Sub 1:50 800m Training

Pmoax wrote:

a week anaerobic system with a great capacity outperforms a highly trained aerobic system over the 800m race.

I wish I had a week anaerobic system. That's a lot of capacity.

One question though. Lydiard said somewhere, and I also recall from biology, that the ratio of energy produced in terms of ATP per glucose molecule in aerobic respiration vs anerobic respiration is 38-2 or something like that. If aerobic respiration is 17 (or whatever) times as effecient as anerobic respiration, why is the anaerobic system used at all? Why does it make such a big difference in performance? Is the *rate* of energy output greater for anerobic metabolism, even though it is less effecient?

It's 32:2, and you use the anaerobic cycle because it's the first step to the aerobic cycle but the aerobic cycle requires oxygen. Without enough oxygen, your body still needs ATP to function, so only anaerobic respiration occurs, having the biproduct of two lactic acid molecules which release H+ ions into the bloodstream, leading to the burning feeling you get from running fast short intervals.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

Pmoax wrote:

a week anaerobic system with a great capacity outperforms a highly trained aerobic system over the 800m race.

I wish I had a week anaerobic system. That's a lot of capacity.

One question though. Lydiard said somewhere, and I also recall from biology, that the ratio of energy produced in terms of ATP per glucose molecule in aerobic respiration vs anerobic respiration is 38-2 or something like that. If aerobic respiration is 17 (or whatever) times as effecient as anerobic respiration, why is the anaerobic system used at all? Why does it make such a big difference in performance? Is the *rate* of energy output greater for anerobic metabolism, even though it is less effecient?

the last part is right on.

we use the anaerobic system becuase it is more powerfull. effecient is referring to the ability to utilize chemicals stored in the body for energy. The creatine-phosphate system I belive is the first used system in the anaerobic pathway and the most powerfull, its the one used for jumping, lifting weights, plyometrics, and naturally short sprints. but the creatine phosphate system is the least effecient useing up all the stores in a matter of seconds and taking several minutes (~10 i think) to replenish its stores

The last time I saw a runner move down in distance was when, what was his name, big Jamaican guy, oh yeah, Usain Bolt, a 200m runner, started running 100m. If I remember correctly, he ended up setting a couple world records. My memory is failing, when was that? Way back in 2008 I think.When you say "doing speed", I hope you mean running, and not doping.

me o my wrote:

If I were training my kid I would have them doing speed and weights. Build strength. Train them like a 400 or 400-800 guy. I dont like the Coe method. It seems harder to go from strength to speed than speed to strength. When was the last time you saw an over distance runner move down and have great success. You always see under distance runners move up and do well.

That's how I understand it. You couldn't win any race on pure "aerobic" energy alone - but you could walk for days. The rate of production of "anaerobic" energy is faster, but produces by-products lactate and H+. One outcome of training is adaptations that convert lactate back to sugar, making it available for "aerobic" energy production. This makes the factor of 19x somewhat exaggerated, since the sugar is burned twice.That's how I understand it anyway.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

One question though. Lydiard said somewhere, and I also recall from biology, that the ratio of energy produced in terms of ATP per glucose molecule in aerobic respiration vs anerobic respiration is 38-2 or something like that. If aerobic respiration is 17 (or whatever) times as effecient as anerobic respiration, why is the anaerobic system used at all? Why does it make such a big difference in performance? Is the *rate* of energy output greater for anerobic metabolism, even though it is less effecient?

I'd double check a couple of things here.

canova disciple wrote:

It's 32:2, and you use the anaerobic cycle because it's the first step to the aerobic cycle but the aerobic cycle requires oxygen. Without enough oxygen, your body still needs ATP to function, so only anaerobic respiration occurs, having the biproduct of two lactic acid molecules which release H+ ions into the bloodstream, leading to the burning feeling you get from running fast short intervals.

I am not sure I can agree with you there.

about 4 athletes of the 20 rely on forums - most are from books, articles, magazines, autobiographies with source noted and to be honest the forum stuff looks legit - as he says, you be the judge.

There was stuff about cruz from a forum but stuff from runners world magazine.

lot of coe forum stuff but a heap of other stuff too - from a heap of sources.

i reckon it is pretty helpful

I am not sure I can agree with you there.

about 4 athletes of the 20 rely on forums - most are from books, articles, magazines, autobiographies with source noted and to be honest the forum stuff looks legit - as he says, you be the judge.

There was stuff about cruz from a forum but stuff from runners world magazine.

lot of coe forum stuff but a heap of other stuff too - from a heap of sources.

i reckon it is pretty helpful

I am not sure I can agree with you there.

about 4 athletes of the 20 rely on forums - most are from books, articles, magazines, autobiographies with source noted and to be honest the forum stuff looks legit - as he says, you be the judge.

There was stuff about cruz from a forum but stuff from runners world magazine.

lot of coe forum stuff but a heap of other stuff too - from a heap of sources.

i reckon it is pretty helpful

Mr Ray, I agree more or less with the graph you linked to:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/timecors.htm

You also ask:

When you talk about muscle contractility and neuro-muscular coordination, isn't that (in part) what leads to better efficiency?

Yes. I think that all well trained runners can maintain a more or less perfect stride until concentration falls below optimum levels. This is inevitable in all mental and physical tasks, we can't maintain optimum concentration all the way through a hard race. As our stride begins to falter, we have to work harder to maintain it and we start to lose coordination. We feel this acutely in the last 50 meters of an 800m race. During those last 50m our energy systems are failing, and aerobic respiration is shutting down, which in turn causes acidosis, increased hydrogen ion concentration. This doesn't mean we are "going anaerobic" though. Many authors say that it is the increase in hydrogen ions which cause fatigue, but I say it's the other way round.

What does this mean to runners and coaches? It means that practising race pace so that we can extend a given pace is the obvious way to train. But do we train to resist the fatigue, or train without fatigue (stop before it gets very hard) I think we should train without high levels of fatigue in most of our race pace sessions and train to resist the fatigue (with all the pain and aerobic shut down) some of the time, but stop these sessions some days before the race season starts.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

One question though. Lydiard said somewhere, and I also recall from biology, that the ratio of energy produced in terms of ATP per glucose molecule in aerobic respiration vs anerobic respiration is 38-2 or something like that. If aerobic respiration is 17 (or whatever) times as effecient as anerobic respiration, why is the anaerobic system used at all? Why does it make such a big difference in performance? Is the *rate* of energy output greater for anerobic metabolism, even though it is less effecient?

The anaerobic system is used first, supplying 2 ATP per molecule of glucose in glycolyisis (the breakdown of blood glucose from liver glycogen) and 3 ATP from glycogenolysis (the breakdown of muscle glycogen)

Then the remaining store of fuel in the form of Pyruvate of Lactate supplies the mitochodria with another 34 molecules of ATP. This is aerobic breakdown of glucose and glycogen.

In the first few meters of an 800m race, Creatine Phosphate supplies the ATP anaerobically, then this store rapidly then gradually decreases as Anaerobic breakdown of Glycogen and Glucose (in a ratio of 80% glycogen/20% glucose) supplies a lot of energy for the next few seconds and then this also rapidly decreases then gradually decreases as aerobic respiration increases.

In the second lap of the 800 both anaerobic (about 10%) and aerobic (about 90%) sources supply energy for muscle contraction. In the last 200 meters, both of these energy sources are gradually decreasing. In the last 50 meters aerobic respiration is shutting down. We all know that feeling, we just have to hope we have timed our effort well. I think this timing of effort in an 800 is a real art form.

100% agree. Aerobic capacity-aerobic power-speed-speed endurance

canova disciple wrote:

It's 32:2, and you use the anaerobic cycle because it's the first step to the aerobic cycle but the aerobic cycle requires oxygen. Without enough oxygen, your body still needs ATP to function, so only anaerobic respiration occurs, having the biproduct of two lactic acid molecules which release H+ ions into the bloodstream, leading to the burning feeling you get from running fast short intervals.

There is no lactic acid produced, only lactate, which does not release H+ ions, lactate production actually does the opposite, it buffers protons.

The H+ ions come from the anaerobic ATP turnover, which, in an 800m race means that most of the H+ ions come from the first lap of the race and you can't buffer them all in the second lap which is why the fastest races tend to be run with the second lap somewhat slower.

There is a contradiction in what I have written there because I have stated in another post that acidity is not the cause of fatigue, but that the shut down of aerobic respiration reduces H+ buffering. It's hard for an old dog to shake off the old dogma, but I will try.

There are two certainties however, we have more power at the beggining of the race because we producing energy from anaerobic sources and we have less power at the end of the race because both anaerobic and aerobic processes are reduced considerably.

What have I started? This thread is 800m training, not 800m physiology! I guess it is all fair game though, and certainly helpful reading.

Why is aerobic power reduced near the end of the race? I would think that would be when it is working in overdrive.

Does the previous use of the anerobic system (first lap) get in the way of the aerobic systems functioning properly?

Is this why Lydiard says that anaerobic work halts aerobic conditioning during the base phase, and that you cannot train hard and race hard at the same time?

Great threads (both of them)!

Inspired by OldSub4 and others I’ve added hill sprints once a week. One recommendation was to run 18 – 30s up a fairly steep hill @ max effort, while not making it a lactic workout. However, I’m feeling the lactic effects coming on after maybe 13s, even when pacing myself (while I don't think my form is affected much, and I feel no significant soreness in the days after the workout).

I’ve seen: 4-10s @ max effort being recommended elsewhere, which seems to be more in tune with how long the CP system might last during truly max effort, while maybe the 18-30s recommendation is based on how long elite 800m runners want to stretch it to last during a race(?)

So finally to my question: given that I don’t last 18s @ max effort, is it preferable to shorten the length of each repetition, slow down more, decrease the incline, or is it fine to feel some lactic effects towards the end of each repetition as long as I can easily recover from the workout?

Do not slow down. Do not decrease the slope. The point of these hill repeats is to clean up your stride and improve knee lift. A little bit of lactate is ok, but you do not want anything near that feeling you get at the end of an 800m track session. ie 3X3X300 or 4X400 or 12X200 with short rec etc. So shorten them. 30 seconds is a bit too long. 4 seconds would seem too short for practical purposes, unless you did about 100 of them. Somewhere between 12-18 seconds sounds good. I do 15 seconds, although I do not time them.

Soreness is not caused by lactic acid. It is caused by microtears in the muscles. That is why lifting weights causes soreness, as does downhill running.

Look up the 2002 british miler newsletter. I think it has the best explanation I have seen. Your aerobic system isn't shutting down. You have hit your anaerobic capacity. I think Lydiard is wrong in general about anaerobic work hinder aerobic development directly. But it does take time away from aerobic development and if you feel you can get all the development you need in 6-8 weeks, you shouldn't spend valuable training time on it early on. You can't train hard and race well because when your training hard you are perpetually tired. It is a side effect of the training not a direct effect.Feel free to post any articles that you have that contradict this.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

What have I started? This thread is 800m training, not 800m physiology! I guess it is all fair game though, and certainly helpful reading.

Why is aerobic power reduced near the end of the race? I would think that would be when it is working in overdrive.

Does the previous use of the anerobic system (first lap) get in the way of the aerobic systems functioning properly?

Is this why Lydiard says that anaerobic work halts aerobic conditioning during the base phase, and that you cannot train hard and race hard at the same time?

hillrunningman wrote:

Do not slow down. Do not decrease the slope. The point of these hill repeats is to clean up your stride and improve knee lift. A little bit of lactate is ok, but you do not want anything near that feeling you get at the end of an 800m track session. ie 3X3X300 or 4X400 or 12X200 with short rec etc. So shorten them. 30 seconds is a bit too long. 4 seconds would seem too short for practical purposes, unless you did about 100 of them. Somewhere between 12-18 seconds sounds good. I do 15 seconds, although I do not time them.

Soreness is not caused by lactic acid. It is caused by microtears in the muscles. That is why lifting weights causes soreness, as does downhill running.

Agree 100%, I did/do about 18 second hills, and then i have a couple minute jog/walk in between...the session takes 40 minutes or so; you have to be patient so that you dont build up lactic acid. Also, this way you can fit this session into your normal strength regimen without completely exhausting your system....just soreness for microtearing the fast twitch muscles, which you can run mileage on.

One thing that I do when I am starting to feel the head spinning is to not focus on turnover--just explode through each stride and exaggerate the back kick on the hill (otherwise it gets cut off) to work the glut and upper hamstring--you are "bounding" more and it feels like a weight room workout, but with the perfect dynamics of running.

I can tell for an older runner who is experimenting on myself, the power training is something you have to focus on. My stride length/explosive power sucks right now...