Mr. Renato Canova: Could You Please Answer a Question About Effective Ways to Improve the Lactate Threshold?

Antonio,

I will not argue against a day off -- I always make it a rule to have a day off after 13 days of continuous training.

And many true 1500m runners don't go much past 90min for long runs. I know that Steve Scott would do 25km in 90min for his long run every week.

But I don't necessarily think that they would be "hurt" or hindered by going longer. From physiology, I see no disadvantage and only the advantage in stamina, especially in rounds. When I last spoke with Peter Snell, we were talking about his first gold medal and he said that he won it because there were four rounds and that he was the only runner in the field with the stamina to run the 3 qualifying rounds and still have something left in the final.

I agree, and all the other training becomes easier if you know you can run 2hrs at a decent pace without problem. Longruns are not specific training for 800/1500-athletes, but it's training to handle hard workouts such as 5x2000m and 10x1000m.

I think his point is that the long run could be better spent...training more specifically for your race or LT, V02max, etc. Doing a long run that will give you less benefit than those is only tiring yourself out for the next workout.

Translation wrote:

I think his point is that the long run could be better spent...training more specifically for your race or LT, V02max, etc. Doing a long run that will give you less benefit than those is only tiring yourself out for the next workout.

I see it in totally the opposite way -- it's an aerobic recharge for the instensity that you will want to do. It's sets up the aerobic foundation for the hard yards.

bump

trackhead

I agree with you. The “endurance” support for Race Paces are LT runs, quite intense runs that you try to delay the pace IN intensity and not Long runs - long aerobics "steady state runs".

Long runs are used for some reasons and one among them to training perseverance "that´s the capacity to delay an effort for a long term duration". That´s effective for long distance/duration events, but a 800m or a 1500m/mile that´s a so short duration relate to 2 hours long run. Ther´s also a good reason to use long ones in long distance events. That´s carbo depletion and to teach the body to use fat as fuel. But that depletion doesn´t exist in middle distance runs. There are also a physiologic reason to use that Long runs: that´s psychological perseverance: independently in what effort level you are going your mind need to be ready for a long term effort duration.

They start to use that also, because in the past they train lesser than we train actually. So, a long one that´s a useful format to cover mileage volume that eventually that did miss during the week.

I agree that long runs are benefits to a certain extend, and in certain contexts – oxygen uptake, mitochondria, perseverance, whatever.

But did you measured also the risks - or inefficiency to use Long Ones ?

More risks to injury, more risks that carbo depletion can affect your training routine, more time to recover, tendons and cartilage are more exposed to long term effort with negative consequences and so and so. If that negative effects don´t exist I would advise 3-4 long runs weekly in a marathon plan. But that exists.

Take a look to Ingrid Kristiansen site (in the English version).

http://www.ingrid-kristiansen.com/

Later on in Marathon she explains why we must consider a long runs as a specific for the marathon and why you take more benefits while mainly by SHORT RUNS.

http://ingrid-kristiansen.com/holisticfitness/marathon.htm

Ingrid explains why she did just a 2hours runs weekly and why all their runs have no more than 45min, mainly twice a day.

Ingrid says: “….On the average Ingrid had one 2 hour easy long run and one 1.5 hour easy long run a week. Her most common training was a 45 min long run. She had, on the average, 2 harder training sessions a week (threshold training as intervals or fartleks), and 1 medium hard training run. The rest were long easy runs (45 min). We will try to more fully explain this training philosophy…”

The training is specific (you improve in what you actually do); it is therefore important to simulate and get as much training exposure as possible in the pace you are looking for in the different distances of competitions. For Ingrid, this was a pace around 3:20 min per km for the marathon. As you may understand, she could not run all the time at this pace on the long easy runs, but she could more easily do it on her 45 minute runs.

If you do many long easy runs, you get very good at running long and easy, or you get very good at slow running. When you do regular long runs of 2 hours and more, we all know that we have to run rather slowly simply because of several limitations; you get tired and exhausted. Oxygen supply, dehydration and limited carbohydrate storage are the major limitations.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to train or adapt your body to handle dehydration, it is a non-trainable quality. Most of the waste products produced while training are water soluble. The more dehydrated you get, the higher the concentration of the waste products in your body. When you are running, it is not possible to compensate for all the dehydration like it is when you are biking or cross country skiing. If you drink too much while running, your stomach will stop you.

We believe that too much training while partly or totally dehydrated (a typical condition on long easy runs) limits endurance growth in your muscles; very often the conditions in the working muscles get toxic and break down your endurance. As a rule of thumb, you lose 10% of your performance capacity for each 1% of your weight you lose as liquid. If your weight is 70 kg and you have lost 1% of your weight, 0.7 kg water, then your performance capacity is only 90% of your capacity. Dehydration also reduces the cooling capacity of your body.

Did you know that 75% of the energy produced by your muscles is heat (energy loss), while only 25% of the energy ends up under your shoe soles. Our body loses a lot of salts and minerals when we get dehydrated; is very important to replace these losses. Remember also from the Physical chapter that the principle of overload is fundamental in the study of exercise.

However, if you do a lot of easy long runs there will not really be an aerobic overload on your central system (your heart and lungs); and it is this system that is normally the major bottleneck in general endurance. There will also be no real aerobic overload on your peripheral system either; when running too slowly your working muscles will not improve their threshold level. Other drawbacks with too many and too long easy runs:

You get good at running slow

You get a slower stride

You lose your elasticity

You end up running on your heels

You need longer rest periods to recover

Actually, the main objective with the few long easy runs we recommend is to improve the fat burning capacity of the muscles. The better oxygen capacity you have, the more fat you are able to burn at a higher pace. Remember that fat requires about 16% more oxygen to produce the same amount of energy as carbohydrates.

There will always be a trade off situation of how many of these long easy runs you need, but we think the limited number of long easy runs Ingrid did is one of the major reason for her results. Another objective with the long easy run is to get used to all the pounding on your legs and muscles.

Ingrid got her running volume by running more, but shorter long runs. On these shorter long runs she then got much more training exposure to:

Faster running, more aerobic "overload"

"Simulating" the actual competition pace

More mental acceptance of the actual pace

Running with faster strides

More elasticity

More running on her toes

Need of shorter rest periods, easier recovery

Less dehydration

Less emptying of carbohydrate reserves

Less boring running shorter runs

In the system and sensitivity analysis in the Physical chapter we could see how important the central system with its heart and lungs is to endurance training and how vital the aerobic energy supply was relative to the anaerobic. In the marathon close to 100% of the energy supply will be aerobic.

You should not do any work within the anaerobic zone when you prepare for a marathon, simply because you do not need it and as we have already stated, you should simulate the actual work condition for the race when you train. If you get too eager and push too much on the harder workouts, you can easily interfere with your whole endurance capacity.

This is in conflict with most cultures where we are praised if we do "something" more, harder and faster. However, the lactic acid environment can be like poison for your aerobic capacity.>>

Now, my friends, relate that what Kris says to short middle distance runs.

Renato, can you respond to the questions?

Renato?

This is not very fruitful advice, as the long run is cause for many aerobic adaptations. Increased mitonchondrial density, an increased response time with the release of various catacholamines and hormones (epinephrin, norepinephrine, cortisol, human growth hormone), increased citrate levels (inhibits Phosphofructokinase, an enzyme for CHO utilization, thus glycogen sparing), and maybe a conversion of sort of type 1 to type 2 muscle fibers all play a role in performance. As for the muscle fiber idea that was alluded to by Tinman (I think). Peter Snell's idea was that a long run that is intense enough to deplete glycogen stores will then only begin to recruit type 2 fibers and may begin to train them as oxidative fibers. The key concept here is that the muscles need to be fatigued by a means of glycogen depletion. All and all the long run is a vital component to long distance success! Great thread!

Sorry, this was in reply to the following:

Translation wrote:

I think his point is that the long run could be better spent...training more specifically for your race or LT, V02max, etc. Doing a long run that will give you less benefit than those is only tiring yourself out for the next workout.

Are double days not also the cause of increased mitochondrial growth or whatever you ex phys guys call it...capillary density, whatever.

not to the extent that the continuous long run improved mitochondria and myoglobin content as well as capillarization

Trackhead and Coach Duke

For me, the final answer to the benefits or prejudices of 2 hour long runs for 800m-1500m middle distance events, or for 5000m and 10000 events and also for the marathon event -that´s i know not by science argument or justification, but by mainly by real performance results - that are facts.

Ok, there are 2 large groups: those who do 2 hour long runs and those who don´t. take a look for national rankings, internacional ranking season PB or all time PB - and we will see thar´s a VAST MAJORITY that tends for those that don´t do long runs they are at the top of 800m-1500m-500m-1000m lits at any class that you want consider.

But if we do the same "exercise" to those who do workouts or those who don´t, or those who train more than 100miles and those who train less; or to those who do taper for peak shape, or whatever you want relate with the perfromance you can´t take such a conclusive answer that you will take about the use 2hour long runs or you don´t.

The case is that in running history it did happen that long ago a great long from the english language (don+´t forget that) did a tremendous sucess with a few of their top class runners - that´s Arthur Lydiard with Halberg, Snell, Dick Taylor and more. It did happens that that coach did prescribe 2 hour long runs for their runners event for 800-1500m. Of course that many other they copied that Long one - and also did and do some sucess - but that´s not enough. The large majority in europe or all over the world get their targets without including the long run in thier schedules.

To try to justify the use of long ons by science arguments when here we are with top rankings to dismiss completly the profits or benefits of that use seems to me unrealistic, not factual.

But if you look to a marathon ranking or a marathon olympic classification it happens the opposite. There´s a large majority of the top runners that they all use long runs - but even those ones - they use that mainly in the specific marathgon training periods and not all season long.

Now i ask in the opposite direction. That will be enough to justify that 90 minutes that´s enough for a marathon specific plan just because one day Carlos Lopes did win marathon olympics or did the marathon WR but he never did more 90 minutes runs - and even that very rarely? Of course not !

Please, look for the rankings at any level of categories. Look for meetings performances and big games results.

Look for the figures, numbers, statistical range avarages. That´s accurate than scientific arguments. Besides that´s the transfer of training concepts and training use to the reality.

The long run focuses on long term aerobic development. I would argue that when long runs are included in training and proper recovery is not compromised before the next workout, that it would be extremely beneficial to run long. This is attained by building a proper aerobic foundation that allows you to run long and still recovery efficiently enough that the next workout is not compromised. It would intrigue me to look at both the preceeding training of the athletes who have succeeded without long runs, and the results from the same athletes if they included longer runs (90 minutes plus) in their training. I respect your argument, as I strongly believe that science has no place in sport unless it can be accurately applied. No better way to evaluate training then by looking at the results. Fine point!

Thanks Renato

incoming wrote:

Renato, thanks for your comments and insight once again.It seems their is a difference between a kenyan and European in regards to An. L.T. and levels of Lactate.Does this explain why Kenyans are able to do Some sort of aerobic resistance day after day with-out any difficulty ?You always hear how the kenyans have grown up on progressions and Threshold runs and now it seems they can run at higher lactates than the non-kenyan.How does this affect their level of lactate that they can maintain for a Marathon?Are they able to maintain above 3mmol for a marathon ?is their aerobic threshold higher as well but wouldn't the higher lactate still use their glycogen when it came to 90 min. or more ? Also how would you change your training at altitude for a non-kenyan?

Europeans can actually run at the same high Lactate levels. They are actually quite normal for athletes well trained at 10k and Half Marathon.

We must get away from the old idea of 4mmol being the level of Half Marathon running. That is just an average figure. When we are properly trained for Half Marathon, the Lactate level is much higher than this.

You are right about the Marathon Lactate levels though. If a top athlete runs at above 3mmols in a Marathon, they will run out of Glycogen early.

Hopefully, Renato can provide us with more information.

Coach Duke

I said it once and i said it twice - That´s nothing wrong in doing long runs - with the proper recover. The PHYSICAL benefits relate to long term aerobic improvement that you get from that - you are right. But to say that long runs - are a "sine-qua-non" training condition (indispensable training condition) is that i don´t agree. My experience tells me that there are so many runners that despite they are out of motivation to do the typical weekend long run, they sacrify a good day of RRR - rest, recover, relax - to a long one.

Hurray! No argument here.

Renato did say he would respond to my question about non-competitive season training (example of Shaheen's complete year) so I continue to move this to the top.