So what's the hubub about threshold training?

True--they did run at or around the LT at times. As does anyone who runs a ten-mile race. But those were not workouts DESIGNED to target the LT. Lydiard's time trials were more about developing pacing. Lydiard, as well as every other coach at the time, understood energy pathways as a simple aerobic/anaerobic relationship. He knew the aerobic threshold (or "high-end steady state") pace was trainable, but training the LT specifically was a later development. Obviously, Lydiard's boys were able to achieve great success without specifically targeting the LT, but that doesn't negate LT training as a legitimate component of a competent training program in the 21st century.

Exactly--the AT and LT are primarily internal "feelings" externally manifested by increased blood lactate levels and associated pH drops, etc. But a well-trained runner doesn't need a chart or a blood lactate monitor to know when he's at his AT and LT. In fact, relying on charts for a writ-in-stone pace will be detrimental to your training.

Serena Williams footfaulted!

Sorry wrong thread.

When muscles grow tired, the investigators report, tiny channels in them start leaking calcium, and that weakens contractions. At the same time, the leaked calcium stimulates an enzyme that eats into muscle fibers, contributing to the muscle exhaustion.

The point of the post was that despite the changes in scientific definitions of the terms, the training has remained the same. It seems like science keeps seeking to explain why what we already know to be true, is true. Who cares, it works.

bold bites in my pants wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/health/research/12musc.html?_r=1http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/11/science/20080212_MUSC_GRAPHIC.html

When muscles grow tired, the investigators report, tiny channels in them start leaking calcium, and that weakens contractions. At the same time, the leaked calcium stimulates an enzyme that eats into muscle fibers, contributing to the muscle exhaustion.

Sweet article contribution. Too bad, everything about health and exercise that gets released in a newspaper has already been published and read about in peer-reviewed journals for over a year (typically)

There's more than one cause of muscle fatigue besides Ca+ channel leak.

True, K+ leaks have also been associated with muscular fatigue (among other things, as you mentioned). But it's pretty clear that the acidic conditions induced by anaerobic respiration precipitate these "leaky pumps."

eojtlc wrote:

The point of the post was that despite the changes in scientific definitions of the terms, the training has remained the same. It seems like science keeps seeking to explain why what we already know to be true, is true. Who cares, it works.

A good point...JK once said that the only truly reliable laboratory was the results of the hundreds of runners living and training in the real world. But I think that science can help us explore new frontiers in training. We know something works, but if science can tell us WHY, we can exploit that to a greater effect, maximizing the benefits and minimizing the drawbacks. Altitude training is a great example. Originally, runners went to altitude, trained, and got better. But scientists have shown that the main benefits of altitude are LIVING there, not necessarily the training...and that doing ALL training at altitude can be detrimental (vs sea level), at least to a westerner who hasn't been born and raised at high altitude. Hence, the birth of "live high, train low." I like the way Renato Canova describes training: as an art, but an art informed by science.

eojtlc wrote:

The point of the post was that despite the changes in scientific definitions of the terms, the training has remained the same. It seems like science keeps seeking to explain why what we already know to be true, is true. Who cares, it works.

A good point...JK once said that the only truly reliable laboratory was the results of the hundreds of runners living and training in the real world. But I think that science can help us explore new frontiers in training. We know something works, but if science can tell us WHY, we can exploit that to a greater effect, maximizing the benefits and minimizing the drawbacks. Altitude training is a great example. Originally, runners went to altitude, trained, and got better. But scientists have shown that the main benefits of altitude are LIVING there, not necessarily the training...and that doing ALL training at altitude can be detrimental (vs sea level), at least to a westerner who hasn't been born and raised at high altitude. Hence, the birth of "live high, train low." I like the way Renato Canova describes training: as an art, but an art informed by science.[/quote]

I agree that science is important, I would never completely discount it's value. I am more on the art side of training, and I really like the Canova quote. I will admit to a bias though, in that the worst running I ever did was in what I perceived to be a very formulaic, scientific system.

So Malmo is correct after all, just head out the door and run hard and go by feel and not the watch. Seems like you can hit the LT button at between 10km and Marathon pace, just a matter of running longer when the pace is a bit slower.

However for a 5km runner is it better to target longer intervals (mile-2miles) @ close to 10km pace, or it is ok to do steady state runs of 4-6 miles @ 15km race pace to HM race pace?

Also should one be doing tempo runs year round, even during a base phase?

Ninetonite wrote:

So Malmo is correct after all, just head out the door and run hard and go by feel and not the watch. Seems like you can hit the LT button at between 10km and Marathon pace, just a matter of running longer when the pace is a bit slower.

However for a 5km runner is it better to target longer intervals (mile-2miles) @ close to 10km pace, or it is ok to do steady state runs of 4-6 miles @ 15km race pace to HM race pace?

Also should one be doing tempo runs year round, even during a base phase?

"Close to 10k pace" and 15k pace are pretty much the same thing. Ideally, you would learn to develop a feel for what your lactate threshold is and not have to rely on a watch or a predetermined pace.

Long intervals (1000m-3200m) at LT with short recoveries are usually called "cruise intervals," while continuous runs of 3-5mi are alternately called "tempo runs," "LT runs," or "anaerobic threshold runs." People often confuse a short run at the LT for a longer run at the aerobic threshold. They are different. Hence my hesitation to use the term "tempo run." Both cruise intervals and LT runs are beneficial, as they are working the same system. I personally like cruise intervals more because you can get a greater volume of running in at the LT, plus the one or two-minute breaks between repeats let you catch your breath and help keep it a relaxed effort, not feeling like the first half of a HM race. But if you are pressed for time, you can warm up, do an LT run, and be done in under an hour.