Is aerobic base training dead???

Cressey wrote:

-Scientists at the Research Institute for Olympic Sports at the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland found that replacing 32% of regular endurance training volume with explosive resistance training for nine weeks improved 5km times, running economy, VO2max, maximal 20m speed, and performance on a 5-jump test. With the exception of VO2max, none of these measures improved in the control group that just did endurance training (3). How do you think they felt knowing that a good 1/3 of their entire training volume was largely unnecessary, and would have been better spent on other initiatives?

.

Well, if they were smart they'd feel like building a base and then replacing some of that base work with quality work. This is a classic misinterpretation of studies out there. Let's take away volume and replace with quality. Wow, it works. Ergo, volume is not important. Meanwhile, proponents of high mileage and base work are fully aware that quality work AFTER base training works. I have yet to see the study that compares a low-mileage quality group with a high mileage group that periodizes and then peaks. My money's on the second group.

well said, explainer.

Perhaps I could condense the discussion by asking this:

If one only has a finite amount of weekly time to devote to becoming a better, faster runner (as most of us have) then what is the best use of our time? Do we run, say our alloted 8 hours without resistence training to maximise our 'time on our feet', or do we, in fact, cut out total running volume by one third to devote enough time to resistance training?

Obviously, this would depend on how you define “finite” – but it’s been my experience that runners can always “make” time to run, but will only “try to find” time to resistance-train. Generally speaking, you can bang out a run here and there without much time preparation, so it’s best to schedule your 2-3 resistance training sessions ahead of time. Additionally, in some cases, you can incorporate some body weight resistance training exercises as part of your warm-up – but this certainly won’t cover all your needs.

Also, don’t forget the study I cited earlier about the group of endurance athletes who saw appreciable gains in performance by replacing 32% of their running volume with resistance training. If you run six days a week, try moving to four runs and two lifting sessions – and watch your times improve dramatically.

Anyway, my feeling is that from a body composition, health, and performance standpoint, you need to make time for two lifting sessions per week regardless of how much you run.

Just Run Baby.

If that doesn't work, run FASTER.

A couple comments 1) If you train for 10 weeks (not sure about the exact details of the study), and then train for an addition 8 weeks the exact same way you don't improve much 2) You don't change the study since it breaks you comparision. In the study you are not trying to figure out the best way to train. You are trying to study 1 element 3) You could just just add weight lifting. But then argument is that you could have just ran more. 4) the other question is that 8 weeks of strength work helps performance. But after you do that, does it make sense to keep doing strength work or do something else? Maybe orginally strength was the limiting factor but now it is aerobic development which is the limiting factor.

jtupper,

If memory serves, Schul was not defeated in any race during his that period when he trained for the Olympic 5K. That should not be overlooked.

You do the man a great disservice as your post suggests that perhaps that one race played to his strength?

Please, he dominated the world's best in meets leading up t the olympic gold.

Dave the Dude wrote:

jtupper,

If memory serves, Schul was not defeated in any race during his that period when he trained for the Olympic 5K. That should not be overlooked.

You do the man a great disservice as your post suggests that perhaps that one race played to his strength?

Please, he dominated the world's best in meets leading up t the olympic gold.

Indeed, I believe Bob Schul, based on the strength of his record, was the favorite going into the 5000 final in Tokyo that he won. Can you imagine?

jtupper wrote:

Another concern is use of the term "interval training." How many definitions of that are there? In the current discussion it sounds like interval training means anything that is not steady and relatively slow. It's always nice to see the results of studies that show us the way

That´s true that the term interval training or intervals have been many definitions despite that the interval training does a precise definition and only one meaning. As precise as VO2 max.

It´s the mistake of many to think that some fast training by repeats it´s anaerobic training without aerobic demand. Besides every different innacurate or wrong definition of intervals it carries some percent of aerobic training. This is the mistake of many. One fact can´t be negleted. Every exercise with more than some seconds of lenght duration to many hours it´s aerobic also.

I'd like to come back to the original question, since only Alan came the closest to pointing out what I think is a missing key point.The linked article talks about aerobic base training with respect to DH and 4X. DH is "downhill", and 4X is "four-cross" -- these are two formats of downhill mountain bike racing, typically lasting from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, not too unlike downhill slalom skiing.Distance running is more like cross-country skiing.Saying aerobic base training is useless for downhill mountain bike sprints, has nothing to do with aerobic development requirements for middle or long distance running.

Bob Schul disciple wrote:

I'd like to hear some informed criticism of the following post (Hadd?):

http://elitetrainingsolutions.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/aerobic-base-training-is-dead-the-scientific-proof/

... I understand the blog is not directed at distance runners per se, but considering training sucesses of Bob Schul who incorporated an interval based program, I wonder if we all need to re-examine what works in training for

Thanks, in advance, for your sincere interest and responses.

Do you mean to say, had the author replaced "anaerobic intervals" with "VO2max intervals", or "aerobic capacity intervals", you would then have no problem with the article?My problem with the article is that he confuses aerobic base training with aerobic capacity. Aerobic base training is about building a deep aerobic foundation, while aerobic capacity training is more about building a high aerobic ceiling.Rather than blurring everything under a single "aerobic" umbrella, I think of endurance, stamina, and aerobic capacity as three different things -- all important trainable qualities for endurance performance.I think in the field of exercise physiology, we are still centuries away from converging on the "real truth".

wellnow wrote:

The problem with that article is that the author doesn't realize that what he calls "anaerobic intervals" is actually aerobic training.

But then most people don't know the difference between aerobic and anaerobic anyway including 99.9% of letsrun posters.

However here is something to condider, I reckon that Haile Gebreselassie's aerobic capacity is likely to be lower than it was 10 years ago, so how does he run so fast?

Because the main improvements over time come not from improvements in aerobic capacity, they come from improvements in neuro-muscular coordination and contractility, in other words the ability to maintain an efficient powerful stride for longer.

That's the real truth people, that's what intelligent posters should be discussing. NOT AEROBIC DEVELOPMENT!!!!

Bob Schul disciple wrote:

Thanks "wellnow"!

so, are you stating that tempo running -- as defined as sub-anaerobic paces that are in the range of one's lactate threshold -- represent not only an aerobic development, but also a neural conditioning of one's body (as has been suggested by Frank Shorter) -- one's leg movement patterns -- at these paces?

If so, then is there little need to train at easy aerobic paces (70-75% of HRmax for example)besides flushing one's system from a hard run? Does this not contradict Hadd/Maffetone thought regarding cappillary development, or can a runner optimally develop aerobically at these faster, sub-anaerobic paces to the exclusion of slower running?

Forgive me for coming across in a potentially over-rationalized manner, but this debate has been ongoing in my mind, and my own research has led me to some contradictory conclusions.

Thanks so much.

All running paces help develop neural conditioning. All paces help capillary development.

Yes you can maximally develop your aerobic capacity with short fast runs, and also with lots of slow running. The reasons for this are misunderstood, hence many misconceptions.

Easy running is essential for serious distance runners. Every pace from very slow to flat out sprinting plays its part in your development. It's the proportions and timing that determine how you improve.

But you can have all the aerobic capacity you need and still be a slow runner if you lack a powerful efficient stride at race paces. My own solution for this problem is to do my tempo runs in a certain way. I run a hilly road course starting at marathon pace and maintaining this pace on the uphills, which is quite easy to do, but holding this effort intensity on the downhills is very hard on the legs, but the benefit is that when you recover 3-4 days later after training easy with on soft ground, I can hold faster paces with ease, because my legs are conditioned to running fast with less cardiovascualar stress.

[quote]Mr. Ray wrote:

Do you mean to say, had the author replaced "anaerobic intervals" with "VO2max intervals", or "aerobic capacity intervals", you would then have no problem with the article?

My problem with the article is that he confuses aerobic base training with aerobic capacity. Aerobic base training is about building a deep aerobic foundation, while aerobic capacity training is more about building a high aerobic ceiling.

Rather than blurring everything under a single "aerobic" umbrella, I think of endurance, stamina, and aerobic capacity as three different things -- all important trainable qualities for endurance performance.

I think in the field of exercise physiology, we are still centuries away from converging on the "real truth".

Labels, labels, labels. These terms are all vague and cause more confusion that anything else.

It's easy for a runner to build aerobic capacity. You just have to run a few miles a few times per week for a few weeks. So, contrary to the popular myth, the top distance runners DON'T have a huge aerobic capacity, they have a hugely developed muscular power/endurance ratio.

Bekele and Gebreselassie are both 5'5" but they can run on the track with a stride length of over 6 feet at 190-200 strides per minute.

When I talk physiology, what I'm trying to get accross is that runners, coaches and physiologists talk an awfull lot of bullshit. So I point out their lack of knowledge in order to steer the conversation around to what is really important in running.

It's all about maintaining a long stride, yes we all have a different style, some have a longer rangier stride, some a short choppy stride, but the bottom line is: lengthen that stride.

If you find the race somewhere, look at it!

Dellinger said: Not the best but the smartest runner medaled in that race

(or something to that effect).

If you find the race you will know why that was Bill´s opinion.

Mr. Ray wrote:

My problem with the article is that he confuses aerobic base training with aerobic capacity. Aerobic base training is about building a deep aerobic foundation, while aerobic capacity training is more about building a high aerobic ceiling.

Bingo!

There's a tendency among those that consider 'aerobic base training' to be a waste of time to simply blur terms together. Having a high V02Max means nothing more than you burn a sh*tload of O2. What it doesn't mean is that you burn it effectively or efficiently. High V02Max + High LT = fast distance runner. High V02Max + Low LT = slow distance runner.

The problem with most studies is that they are largely irrelevant to competitive running. A study of 9 weeks has little or nothing to do with the training over years that is required to produce champions.

Hey KnutK,

in fact, I have watched the video of that race many times, and what I gather from Dellinger's quote, keeping in mind his late surge to take the bronze medal in that very race (two Americans on an Olympic 5K medal stand!) was that he had made a tactical error in that race that I presume he feels might had otherwise upgraded his medal color.

Jazy and Clarke certainly controlled the pacing of most of the race, however!

wellnow wrote:

The problem with that article is that the author doesn't realize that what he calls "anaerobic intervals" is actually aerobic training.

But then most people don't know the difference between aerobic and anaerobic anyway including 99.9% of letsrun posters.

However here is something to condider, I reckon that Haile Gebreselassie's aerobic capacity is likely to be lower than it was 10 years ago, so how does he run so fast?

Because the main improvements over time come not from improvements in aerobic capacity, they come from improvements in neuro-muscular coordination and contractility, in other words the ability to maintain an efficient powerful stride for longer.

That's the real truth people, that's what intelligent posters should be discussing. NOT AEROBIC DEVELOPMENT!!!!

I'm no exercise scientist, but even I can see the tissue of errors that you've assembled.

1) "likely" means what? What proof do you have? Even if his V02 max is slightly lower--and that's a big "if"--his lactate threshold might be higher. Continued development of LT with prolonged training of the right sort is well established.

2) Haile is clearly slowing slightly at shorter distances, so to say that he runs "so fast" is misleading. He runs plenty fast, but he's gradually slowing at shorter distances--even as he's learning the parameters of the half marathon and marathon and lowering his times there.

3) I'll grant you the importance of NMT, but there's no reason to frame it as an either/or proposition relative to aerobic development. Why not allow for a both/and understanding?

Wellnow i agree with you in part in two ways here

1. the athlete is not running out of oxygen

2. the athlete is not going anaerobic

however,

1. the energy requirements at higher intensity are outweighing those supplied 'just' by by aerobic sources - hence the breathing harder and faster - the breathing action is trying to bring in more oxygen and continues to do so up to it's maximal breathing rate. Once it hits this maximal rate it is a short trip to unconsciousness.Most people will stop before this occurs of course.

2. the athletes system is becoming more and more anaerobic. It is a proportional thing. Once past the MLSS, the lactate indicates that it's system is becoming overloaded when trying to supply the increased energy. The aerobic system is maximised already and the anaerobic is becoming maximised. When both are maximised the athlete is very close to the stopping point.

So in my mind it is very wise to develop both systems through training methods as most people realise to some degree. The maximisation of the aerobic system through training can continue indefinitely, the mitochondrial density and the intra-muscular capilliarisation literally has no end point although there is obviously a slow-down somewhere along the path. The anaerobic system does have an end-point, however.

So if one has an end-point and the other not then surely it makes sense to focus more time and energy on the system which can continue to be trained literally forever.