LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Wellnow:

We all know Arthur's description of physiology was not perfectly correct; but it was easy to make audience understand the concept.

One of the pages of our presentation says, on the top of the page; aerobic=with oxygen, anaerobic=without enough oxygen... On the bottom half, it reads; or... aerobic=slow stuff, anaerobic=fast stuff. Basically, I personally don't really care what it's exactly called; as long as we can convey what to do. I used the term "without enough oxygen" instead of perhaps more accurate term of "without oxygen" because the idea is that you are going beyond your body's ability to take in, transport and utilize oxygen; therefore, we're creating oxygen debt. I tell my runners, when we do (in Lydiard's term) anaerobic repetitions, that we'll be "working on our breathing". We puff and huff and breathe hard; that's we want. We do that till, as Arthur would say, you hit the wall. Bang, then you achieved desired phsyological reaction. I don't care, and sure as hell Arthur didn't care, if you do it 12 times 400 or 18 times 400; if you do them 60 seconds or 78 seconds. As long as you achieved desired physiological reactions, you're good.

So, my question in regards to pH is... In Arthur's mind, during the time exercise physiologists still explained to us that, with anaerobic exercise, we create lactic acid and that would bring your body's pH level down to acidic. In order to develop anaerobic capacity (bear with me still using Arthur's term), you need to bring about overall body's pH level down low; not just in the working muscles. You do that for about 4 weeks. Now you still want to maintain stimulating your anaerobic metabolism but not in the volume that brings your condition down. So you'd do 50/50 type of quick short sharp exercise to get your working muscles tired very quickly. This way, he would explain, you're bringing pH level of your legs down but not overall pH throughout the body.

So, according to you, body's pH WILL come down; but it's not lactic acid that's doing it; but lactate; is it correct?

I have several pages on my presetation how Arthur explained about oxygen debt. He used to say that body's limit is 18~20 liters of oxygen debt. He had a formula to explain. Upon reviewing my presentation, Peter Snell came back to me and told me that it's actually more like 5 liters. He changed the numbers and came back to me with the "correct" more up-to-date formula. Concept works just the same; but different figures. We welcome any constructive suggestion like that. We included Dr. Snell's explanation to our presentation but still kept the way Arthur explained as well.

The only issue I personally have is; so physiologists used to tell us that it's lactic acid that lower the body's pH... So it was a "valid" information 25 years ago? Now they found out more and dug down deeper and now they say lactic acid is "friend". What would we know 20 years from now? Yes, I hear you. It's important to "update" information. But when it comes down to actual training, it seems like, to me, that's nothing more than "how we call it". What we are looking for is pretty much what we do and what kind of body's reactions are we looking for. Whether we call it lactic acid or lactate or galactica or whatever; that's pretty much secondary, isn't it? Yes, it's probably good to update them and get them straight. But the thing is; how do we know we actually swing back and say that lactic acid is actually bad 30 years from now? Yes, we will be trying to get things straight; that's why we have some physiologists (a couple of good ones too) on our board. But at the same time, we are not going to rush to conclusion and all of a sudden start saying, "Well, it's not aerobic and anaerobic any more. We'll now call them low end aerobic and high end aerobic from here on." That, actually, to me sounds more confusing. Wouldn't it be actually easier to go backward and call them "slow stuff" and "fast stuff". Runners usually have a better feel for what they are.

wellnow,

what do you think of this statement, explaining the effect of strong ion difference (SID):

"a strong ion or anion, such as lactate, can have a direct effect on the pH, just by changing the ratio of strong ions to strong anions. For example, a large quantity of sodium-lactate, which is basically a strong ion (Na) and a strong anion (lactate), will cause acidosis, because it has a SID of 0, while the human blood has a SID of about 30. Note that this means that even a base like lactate (not lactic acid!), and even though sodium lactate is not capable of releasing a proton, can cause acidosis!"

Nobby,

As I understand it, the old thinking was that lactic acid was directly produced, and then disassociated into lactate, and one hydrogen ion. There was never any support for this, but nevertheless, went unchallenged for about 50 years, until as early as 1977. (So it wasn't even "valid" 25 years ago.)

The updated thinking, once someone (Robergs) actually did the math, is that lactate is produced directly, and the hydrogen ion comes from somewhere else, when ATP is consumed. There is support for this, but the old thinking still exists widely.

So the end result is the still the same -- you still end up with lactate, and a hydrogen ion. The body's PH is dropping just the same whether you use the old or the new thinking. It's just that lactic acid is not part of the process at any time. The mistake is to talk about lactic acid or lactic acidosis, but you could say metabolic acidosis.

This doesn't change how you should do the training, but just how you describe what's going on.

How I understand it (which I hope someone will correct me), is that with Lydiard's repititions, we run fast, to trigger the anaerobic metabolism, which starts the accumulation of lactate, that triggers the physiological changes that will increase lactate consumption as an aerobic fuel, which improves Aerobic Capacity and not Anaerobic Capacity. But I'm new to this, so pass this by your physiologists.

There appears to be a second issue concerning the oxygen debt model, which was part of the same work that introduced lactic acid. It was assumed that the extra oxygen you consumed after an effort equalled the magnitude of the oxygen that you "borrowed" during the effort. But it seems that other factors are significant (e.g. the oxygen tax due to increased breathing, and faster heartrate) so the oxygen consumed after an effort is not used to just "repay the debt". The old model will over-estimate, evidently significantly, the magnitude of the "borrowed" oxygen.

So how should you correct your presentation. Or should you at all? If we always have to wait for science to catch up, I wonder if it makes sense to take the science out completely. Seems like Lydiard didn't need it, so why do we?

Regards,

The Light:

You actually said what I treid to say; "The body (or lactic acid or whatever) has been doing the same thing in the last however many million years whether scientists say it one way or the other. What worked in training would still work regardless of how we explain it or how we call it."

It's sort of like Pluto (the celestial body, not Mickey Mouses's dog.) It was a planet after it was discovered. Now it's not a planet anymore. But whatever it's called, it's still there and if we ever want to get to it we'll need the same escape velocities no matter how we conceptualize it.

Nobby wrote:

The Light:

You actually said what I treid to say; "The body (or lactic acid or whatever) has been doing the same thing in the last however many million years whether scientists say it one way or the other. What worked in training would still work regardless of how we explain it or how we call it."

That's because I agreed with it. I'm trying to get a handle on these lactate vs. lactic acid, "going anaerobic", and "getting into oxygen debt" controversies, to see if it is just a question of academic correctness, or if there is any tangible impact or re-thinking required.

So far, it just seems that the training doesn't change, but a whole lot of text books should.

Nobby, thanks for the reply. I agree with your points about coaching.

I recognize Arthur Lydiard as a great coach, and I support the work of the Lydiard Foundation.

By presenting research from excercise physiologists over the last 100 years, up to recent research, I can show how ideas have changed, and how they influence coaches.

With this information you can counter criticism of Arthur's most important training concepts, and perhaps accept criticism of some of his more controversial ideas.

I agree, good training is good training, good coaching is good coaching, and the best coaches will always be decades ahead of the physiologists.

However, some things need to be cleared up, because many coaches tend to want to explain things in physiological terms, so it helps if you are advised in the latest ideas and understand the history of the changes of how physiological concepts come into common consciousness.

You don't want some 15 year old kid who has googled a lot of research telling you that you don't know what you are talking about, that would be embarassing, especially if that kid has really done his research well.

I have an idea of how we can hopefully come to an agreement which pleases everyone, which I hope to present soon. I am working towards this goal, but I don't want to do long posts that no one wants to read, so I think it's best to continue this debate, which I have found very interesting. You certainly have earned my respect Nobby, and I am a very hard taskmaster, and a very serious runner.

Wellnow:

You know who I am. You know my e-mail address. I'm all ears for "constructive suggestions" any time.

On this message board, there are way too many clowns who think they can say whatever they damn please behind false identity and they would turn around and say, "I'm protected!" (remember Dirty Harry?) Well, they are; and I have no time to wasted on them.

Nobby - I applaud your efforts to help others learn about training the Lydiard way!

Here is a link that may be of help. I've read many articles in research journals and found recent arguments for or against lactic acidosis to be complex and convoluted. It's amazing, really, how the experts have arguments over semantics.

Perhaps this distilled version will be of help:

http://therunzone.com/VB/showthread.php?p=3315#post3315

Take care,

Tinman

wellnow wrote:

It is now known that lactic acid is not produced, rather lactate, which is an aerobic fuel, not an anaerobic waste product. Lactate doesn't increase acidity in muscle and blood, it's production actually does the opposite, reducing the acidity which is caused by anaerobic fuel utilization.

Eventually, when we can produce no more lactate, for whatever reason, we slow down. This not what was thought 20 years ago, it was thought back then that lactate accumulation slows us down, it doesn't, it's the lack of lactate production and uptake by the mitochondria, the aerobic powerhouse of the muscle cells that slows us down.

I hope that helps.

And you had the cheek to say Lydiard knew just enough science to be dangerous! Your quote is the most ass-for-tit nonsense I have ever read!

The reason we slow down is, "because we cannot produce more lactate"! Haha! You really made my day! I'm gonna be laughin' my ass off at this all weekend! You oughta do standup.

Ah, something in understandable language. your comments about Evan certainly fit with Arthur's advice to "run until you get a big oxygen debt."

But so many coaches and athletes would feel like Evan needs to keep going until he gets to a certain number of reps. I was always told to do intervals that way and was told that keeping on as you slowed made you tougher. Could you go on abit and explain what would happen to evan if he forced himself to a bunch of 65s, 70s, and so on in order to "complete" the workout?

Yup, a good analogy except... Just to add one small thing to it. The important thing here is to "make yourself tired with speed" but also with "volume of fast training". In other words, yes, for Evan, 60 seconds might be just fine to go on and on and on (like Peter Snell did) but that's probably more rare case. If Joe, who runs about 4:15 for the mile, tries to do that, with 60 seconds quarter, he might be done with 4 or 5 of them! I would like to see the athlete perform this type of workouts AT LEAST for a half an hour total (including recovery jog). At first, I'd rather see him/her do a little slower and with, like Tinman said, equal distance for recovery jog (there's no point of having a short recovery to show how tough you are at this point) so you can do it again and again and again...for a longish period of time. The time to blast off; and the time to do them with short recovery would come a bit later; but be reasonable at first. In fact, I actually do like the way Arthur put it all together in the first Run to the Top schedule with all the effort progression with repeats.

A decrease in lactate production and uptake by the mitochoncria will most definitely cause you to slow down.

You are aware that lactate is an aerobic muscle fuel aren't you?

If think you know better then please present your evidence.

As for the quote about Lydiard knowing enough about science to be dangerous, I think you should know that it comes from Nobby.

The Light wrote:

wellnow,

what do you think of this statement, explaining the effect of strong ion difference (SID):

"a strong ion or anion, such as lactate, can have a direct effect on the pH, just by changing the ratio of strong ions to strong anions. For example, a large quantity of sodium-lactate, which is basically a strong ion (Na) and a strong anion (lactate), will cause acidosis, because it has a SID of 0, while the human blood has a SID of about 30. Note that this means that even a base like lactate (not lactic acid!), and even though sodium lactate is not capable of releasing a proton, can cause acidosis!"

WOW, you really have been doing your research haven't you?

This is really advanced physicochemisty and I am still learning the basics, but I am fascinated by the debate.

Robergs didn't include the SID in his manuscripts from 2001-2004. The issues he raised cause a lot of debate amongst the most knowledgeable researchers and Michael Lindinger debated these issues with many of his colleagues who have been researching for many years.

Lindinger et al agree with Robergs et al that there is no lactic acidosis, but point out that there are issues from classical biochemisty research papers, that they haven't addressed:

Whilst Linginger agrees that there is no lactic acidosis he sees no reason to drop the words from literature. I agree with Robergs however, this attitude just leads to continued mainstream ignorance.

Tom, thanks for addressing the issue in your elegant prose.

Cheers

Jon.

HRE -

Glad to answer your question:

http://therunzone.com/VB/showthread.php?t=817

Take care,

Tinman

runfastcoach@gmail.com

HRE -

Glad to answer your question:

http://therunzone.com/VB/showthread.php?t=817

Take care,

Tinman

runfastcoach@gmail.com

HRE wrote:

Ah, something in understandable language. your comments about Evan certainly fit with Arthur's advice to "run until you get a big oxygen debt."

But so many coaches and athletes would feel like Evan needs to keep going until he gets to a certain number of reps. I was always told to do intervals that way and was told that keeping on as you slowed made you tougher. Could you go on abit and explain what would happen to evan if he forced himself to a bunch of 65s, 70s, and so on in order to "complete" the workout?

I'm dyin here! What is "a big oxygen debt"? please, Lydairdites? Define it. I can get that on 1x400.

When SOME coaches coach, they have a plan. One plan for one situation could be 15x400m in 65seconds with a minute rest. I'm sure if that plan went off the rails then many good coaches would adjust accordingly at the workout. But please: Run till you get into oxygen debt?

Maybe a 15x400 in 67 was done recently, or maybe 65second runs with 1:15 rests. So very specific plans are not only ok but they are NECCESSARY in most coaching situations. rather than interval running anarchy which I keep reading about in these recent pages. Each workout should be carefully planned and have a specific goal. What some of you guys are saying is "WHATEVER - run until you get into oxygen debt. 65, 70 whatever." Lunacy.

I just dont get some of you "experts". In any race we have to pace carefully and plan ceraefully but for some reson when it come to Lydiard intervals well anarchy rules the day. 400? 800? Pace? WHATEVER. If I'm going to do 10 key workouts in a season I want them to PROGRESS. I want them to LEAD TOWARDS SOMETHING. You dont get that with WHATEVER. Or "until you get oxygenated".