malmo wrote:
Human athletic performance is a coordinated ballet of electrical and chemical signals to the muscles and the energy processing demands by those muscles and the removal and recycling of byproducts from those reactions. . This is not rocket science. Training at X:XX pace is best for racing at X:XX pace. Training at X:YY pace is best for racing at X:YY pace.
Oh, that clears it up. Let x=x.
malmo wrote:
What teasing? Both look normal to me. What's your question?
ukathleticscoach wrote:
He wants you to state the fecking obvious!
Morons! The obvious thing is simply that there is a benefit of doing such workouts. The not so obvious is what the difference is between those normal workouts and the more normal workouts, i.e. the more normal workouts that most people do that are more intense with less total volume.
Some people really enjoy their assholeability I see.
Brent. you're on tilt.
To answer all of your interval questions, read this thread "Important moments and concepts in the history and development of Intermittent training":
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=825534&thread=825534
Hi Tanya -- pretty funny comeback.
My understanding is:
- There isn't that much difference between 3K and 5K pace with respect to mitochondrial bio-genesis.
- VO2max changes "max" out quite quickly, say around 1 year. After that, you won't be getting many more or bigger mitochondria, or more dense capillaries, even at 3K pace.
I don't think it's new science, but I'm no physiologist, and "Skippy" can outrun me.
What's a poind?
X-Runner wrote:
Will I be able to bench 300 poinds?
Now here's something there seems to be little consensus on.For example, someone like Lydiard takes a very loose approach to interval training says that none of the parameters matter too much -- it's all eyewash. There's famous stories about neither him nor his athletes knowing how fast, or how many reps they do. They just stop when they are tired enough, not before and not after. For him, it's more about doing what it takes to lower your arterial blood pH, and letting your body adapt for the next 48 hours.On the other hand, I often see interval training experts claim the most critical parameter for interval training is not the intensity of the repetition, but the length of the recovery interval, which controls which "systems" get more stimulation.I won't offer any opinion, except that I found the "intermittent training" link (above) interesting and educational.
malmo wrote:
As far as the original posters question/non-question it all depends on pace and recovery -- mainly pace.
rekrunner wrote:
Now here's something there seems to be little consensus on.
For example, someone like Lydiard takes a very loose approach to interval training says that none of the parameters matter too much -- it's all eyewash. There's famous stories about neither him nor his athletes knowing how fast, or how many reps they do. They just stop when they are tired enough, not before and not after. For him, it's more about doing what it takes to lower your arterial blood pH, and letting your body adapt for the next 48 hours.
On the other hand, I often see interval training experts claim the most critical parameter for interval training is not the intensity of the repetition, but the length of the recovery interval, which controls which "systems" get more stimulation.
I won't offer any opinion, except that I found the "intermittent training" link (above) interesting and educational.
malmo wrote:As far as the original posters question/non-question it all depends on pace and recovery -- mainly pace.
The concept of "cruise intervals" or "threshold intervals" didn´t exist back them. If you want to reap maximum benefit from a session like 10x1k at 10k pace the recovery must be kept fairly short. The same if you want to keep your oxygen consumption high during short intervals.
Sorry to flood this thread with so many posts in a row, but this reminds me of another question.With respect to running, what, exactly, do people mean when they say "strength"?If I look here: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=3780649&thread=3780348there didn't seem to be any convergence or consensus. Within 2 short pages, there are many candidates: aerobic strength, endurance, aerobic capacity, aerobic fitness, muscular strength, anaerobic endurance, power, aerobic power, stamina, and supplemental weight training.Any authorities here who can give a definitive response?
evens wrote:
strength. tons and tons of strength.
I don't think the question, nor my comment, was about "cruise intervals" or "threshold intervals".And here: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=825534&page=1Antonio says the opposite: "In my opinion short intervals in long reps - that would be inadequate. ... Eventually this is a once/twice a season workout ... that you may do in a peak period, very good shape condition, but not a weekly routine ...."His point there was that 1 minute rest is too short for these long reps, but should be more like 3-4 minutes, or less if you are fit.
well. wrote:
The concept of "cruise intervals" or "threshold intervals" didn´t exist back them. If you want to reap maximum benefit from a session like 10x1k at 10k pace the recovery must be kept fairly short. The same if you want to keep your oxygen consumption high during short intervals.
rekrunner wrote:
I don't think the question, nor my comment, was about "cruise intervals" or "threshold intervals".
And here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=825534&page=1Antonio says the opposite: "In my opinion short intervals in long reps - that would be inadequate. ... Eventually this is a once/twice a season workout ... that you may do in a peak period, very good shape condition, but not a weekly routine ...."
His point there was that 1 minute rest is too short for these long reps, but should be more like 3-4 minutes, or less if you are fit.
well. wrote:The concept of "cruise intervals" or "threshold intervals" didn´t exist back them. If you want to reap maximum benefit from a session like 10x1k at 10k pace the recovery must be kept fairly short. The same if you want to keep your oxygen consumption high during short intervals.
Cabral is talking about more intense long intervals. A session like the one I described above would be completely meaningless with such long recoveries.
well. wrote:
Cabral is talking about more intense long intervals. A session like the one I described above would be completely meaningless with such long recoveries.
When i read the first post from Tanya about the interval question it occurs me that this text comes from someone that is a neophyte that recently comes out of academic studies that thinks to know all without seen that much and basically repeats what heard to say in the classes or from read in the books.
Tanya says 20 laps at 5k pace; 10 laps at 3k pace or faster.
But in a second round I read one post from what is supposed to be an experienced man, Malmo, and gets the thing tuff .
Malmo wrote: Let me add something here. 10x 400 is typically done at mile pace.
The confidence and rich accuracy or precision from Tanya and Malmo about the 10X400m and 20X400m pace, I tend to think that 20X400m shall be done in a pace of 600m to 800m pb and 10X400m in about 400m to 600m pb.
1500m or 800m pace is too slow for 400 intervals !
In the same logic 1min recoevery it´s too long for 1000s or mile intervals !
malmo wrote:
J.O. wrote:BOLLOCKS. Pretentious nonsense.
Exactly. As soon as someone says 'mitochondria' in a training thread you should run for the hills. Mitochondrial bio-genesis occurs in all types of exercise.
Tanya Skagle wrote:
Doing 10 reps at a faster pace (presumably with slightly longer rest periods) increases the chance of lowered pH, which can be a useful training tool in moderation but is easy to overdo.
Also, lowering blood pH is a training tool? How? Lowered blood pH is merely the temporary result of hydrogen ions being diffusing from high concentrations in interstitial spaces to lower concentrations in the blood, which is a conduit to the kidneys and lungs for processing/recycling. Your bloods pH is one of the most tightly regulated aspects of human physiology. Move it just a 0.1 and metabolic functions cease to be optimal. Move it more than a few tenths on the pH scale and organs will begin to fail.
As far as the original posters question/non-question it all depends on pace and recovery -- mainly pace. The foundation of all athletic training is the concept of neuromuscular facilitation. Human athletic performance is a coordinated ballet of electrical and chemical signals to the muscles and the energy processing demands by those muscles and the removal and recycling of byproducts from those reactions. . This is not rocket science. Training at X:XX pace is best for racing at X:XX pace. Training at X:YY pace is best for racing at X:YY pace.
******************************************************
Thanks malmo. I was actually thinking of a post you made back in 2003 about how fizzyologists talk bollock about mitochondria.
You see, you do get your messages across to intelligent people here, even if we are in a very small minority.
Tanya Skagle wrote:
J.O. wrote:Pretentious nonsense.
Oh, sorry. My bad. Here, let me rephrase that for you:
When you run really, really hard, like if you were chasing a big, shiny choo-choo, you suck in a lot of air. In that air is something called "oxygen." That's pronounced OKS-uh-jenn, by the way, but don't worry about that. In your muscles are tiny little thingies where the "oxygen" combines with other stuff to make the "energy" you need to chase the choo-choo. The rate at which this happens depends on how fast you're running, and there's a limit to how quickly you can use the oxygen. Your body is cool, though, because if you go quick enough to have to use a whole lot of the oxygen stuff at a really fast rate, your body ends up making more of the little thingies so it gets better at using the oxygen to help you go-go-go! Yay!
It turns out that when you chase the choo-choo fast enough to use the oxygen stuff at the quickest rate your body can use it - at the limit of the process - your body responds by making even more of the little thingies than it would if you didn't run as fast, like if you were chasing Skippy, your pet beagle.
Better?
Now, I think it goes without saying that when you work out, it means bugger-all what happens to your mitochondria if you don't get better at running, right? So you cooould (insert "rolleyes" smilie) simply ignore the "bollocks" about the mitochondria and just focus on the "variety in training" and "familiarity with different speeds" when you work out. But the original question implied there were different benefits that occur when running more reps slower vs. fewer reps faster. And while mitochondrial biogenesis does take place across the spectrum of running speeds, running at max VO2 is more effective for developing mitchondria than running with a lower VO2 is. That seems to be part of the answer to the original question. Hey, if you don't like that part, just skip over it.
Of course, if research has come to light that refutes what I said about max VO2 and mitochondrial biogenesis, you cooould (insert "facepalm" smilie) have the courtesy to point it out without charging out of the gate with "BOLLOCKS." To that, I'd probably say, "Hmmmm. I never heard that before. I guess that means today's scientists are more thorough than those of yesteryear, meaning today's version of the truth must be the final one after all."
********************************************
Tanya, don't try and be clever, not when you are replying to me, and preferably not ever on this message board, and especially not when myself or malmo are around.
You don't know as much about mitochondria as you think you do, and this was obvious in your post. See malmo's reply, I don't do long debunks, so stop talking pseudoscientific nonsense.
Antonio & malmo - Easy there! I assure you that all of us would agree on virtually all things running-related. I am cut from the same mold as you, a product of the 1960s and 1970s old-school, "no shortcuts," "learn both from your predecessors and by trial and error" way of doing things. I have run on a daily basis with a number of the people malmo ran with at AW. I've seen all the trends, all the fads, all the "research" this sport has has to offer, tried them all, observed thousands of others try them all, rejected the crap and held onto the practical nuts and bolts. I consider anyone not cut from that same mold as a recreational dabbler and (if they start yapping about mitochondria) nothing more than an armchair quarterback.
In short, I believe we are on the same team here.
But because I mentioned the word "mitochondria," you made assumptions. I'll give you a mulligan on that one, but I would have thought people with your experience would be able to (as Jacob Bernoulli said about a mathematical solution sent to him anonymously by Issac Newton) "recognize the lion by his paw."
Regarding this "rebuttal" on exercise intensity boosting mitochondria, it's not necessary, but put one up if you've got one. I haven't seen anything that contradicts Dudley's 1982 findings. Quite the contrary; recent studies (within the last 2 years) still cite Dudley with the end purpose of getting fatasses to adopt high-intensity interval training (HIT) and stop giving the "no time to exercise" excuse. Then again, I don't spend too much time surfing around looking for such crap, because I don't want or need to "know as much about mitochondria" as "J.O." thinks I don't.
I will say this - increased size and number of mitochondria in all of your oxidative fibers (as you get from working at max VO2) is a positive adaptation from working out at those speeds.
The 20 x 400 at 5k pace was a random and hypothetical set of parameters used to create a distinction with another random, but faster, pace - 10 x 400 at 3k pace. I wasn't recommending those particular speeds to be used for those workouts. You can run 20 x 400 at that pace or you can run them at 3k pace or faster depending on where you are in a season or where the workout fits into your immediate plans. Duh.
So If I was looking for intervals to do during the base phase before spring outdoor track, would 4-6 x 1200 "cruise intervals" have any affect at all?
Antonio Cabral wrote:
Tanya says 20 laps at 5k pace; 10 laps at 3k pace or faster.
But in a second round I read one post from what is supposed to be an experienced man, Malmo, and gets the thing tuff .
Malmo wrote: Let me add something here. 10x 400 is typically done at mile pace.
The confidence and rich accuracy or precision from Tanya and Malmo about the 10X400m and 20X400m pace, I tend to think that 20X400m shall be done in a pace of 600m to 800m pb and 10X400m in about 400m to 600m pb.
1500m or 800m pace is too slow for 400 intervals !
In the same logic 1min recoevery it´s too long for 1000s or mile intervals !
Antonio Cabral, unless I'm reading incorrectly or you are not communicating correctly, why you described are workouts that no human being who has ever live could do. Please clarify?
20X400m shall be done in a pace of 600m to 800m pb
10X400m in about 400m to 600m pb.
10 x 400 at 1500m pace and 1:00 rest is about as clean of a metric as it gets in this sport. This one training session is the Lingua franca of distance running, especially for 1500m runners. They all do it. They all understand it. What am I not understanding by your post?
malmo wrote:
why you described are workouts that no human being who has ever live could do. Please clarify?
"WHAT you described is horrendous lately." My typing has been horrendous lately., and spell-check seems to have a mind of its own.
Even my corrections have been horrendous lately.
J.O. wrote:
Thanks malmo. I was actually thinking of a post you made back in 2003 about how fizzyologists talk bollock about mitochondria.
You see, you do get your messages across to intelligent people here, even if we are in a very small minority.
Get a room.
What you mean to say is that people who find your over-the-hill arrogance worth reading are in a very small minority.