Well thank you. Dusk and dawn exist in my world, in fact my optical sensitivity to light and dark provide a never ending source of inspiration and fascination.
Could we, should we refer to the suposed thresholds as also being a kind of twilight zone?
Marius Bakken lost the plot. Carrying a lacte testing kit around in a land of natural runners is just crazy.
Jack Daniels doesnt give advice on improving stride length.
Training at LT/AT enhances the oxidative capacity of slow twitch fibers (noted by an increase in mitochondria production and the formation of peripheral vascular reactions in working muscles). A high volume of prolonged work at and below this intensity is essential in improving endurance by improving muscular oxidative capacity and allowing the heart to deliver more O2 to muscle cells, which prepares the athlete to train at higher levels of intensity later. It is also important to note that the mobilization of fast twitch fibers corresponds with an increase in lactate in blood cells. Slow twitch fibers receive the most direct oxidative benefit of training at LT/AT (refer above). So, in a general sense, I like to think of LT/AT training more in relation to its overall benefit in improving aerobic endurance and aerobic capacity. I think that you will more often find your athletes training "around" that intensity (a "comfortably hard" pace, as Daniels notes), noting little variation in physiological benefits.
cabana wrote:
Marius Bakken lost the plot. Carrying a lacte testing kit around in a land of natural runners is just crazy.
Jack Daniels doesnt give advice on improving stride length.
The above post was a reply to the OP. But I would like to hear your input, cabana.
Rather than refer to theories of others, how about relating practical first-hand experience?
I've been running variations of tempo/threshhold/lactate runs for 27 years. I wish I still had training logs from h.s. and college days, because I can't remember a lot of important details. Back then I often had no idea what kind of pace I was running, as we had no mile markers or GPS.
One particularly harsh winter six years ago, I spent a lot of time on the treadmill. To combat boredom, I often did progressive tempo runs, where I would increase the pace by about 30 seconds/mile every 3-5 minutes. The max would be whatever I could hold for that last interval, something under 5k race pace. I don't see this kind of workout suggested very often, and wonder if many others ever do it. I ran times that spring that I haven't been able to beat since.
Around that time, Runner's World had an article that mentioned a controlled test group revealed that intervals were much more effective in improving race performance than tempo runs, and do it more quickly. A lot of speedwork can be risky without proper base, and also for older runners more susceptible to injuries. It offers a 6 week program leading up to a key race, with intervals about twice a week, one longer run, and the rest recovery runs, no tempo or fartleks. I've experimented with the 6 week program with varied results. My most recent was leading up to a turkey trot race last week, and was not successful. I was getting better at running intervals, but my race was far off (15 seconds/mile) my goal pace. I just couldn't maintain the pace for miles 3 & 4 of the 8k. Tempo runs are good practice for holding an extended effort, and without that, or at least a series of races leading up to the goal race, I feel like I'm just training myself to stop and jog every 1200, 800 or 400.
Though I'm not fast anymore, I enjoy the feeling of running intervals, and get more of a "high" after a good session than any long run I've ever done. I'm going to keep trying a little bit of everything.
Fastnbulbous wrote:
Rather than refer to theories of others, how about relating practical first-hand experience?
I've been running variations of tempo/threshhold/lactate runs for 27 years. I wish I still had training logs from h.s. and college days, because I can't remember a lot of important details. Back then I often had no idea what kind of pace I was running, as we had no mile markers or GPS.
One particularly harsh winter six years ago, I spent a lot of time on the treadmill. To combat boredom, I often did progressive tempo runs, where I would increase the pace by about 30 seconds/mile every 3-5 minutes. The max would be whatever I could hold for that last interval, something under 5k race pace. I don't see this kind of workout suggested very often, and wonder if many others ever do it. I ran times that spring that I haven't been able to beat since.
Around that time, Runner's World had an article that mentioned a controlled test group revealed that intervals were much more effective in improving race performance than tempo runs, and do it more quickly. A lot of speedwork can be risky without proper base, and also for older runners more susceptible to injuries. It offers a 6 week program leading up to a key race, with intervals about twice a week, one longer run, and the rest recovery runs, no tempo or fartleks. I've experimented with the 6 week program with varied results. My most recent was leading up to a turkey trot race last week, and was not successful. I was getting better at running intervals, but my race was far off (15 seconds/mile) my goal pace. I just couldn't maintain the pace for miles 3 & 4 of the 8k. Tempo runs are good practice for holding an extended effort, and without that, or at least a series of races leading up to the goal race, I feel like I'm just training myself to stop and jog every 1200, 800 or 400.
Though I'm not fast anymore, I enjoy the feeling of running intervals, and get more of a "high" after a good session than any long run I've ever done. I'm going to keep trying a little bit of everything.
I´ve done a lot of similar tempo runs on the treadmill myself (short progressive runs ending up at roughly 5k pace the last minutes) and I have always raced well after that.
bump
Mr. Cabral,
Interesting points, and I'm inclined to agree to an extent regarding middle distance athletes and LT. We certainly want the capacity (probably "power" is a better term if we're looking at a single 400/800 race) to produce exceptionally large quantities of lactate, but do we not also want to teach them to reuse this lactate? I am assuming you believe reuse cannot happen at competition velocities and maybe never will even with training as they are too high, but can we not at all shift the curve favorably? If we are influencing reuse anyhow, we'd probably want a faster/longer "production" repetition prior to a slower "reuse" repetition?
Likewise, do we want to have athletes who can compete under this threshold for as long as possible and delaying the activation (dominance a better term?) of the glycolytic system? If this is the case, I recognize that LT style velocities are probably not are best bet and instead improving both capacity and power of the alactic-aerobic system will probably get us further along as high intensity components go (this is of course leaving out the all critical competition velocities, which can be included during an intensification period).
As to looking at 400/800m competitions or with athletes who must compete 2 to 3 times in a few hour period, we'd undoubtedly want to facilitate high quality aerobic adaptations and lactate shuttle function, yes, as each successive race (depending on recovery period) is going to be pushed more toward the aerobic dominant end of the continuum even if we are speaking of events below 75 seconds? Does this fall in line with what you speak of and believe or at least make sense?
What are your thoughts on using such an approach? Over complication?
Thank you for your time and feedback!
Regards,
Carson Boddicker
In my training with the Kenyans I have learned that they would call all of this training "using your mind" being intense, listening to your body, putting the key emphasis on developing a strong mind ! Sort of like "Pre" going for it ! Perhaps we should rename it "Cranial Gonad Threshold" Now go out and grow a set !!!!!
Threshold wrote:
Training at LT/AT enhances the oxidative capacity of slow twitch fibers (noted by an increase in mitochondria production and the formation of peripheral vascular reactions in working muscles). A high volume of prolonged work at and below this intensity is essential in improving endurance by improving muscular oxidative capacity and allowing the heart to deliver more O2 to muscle cells, which prepares the athlete to train at higher levels of intensity later. It is also important to note that the mobilization of fast twitch fibers corresponds with an increase in lactate in blood cells.
Slow twitch fibers receive the most direct oxidative benefit of training at LT/AT (refer above).
So, in a general sense, I like to think of LT/AT training more in relation to its overall benefit in improving aerobic endurance and aerobic capacity. I think that you will more often find your athletes training "around" that intensity (a "comfortably hard" pace, as Daniels notes), noting little variation in physiological benefits.[quote]cabana wrote:
That may sound very important and impressive, but it's a load of old nonsense. Oxidative capacity in different muslce fibers is trained only when those fibers are recruited, which means training at every pace is equally important, because fast twitch fibers are also oxidative.
There is no magic formula or optimal training pace. This whole Anaerobic threshold/lactate threshold is the best pace nonsense was promoted hugely in early 1984 by the dubious Dr Francesco Conconi as a smokescreen for the methods of preparation, now illegal used by him and the cyclist Francesco Moser during his World Hour Record in Mexico City, January 84.
Moser didn't need blood transfusions to break the 'unbreakable' 1972 record of Edddy Merckx, because Moser had the benefit of aerodynamic innovations, but the idea of him doing this special threshold training under Conconi's guidance became huge news around the World, and since then people have been blathering on about it ever since as some sort of metabolic holy grail.
When I was running Marathons, I also ran them at Marathon pace, just like you.
Just something to think about.
LT helps 400m-800m runners ? I don´t think so. The 400m runners and some muscular fiber type of 800m runners don´t benefit of good LT efficiency.
I think the opposite. One 400m runner that needs to produce and carry on very high lactate concentration in short period of time, that´s the time duration of one 400m-800m - then a good LT may be the cause of trouble instead of one benefit.
Good LT condition clears the lactate instead of able to run with large quantities of lactate concentration that is happens in 400m and 800m runs.
Depending to what pace the 400m runner competes in 2 or several runs in a few hours period, if he runs 400m-800m at his all flat out pace then after few hours he still carry on more lactate that right after he finishes the run, and as you say, how much lactate he is able to clear during 2 runs, it depends of quickly recovery ability and not rich or poor LT.
As Mr Cabral showed in old thread; it depends what kind of runner you are whether you will benefit from LT runs. He gave the example of Lopes who used them often, and Mamede who did not. If memory serves me well, Mamede was the more successful of the two at 800m.
Fastnbulbous wrote:
One particularly harsh winter six years ago, I spent a lot of time on the treadmill. To combat boredom, I often did progressive tempo runs, where I would increase the pace by about 30 seconds/mile every 3-5 minutes. The max would be whatever I could hold for that last interval, something under 5k race pace. I don't see this kind of workout suggested very often, and wonder if many others ever do it. I ran times that spring that I haven't been able to beat since.
Jerry Schumacher has Solinsky do what are basically progressive tempo runs (progressing from 6:00 pace to 5:00 pace) although they call them "rhythm runs":
http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=21084I noticed an improvement in performance myself after starting tempo runs on the treadmill last year.
mamede ran 47 in the 4X400 in the olympics.
Mr. Cabral,
Thanks for the insight. Again, that seems sensible.
Carrying high levels of lactate is an interesting idea and one I can understand as it's buffering, however, the use of lactate levels as markers of glycolysis seems to be poorly studied. Do you have any suggested reads?
The few papers that look at vMART and MART among other physiological variables and assessments still conclude that high velocities at LT are important to performance in MART. I have questioned the conclusions in a few papers based on the results, but am curious to know how you formulated your opinion on the subject.
Regards,
Carson Boddicker
Antonio Cabral wrote:
LT improve doesn’t interest at all in 800m, some interest in 1500m/mile, interesting in 5000m, real interest in 10k-HM and very interest in the marathon distance.
Best LT can be an handicap in 800m because short distances do require high lactate concentration.
A distance runner (from 800m and up) will need to improve his/her endurance. That means that the LT should improve. The velocity of VO2max should improve. The improvement capacity of endurance is much much bigger than the improvement capacity of "speed". It´s just more important not to lose the speed at shorter distances while improving the endurance. This way the similar lactate amounts will be shifted at faster paces than before.
I also believe that a marathon runner will need much more work a medium/LT paces than an 800m runner, for example.
Ö wrote:
Antonio Cabral wrote:LT improve doesn’t interest at all in 800m, some interest in 1500m/mile, interesting in 5000m, real interest in 10k-HM and very interest in the marathon distance.
Best LT can be an handicap in 800m because short distances do require high lactate concentration.
A distance runner (from 800m and up) will need to improve his/her endurance. That means that the LT should improve. The velocity of VO2max should improve. The improvement capacity of endurance is much much bigger than the improvement capacity of "speed". It´s just more important not to lose the speed at shorter distances while improving the endurance. This way the similar lactate amounts will be shifted at faster paces than before.
I also believe that a marathon runner will need much more work a medium/LT paces than an 800m runner, for example.
Cabral is a well known coaching authority, "Ö" isn´t. Who should we listen to?
I may advise you to read some papers about the subject. Hoever t by my voluntary option and decision, i´m distant from most of the papers and academic papers . My kind of coach knowledge I get from training methodology more than science physiology or academic studies.
But this time my advise is that you may to read LetsRunCom.
Read the above post carefully. It’s from an old Renato Canova LetsRunCom Post. May be you get some new insight about this matter. Best than me Renato ideas might help you to understand the real deal of the 800m run relate to LT.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=458338&page=13
b) A very high level of AnT is SPECIFIC for events like 10000m and HM, that are directly influenced by this capacity. Instead, events like 800/1500 or, in another direction, Marathon, need a good level of Threshold, but, after this level, another improvement is not important, sometime having the opposite effect. In other words, I cannot run fast 800m with an AnT of 16 km/h : I need 18 km/h at least. But, if I'm able to run 1:43 having 18 km/h in AnT, may be that to work for raising the AnT to 19 km/h can inhibit my anaerobic system, reducing my performance.
For example, if I'm able to run at 3:20 (18 km/h) at a steady-state of 4 mmol, and I can run 1:44 (27,7 km/h) making 20 mmol, I use an anaerobic area of 16 mmol for increasing my speed of about 10 km/h. But, if I push my AnT at 3:00 (20 km/h) and I become only able to push my Anaerobic System to a level of 16 mmol, I can distribute my anaerobic work in 12 mmol, and this is good enough only for running at a speed of 27,2 km/h. In this case (this is an example) we can run 800m only more in 1:45.5.
On the other side, if I have a very good AnT (for example, 21 km/h = 2:51 / km) but this is 10% higher than the AT (about 2 mmol = 3:09, 19 km/h), I'm not able to run a good marathon because my consumption of glycogen is too high and I'm not able to finish at the same speed.
c) Due to these considerations, I think that the problem of the Threshold is a false problem. Not always to work for raising the threshold is important, of course if you have already a good level of threshold. The threshold is the base for the SPECIFICITY of every event, only for 10000 and HM is a specifism itself.
d) So, the real problem of training is : HOW CAN WE REACH THE HIGHER LEVEL OF THRESHOLD USEFUL FOR SUPPORTING THE SPECIFIC TRAINING (That doesn't mean the higher level possible)
eurodonkey wrote:
Let's say we ditch all the physiology and instead discuss "the pace you can sustain for roughly an hour", nicknaming it "T" pace....
But if we're going to do that why do we pick an hour... why not 15 mins? 30 mins? 90 mins... ?