Lactic Acid Update

RichardThanks for your answer. But let me profit the occasion to give a few examples what i want to say that you uses often illogical statements, a kind of build in pieces my answer.This would be my answer to my own question !

Richard_ wrote:

Taked for granteed that the Central Governator is a correct theory, stricktly from the prespective of the Central Governator theory - not muscular benefits - what may be the benefits from running all-out hilly workout from a flat all-out flat workout - if in both cases you work in a all-out intensity?"

I`m not able to answer you. Why?

First, as i don´t take for granteed that the Central GOvernator is a correct theory, my answer will be a false one.

Second, taking for granteed that any single or multiple effort acts in a multitude of effort zones (even those of a single intensity) - and consequently may produce several benefits, i no able to answer to a question that eliminates the muscular benefits. Every kind of effort acts also as a muscular effort, thus your question is unlikely, hard to believe.

Then this said, with all respect - may be that you understand why i say that you try to fool us with your training conclusions. All activity works in a whole - that´s why the effects of a training workout are multi-factorial and works in several levels.

Richard, with all respect, and if you permit me a peresonal consideration, you may be a very good physiologist, for the same reason that i think that you misunderstand coach. Why i say this? Because the mind of the scientist may discriminate, separate, focus in his experience, in his test, focus in his lab experience, run in a protocol - analitical mind.

But to coach, that´s complete the opposite. You may connect all data relate to that individual, past, present, future, complex connection of facts that you need to opte and decide among all info. Classify and decide on all that information...

This said, i simply wanted to explore this your paradigma - of what´s is irrealistic the science physilogy logic. The physilogist mind believes that´s possible to isolate the phenomena.

Don´t think that i don´t believe or i don´t use the all-out workouts. This is your good training as that are good some of your hill training -i guess. First i belive that if you want to run fast, you may train fast - somewhere somehow, second we may train in all training levels, including in all-out pace, no matter the workout format. Even the marathon runner may train in an all out pace somewhere somehow. Then we need to exercise in an all-out pace either, but not that all or most of the workouts that needs to be all-out. This is my point of disagreement.

That´s Mario Chipollini and that´s Richard Virenque. I see your point.

rivas,

Thanks for the interesting post and again for all of your citations. The majority of the people in here either don't have the time or the patience to do that.

The physiological ideas you present are very similar to the ones I have presented. They are different enough however, and are welcome in that some one may understand what you present better than the way I post it. Of course I don't personally believe my posts are that hard to read. A lot of this subject matter is difficult for some to comprehend. I try my best to try and explain things in a way that everyone can understand. I believe this both helps and hurts my cause, since in my desire to be thorough my posts tend to become long. Sometimes the ideas can get lost in the shuffle. Your posts are a little more technical, although still very understandable as far as the masses go I believe. Keep posting, we need your intellect, and expertise in here. Please continue to test me and correct me if I misspeak or am wrong on a point. I am here to learn as well a share ideas and educate.

If you are one of those people that recovers in one day, it makes sense to train daily.

If it takes you a couple of days to recover you should run less frequently.

For people with average recovery ability I basically recommend 3 days per week of running, 1-2 days per week of cross training, and 1 day of strength training.

For runners with above average recover rates, I suggest more frequent running - say 4-5 days per week.

For those exceptional few who recover really fast, the elites of the world, they can train 6-7 days per week. Even more if their recover rate permits. (I recall a study that found one individual recovered in about 4 hours. I'd train that dude twice daily.)

Define "recover" please.

Antonio,

Did you just attempt to trick me? If a particular workout is known to produce multiple benefits yet you ask me to explain just one of those benefits then, even though I wouldn't of my own choosing generally limit the discussion to a single benefit by itself, I would attempt to respect your request and answer only in terms of that single benefit. Especially when the person asking the question (you in this case) has demonstrated a strong knowledge of training. Yet, when I respect your request to answer only in terms of the Central Governor you accuse me of trying to fool people with my training conclusions? Perhaps I am mistaken as to your meaning?

I dont' believe or promote only "all-out" workouts. I recommend a variety of training paces. Generally I classify running workouts into three categories:

- long run at an easy to moderate pace

- power runs at a fast pace (5k - 1/2m pace generally)

- speed runs: intervals between 100 meter - 1500m pace

Richard, Richard, Richard. When are you going to learn?

Let's disregard the attempt to group the recovery rates of all people under the standard distribution. This may in fact be credible but you make no attempt to establish any credibility--you simply state that it is. Fortunately for us you skip ahead straight to the meat of the argument, which is where the mean (average person) lies.

They recruited six previously untrained subjects and put them through a 15 week training program.

In case you missed the relevant part of Richard's article, let me put it for you again:

They recruited six previously untrained subjects and put them through a 15 week training program. The 15 weeks were divided into four training periods:

If you haven't realized this already, Richard is here trying to take a study of untrained subjects (ie, people who are not runners) and make application to another group of people (namely, runners). This is a completely illegitimate transfer of information and goes against all of the basic rules of scientific research.

You might ask, "well what if Richard is using a study on non-runners but making a different application to runners?"

His summary:

We started this article with a discussion of the high mileage training habits of elite runners. Is high mileage the best training method for everyone? Clearly the answer is no, if for no other reason than many simply can not recover fast enough to handle the high training frequency required to run high weekly mileage. This study shows that training volume should be governed by recovery rate and like all physical characteristics, recovery rate varies by the individual. Some people recover quickly enough that they can train daily and recover. On average though, most runners will not recover in 1 day and should not train daily. As compelling as it may be to emulate the training of elites, unless you also posses an elite recovery rate you are unlikely to benefit from the training volume of an elite athlete.

Let's recap: an argument is formed that runners need complete recovery after workouts and that this often necessitates (for the normally distributed individual) 2-3 days a week free of running; the research cited for this argument is based upon non-runners; the summary of this argument is applied to runners.

Yes, that's right. Let's not forget about this thing called a "training response" which separates runners and non-runners into separate, discriminate groups. Yes, that's right--you have to actually train to get better at running. We all believe this no matter which training program unto which we subscribe yet Richard would have you forget this to believe his argument.

Richard, Richard, Richard. When are you going to learn? Don't ever post that recovery crap here again at least until you have a more convincing article. Here at letsrun.com we read, think, and care about running.

Meter,

I will permit myself this indulgence and reply one last time to you.

"I don't suppose you've considered the fact that recoverability is not static but modifiable..."

If it was significantly modifiable then you would be able to conduct an increasing frequency of quality workouts each week. If you are able to handle 2 hard workouts per week this year then as your recovery rate increases you could then do 3 hard workouts per week, then 4, then 5, then 6, until recovery rate finally peaks. Has that been your experience? Do standard training methods today recommend an increasing frequency of hard workouts each week, eventually peaking at a significantly higher number for experienced, trained runners than beginners?

"gradually increasing one's training load over time"

There is a simple explanation for an ability to increase training load over time, an explanation that has nothing to do with recovery rate.

slomo,

If I understand your point you are suggesting that untrained subjects are so completely different phsyiolgocally than trained subjects that the results of a study using untrained subjects has no applicability to trained subjects. Is that correct? If so, would you please provide the fdata/research supporting this claim?

Does this then mean that no data gathered from one group is ever applicable to members of any other group?

Antonio,

Your mentioning of the term interval to describe the recovery period peaked my interest in your discussion about incomplete rest periods in between repetitions. It is my understanding that Greshler did not necessarily desire very short recovery periods, nor did he necessarily desire the recovery intervals to be jogged. Many are aware that Gresheler and Reidell had their athletes lie down in between each fast run so that they could get the heart rate down as fast as possible. Of course this also had to do with the use of a cardiograph machine, which allowed them to monitor their athletes heart rates during the recovery period. I also believe Gresheler and Reidell cared more about recovery periods than he did about the running periods. They believed that the recovery period is where the training effect comes from as far as making the heart stronger. The more recovery periods there were the better.

It is also my understanding that the distance of the run period was determined my its ability to raise the athletes heart rate. Meaning, that it was meant to raise an athletes heart rate to just under 180 beats per minute, and never any higher. He also had somewhat of a rule as far as recovery was concerned. If his athletes heart rates did not drop down below 120 beats per minute in 90 seconds after a fast run, the workout was to stop so that the athlete did not become overly stressed. Likewise if the athlete's heart rate went over 180 beats per minute during the fast runs the workout also was to end.

This was as far as I can tell the first reference to interval training, and originally the interval was always refereed to as the recovery period, not the running segment. Through the years it has been used interchangeably to describe both the running period and/or the recovery period. This brings some confusion to me since I am not sure what people mean when they make reference to interval training. Seb Coe used to conduct so called interval training sessions, where the recovery was the interval. Somehow the recovery periods had become longish, about 3-4 times the duration of the fast run, and the distances used where usually always 200m or 400m. This seems to be the method used by the British during the late 70's and early 80's. I am unsure if they still use it today. How the recovery periods went from 90 seconds or less to 4 times the duration of the run I will never know. I do know that interval training was originally all about complete recovery before the next fast run, and that the goal was not to create more and more fatigue as the workout progressed. Back then I don't believe anyone cared about increasing lactate levels as the workout progressed.

This type of work was early season training however. This is how they got in shape for the harder race preparation type work to come. Some athletes even ran upwards of 100-mile weeks. This was the early to mid 20th century and it has often been thought that athletes did not start to run high mileage until Lydiard and Van Aaken came along. Of course this is not true.

Some people refer to the fast running segment as a repetition. I have even seen coaches classify workouts by the durations of the fast runs, where long repeats of about 800m or more are called receptions, and anything under this is called an interval. Anyone else get confused or annoyed by the all the possible misuse of these words? I prefer to refer to interval training in the classical term, where the recovery period is always the interval, and the fast run segment is always the repetition. If everyone adhered to the same terminology I believe it would reduce some confusion. Just thought I’d put these thoughts out there. Discus if you like.

Richard, the burden of proof is on you!

You (the one making the claim) need to supply evidence that data collected on previously untrained subjects is applicable to trained subjects!

Richard, you are clever as always (in that you deflect defending your position by asking another question). You know the answer to this yet I'll respond anyway.

People who are not runners (non-runners) but would like to be runners (runners) must train.

Training to be a runner (runner) includes running.

Running (training) causes the body to respond.

The response to training (training response) is that trained runners (runners) are specifically adapted to running such that they perform better than when they were untrained (non runners).

This is categorically true. For more depth on this issue I advise you consult Lore of Running by Noakes, Timothy D, MD.

If you take issue with the idea of a "training response" then I suggest you experiment by not training individuals and see if that improves their performance.

Phoenix,

Effects of training frequency on the dynamics of performance response to a single training bout

Busso T, et al

Journal of Applied Physiology, 2001, 92: 572-580

"Differences in the time needed to recover performance after training completion were reported with values ranging from 1-3 days for subjects training four times a week (5) to 23 days for an elite athlete training once or twice a day (4). These differences could arise from the frequency and the size of the training loads. The repetition of training loads could alter the response to a given training variable. If exercise occurs before complete recovery from previous exercise, the time necessary to recover could be longer than if there were a longer gap between the two training loads"

And the person who makes the claim that it isn't applicable needs to provide the data/research to support their view.

slomo,

The issue isn't "training response" it's applicability of the results of data gathered from one group to another, different group. You have made the claim that physiological data (not training response) from untrained subjects is not applicable to trained subjects. I ask you to support your statement.

Richard_ wrote:

I will permit myself this indulgence and reply one last time to you.

"I don't suppose you've considered the fact that recoverability is not static but modifiable..."

If it was significantly modifiable then you would be able to conduct an increasing frequency of quality workouts each week. If you are able to handle 2 hard workouts per week this year then as your recovery rate increases you could then do 3 hard workouts per week, then 4, then 5, then 6, until recovery rate finally peaks.

Ah, the old slippery-slope "argument," a favorite of badly beaten jackasses the world over. The unfortunate thing, though, is that I don't think you're being intentionally prickly - I think you really believe that you're engaged in something resembling reasoning, in this thread and in general.

Try this, fuzzball. An athlete may typically progress from being able to manage 40 miles a week with one or two directed workouts (including races) at age 18 to 90 miles a week with two or three directed workouts at age 30, with the average daily burden of fatigue magically the same in both cases. This implies a significantly improved ability to recover from the work of training. Are you going to argue that experienced runners don't enjoy such a progression?

To claim that the existence of increased recoverability hinges on people being able to run hard each and every day is stupid beyond measure, meaning that it's right in line with everything else you've come up with.

Your main problem, based only on what you've posted on letsrun in recent days and on your shitheap of a website? You can't wrap your mind around the big picture or, for that matter, around a 5" x 7". You harp and harp on one thing and one thing only while others try to introduce relevant variables into the discussion. Your inability to consider more than one thing at a time is crippling to your every claim. I guess I'm telling you that you talk an awful lot without saying anything useful.

Richard_ wrote:

slomo,

If I understand your point you are suggesting that untrained subjects are so completely different phsyiolgocally than trained subjects that the results of a study using untrained subjects has no applicability to trained subjects. Is that correct? If so, would you please provide the fdata/research supporting this claim?

Does this then mean that no data gathered from one group is ever applicable to members of any other group?

What horseshit. This guy couldn't possibly be more obtuse.

Try this, Richard underscore. You're not allowed to employ question marks in your next ten posts. Let's see what develops when blatant obfuscation is no longer in your moron's bag of tricks.

"And the person who makes the claim that it isn't applicable needs to provide the data/research to support their view."

generalizability

You seem to be a strong proponent of tangible evidence - you're always telling your detractors that they need to provide data to support their statements whenever they call you on your obvious bullshit. (This isn't so much a henkering for truth as it is another means of throwing up a pitiful smokescreen, but we'll ignore that for now.)

In this spirit, I'd like some data. You wrote:

"...those exceptional few who recover really fast, the elites of the world, they can train 6-7 days per week."

I want to know why you think people who can train daily - and thrive in the process - are "exceptional." See, I've got this idea that just about everyone in the NCAA (all three divisions), plus the NAIA, trains 6 or 7 days a week. Are they all exceptional? Wherever you go, virtually all of the better local road hacks - and I'm not talking about elites, I'm talking about your sub-17 5k guys and sub-21 women - train 6 or 7 days a week. Are they all exceptional too? Where are all of the representative people - you know, the ones who can't run daily or almost daily - hiding out? On the couch? Or are you just spouting bullshit again?

Data, Richard underscore. Heck, I'll even settle for a credible anecdotal account. Because at this point you're like a clown without the fun.

Lets get back on track here. This is not becoming very productive. The negative accusations are not getting us anywhere. Do any of you actually think that Richard gets anything out of posting here. He does not have to take this abuse, yet he chooses to do so. Don’t go and accuse him of being stupid in that way either. That is just not a very becoming response. At least it is making you think. I know this is at least partially true from all of our posts. Continue to question and criticize yes, but lets try to keep the comments from becoming belittling.

Richard,

I don't necessarily adhere to the idea of the central governor, but I believe the idea of what causes fatigue has been expressed similarly by Brooks Johnson (former Stanford coach). He believes that there are many types of fatigue. He is not a huge advocate of mileage. He believes that the main cause of fatigue is the stretch inhibitors. He believes that you can trick the stress inhibitors into allowing more and more stress by gradually increasing the training intensity over time. He is big on training at faster than race pace so that the stretch inhibitors are not worked to their max during a race. In this way you are always working below the stretch inhibitors threshold. He prefers this method of training to one that tries to deal with fatigue by over stressing high mileage endurance based training programs that try to deal with fatigue by improving endurance. This is a bit similar to central governor theory, as well as your belief that high mileage programs are unnecessary. Brooks has had relatively good success coaching middle distance runners. He has not had much success with distance runners though. This is a bit obvious when you compare the results of Stanford under Vin Lanana, compared to Brooks Johnson. Brooks, had more success with the middle distance guys, while Vin had more success with the distance guys. I only mention this to point out that perhaps Brooks ideas are more applicable to middle distance runners. He did have some success with women 5k runners however.

I should point out that brooks still refers to Lactate as a waste product and a poison, so he is a bit old school. I do not entirely disagree with him on these points however. Lactic acid is not really good for the body in my estimation, so it is like a poison. It is also like a waste product in that it tends to only form in great quantities when the aerobic capacity is unable to utilize all of the pyruvate. Of course since lactate can be converted back into glucose for future fuel utilization, it is apparently not all bad.

I have tried to point out repeatedly that lactate formation does inhibit fatigue since if this does not occur glycolysis will cease sooner than later. This is pretty much what you said in your original post, and that is what started the majority of this long and sometimes argumentative thread. I just thought I'd point out the fact that you were not entirely wrong so that we can move on. Of course now the discussion is on recovery rates. I don't particularly care to harp on this topic very much. I know recovery is important and I know it varies from person to person. Other than that, I don't know what there is to discus. I am surprised that the discussion still continues. We had a good physiological discussion going on there for a while. Hopefully we can get back to that. I also like to talk about different training methods, so hopefully we can all share some stories.

balance,

Yes, we do see eye to eye on our beliefs and the majority of others do to(excluding Richard). I have had other debates with Richard on other forums, you wont change his view on running physiology. I agree with the majority about what little reference he has to back up what he claims. It's not wrong to go against what the majority believe but you should at least have reliable sources to prove what you have to say.

I will never know all there is about exercise physiology as it is a continouing learning process and enjoy reading these post here. Thanks for the compliment about the references, I just recently have time to post now that I am done with my research. I have a large library of articles and one of the variable that I used for my thesis was lactate metabolism. So I have learned a great deal in this area.

"I have tried to point out repeatedly that lactate formation does inhibit fatigue since if this does not occur glycolysis will cease sooner than later."

I'm not clear on this. Are you saying that if lactate fails to accumulate, glycolysis will cease? Leaving aside the specific energy demands of a given organism, I was always taught that product accumulation tends to drive chemical reactions to the left (that is, slow tham down), while a decline in product concentration (such as occurs when lactate is swallowed up in the Krebs cycle) tends to drive it to the right. Yet you seem to be saying the opposite. Please clarify.