the most informational one was Owen Anderson's. Read his book "Lactate Liftoff" if you want to understand Lactate from a purely scientific, research based standpoint. It is an impressive piece of work.

I both agree and disagree with you. I common misconception with lactic acid being bad for you or when talking about lactic tolerance, etc, is the fact that they get two terms mixed up. Lactic acid is actually very good for you. It is the anaerobic energy that your body burns when it starts using the anaerobic system more and more. It is less efficient then your aerobic system because your aerobic system simply burns glucose in the mitochondria and then transports the energy to the muscle fiber. The anaerobic system on the other hand is less efficient. As your anaerobic system begins working your intermediate twitch and fast twitch muscles cannot process burn all of the lactic acid so it uses transport proteins called MCTs to transport the lactic acid from your intermediate fibers and fast twitch fibers to your slow twitch muscles, liver, heart, and brain. It is for this reason why your entire body burns when running the 800m because that is the event when the most lactic acid is produced. After these other places burn the lactic acid the MCTs then transfers the energy back to the intermediate and fast twitch fibers. Hence why the body can run on the aerobic system for longer because it is more efficient.

When people train there LT or there anaerobic capacity or lactic tolerance it is usually not referring to lactic acid but rather the by product of lactic acid, Hydrogen Ions. These hydrogen ions are the burning feeling you get in your legs, not the lactic acid. Your body counteracts this acid hydrogen by creating buffers which neutralizes the acidity. Lactic Tolerance is more in reference to the mental ability to push through that lactic barrier of rigor mortis. Like the last 200m of an 800m or the last 100m of a 400m.

So how does it damage your system?

Well when running at a speed faster than the lactate threshold you are producing more lactic acid than your body can burn so it begins to build up. This doesn't damage the aerobic system because your body is still able to process the lactic acid but it does so by producing more mitochondria in different muscle fibers, depending on the speed, and MCTs. When your aerobic system is damaged it is because your aerobic enzymes are being overloaded with high acidity and your CNS is also damaged.

So why is some anaerobic training good and why is some bad?

When we run faster we use more intermediate muscle fibers and more fast twitch fibers. The only damaging anaerobic training that I am aware of from what I have studied is 1500m pace-400m pace workouts. It is these paced workouts that use a large amount of fast twitch fibers while producing and accumulating high amounts of lactic acid.

1500m workouts typically do not damage the aerobic system. It can actually be used to strengthen the aerobic system by increasing your stroke volume, increasing the muscle strength of your lungs, and increasing capillaries in fast twitch fibers. It also increases mitochondrial density in fast twitch fibers and increase MCTs in fast fibers. It also makes your running economy better. This starts being damaging if you don't have enough rest between your reps,your reps are over 3 min in length or you do these workouts to close together.

800m pace workouts are probably the common anaerobic workout known for damaging your aerobic system. That is because the 800m is run with extreme amount of lactic acid in your body so training must try to simulate that. The benefits this workout provides is extraordinary as well. You produce more mitochondria in your fast twitch fibers, your body makes more anaerobic enzymes and buffers, more MCTs, and increases your running economy. This only lasts about 4-6 weeks though before this starts to be damaging.

400m pace reps can damage your CNS if done to much or in to high of a volume

So how do we train to get the most benefit with the least amount of work and the least damage?

Well the first is to ease into it. Don't suddenly do 1500m or 800m pace. Start with 3000m pace then workout down or don't do a full 1500m or 800m workout at first.

Let me give you an example of what I would do for 1500m training before doing RP workouts.

I have four interval style workouts to get good physiological benefits that are special to 1500m, using Canova terms.

Long hill reps of 60 sec-120 sec with reps 6-10 reps with a walk down recovery-This is done at 1500m effort and gives you almost all the benefits of a 1500m pace workout without the risk of aerobic damage

3000m pace reps cutting down to close to 1500m pace- one of my favorite workouts to do is 3x(600 + 500 + 400 + 300 + 200)

2min between reps, 5min between sets

If someone is running 4:33 for 1600m then the reps would be at 73 per lap pace, 72/71 pace, 71 pace, 69 pace, and 64 pace. This is based off of what you want to run for the next race.

800m pace with short full speed reps at the end- 2 sets of 5 x 300m at (800) 1:30 min recovery between repeats, 4min between sets. Then doing

6x60 Full Sprint 1 min Rec

CV pace-7x1000 at CV (3200) with 200m rest followed by 6x200 @ mile pace with 200m jog

These are the key workouts interval workouts that I use for 1500m if you have any questions just ask.

MatthewTheHahn wrote:

Lactic Tolerance is more in reference to the mental ability to push through that lactic barrier of rigor mortis.

It sounds like you're suffering from the same problem that malmo said the OP is: Using scientific language so casually that it's improper. Rigor mortis can't happen until you're dead. Not sure why you brought it into this.

MatthewTheHahn wrote:

CV pace-7x1000 at CV (3200) with 200m rest followed by 6x200 @ mile pace with 200m jog

These are the key workouts interval workouts that I use for 1500m if you have any questions just ask.

I find it interesting that ever since Drew's success and the Tinman interview that I see guys talking about their CV training like they've been doing it for years. Maybe they have. But I'd like to point out that Tinman very specifically described CV as a pace between 5k and 10k race paces...yet you have described it as like a 3200m pace. Makes me think you're doing it wrong or using the wrong terminology again.

Wrong. CV pace is 30-35 minute race pace.

Great response. Spot on.

Running is complicated. Coaching high school runners is more complicated (especially when they miss training in the off-season - I feel your pain there )

I also really liked the book "Brain Training for Runners" by Matt Fitzgerald. He builds a really good case for neuromuscular training, which I think especially applies to high school aged athletes.

One more thing I'd like to add is that as kids come in weaker and less flexible due to video games and the like, the need for injury preventative strength training, drills, as well as sprints are very important for development.

I would love for my high school athletes to just go out and run mileage, but I have found this is ultimately ineffective without proper preparation and years of development.

malmo is right on.

and OP, you don't know what you're doing. keep it simple, they are high school kids. you are a great overthinker

don't ruin them. and never say "marathon pace/upper aerobic and anaerobic threshold work" to your high school kids.

well,. wrote:

Hmmmmmmm wrote:

It sounds like you're suffering from the same problem that malmo said the OP is: Using scientific language so casually that it's improper. Rigor mortis can't happen until you're dead. Not sure why you brought it into this.

I find it interesting that ever since Drew's success and the Tinman interview that I see guys talking about their CV training like they've been doing it for years. Maybe they have. But I'd like to point out that Tinman very specifically described CV as a pace between 5k and 10k race paces...yet you have described it as like a 3200m pace. Makes me think you're doing it wrong or using the wrong terminology again.

Wrong. CV pace is 30-35 minute race pace.

http://www.therunzone.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3999

Not wrong. I read the same thing you did. Here it is again, posted on LRC:

In Tinman's post in your link and in mine, both your phrasing (30-35 min. race pace) and mine (between 5k race-pace and 10k race-pace) are the same if the runner is roughly a 35min. to 55min. 10k guy. Although a substantial number of people on LRC are faster, Tinman may have been catering to a wider audience, who would fall in that 35-55min. 10k range.

Even if Tinman had not been trying to relate CV for a wider audience, my phrasing isn't entirely wrong, but rather just wrong for 10k guys faster than 35-ish minutes, and wrong for 10k guys slower than 55 to 60 min (which gives a 5k just under 30 min.). This still leaves LOTS of guys that run a 10k between 35-ish and 55-ish minutes for whom my phrasing is correct. For that matter, I find it laughable that you would so staunchly criticize my phrasing, considering that I took it from Tinman...in the very link you posted.

Lastly, no matter which definition you use (mine or yours), you still proved my point against MatthewTheHahn, which was that CV pace was slower than 3200m pace.

malmo is so wrong by stating that speed should be focused on in the beginning of the season. Do that and be assured your athlete will peak too soon and falter at the end of the season. Who has malmo coached again?

young bloods wrote:

malmo is right on.

and OP, you don't know what you're doing. keep it simple, they are high school kids. you are a great overthinker

don't ruin them. and never say "marathon pace/upper aerobic and anaerobic threshold work" to your high school kids.

This really hurts my head and heart.

A lot of what has been stated from a scientific perspective, is flat out wrong. For example, we do not split electrons from Oxygen to provide energy. Oxygen is an electron acceptor.

I also feel a lot of people here have a basic misunderstanding of anaerobic metabolism. To the poster a few posts above this, aerobic metabolism does not burn glucose in the mitochondria. Glucose is immediately converted to G6P upon entry into a cell, and is converted to pyruvate prior to entering the mitochondria.

More importantly, glucose is the primary fuel for anaerobic metabolism, alongside phosphocreatine (or creatine phosphate if you prefer). Your body uses glycolysis (the very same pathway involved in aerobic metabolism) to break down CHO sources (glucose/glycogen) into pyruvate, which generated ATP (energy) and reducing equivalents. Because LDH is a near equilibrium reaction, any excess pyruvate production will be default result in lactate production. This occurs in slow twitch muscle, fast twitch muscles etc.

Both fast/hard training (i.e. intervals) and long slow training will increase mitochondrial content and therefore aerobic capacity (this is the very premise of high intensity interval training). They just do it by different cellular pathways.

Aerobic capacity can be improved by both. However aerobic efficiency will be eroded by excessive hard training at paces of vo2 max and faster. The op will be confused by your statement.

That depends on what you mean by efficiency? If you're viewing "aerobic efficiency" as cellular efficiency (i.e. efficiency of the mitochondria) - that doesn't change based on exclusively training aerobic vs. anaerobic.

exphys wrote:

This really hurts my head and heart.

A lot of what has been stated from a scientific perspective, is flat out wrong. For example, we do not split electrons from Oxygen to provide energy....

This thread is funny. Bunch of scientist-type runner/coaches saying how the others are slightly wrong and how they, in fact, have the answer. Which one of you do we believe? Who is right? Who wins? Those Magness articles were great. VERY insightful stuff. However, the guy needs to take his own advice though. Seems like a lot of his posts are extremely rooted in science and unwavering.

trying to help them run fast wrote:

"You don't want to do a ton of faster training without a base phase because it will erode away aerobic efficiency."

Thank you for your reply. Do you know why this is?

Anaerobic work hurts mitochondria, which are built up by aerobic work

Uric acid and cortisol among other things.

trying to help them run fast wrote:

So why exactly would the faster stuff counteract aerobic training? I think I know why, but do not want to lead anyone in answering. It is my understanding that Arthur Lydiard, for one, was against doing any glycolytic work (besides short alactic stuff) during the base phase.

No it doesn't! If that was the case, then all sprinters would be devoid of mitochondria... Which they aren't. Remember kids, "mitochondria are the powerhouses of the cell".

Mitochondria produce energy. But two of the major "stimuli" for producing new mitochondria (biogenesis) are energy depletion and calcium release. Both occur in aerobic training and anaerobic training.

Yeah and following that logic sprinters should be good at distance running. Again missing the point. The tempo runs and longer repeats at slower than vo2/3-5k or whatever jargon you want to use should be the basis of your speed work and the paces faster than that should be used on a limited basis early on and then more in the latter 4-6 weeks of the season for high school distances.