Definiton of Aerobic and Anaerobic, lets get up to date here.

i hope you are doing good. myself was really really sore yesterday, my right hamstring both quads and my butt felt like boards when i awoke. but felt good by my evening run guess walking all day really loosened me up.

feel much better today, still waiting for reply thank you again wellnow! i BELIEVE

Hi Wellnow

have enjoyed reading your posts

I have started running again after a long break and decided to try some training i had good results in when i was a cyclist

Its basically a warm up and then 2-3 sets of 8x30-50sec running up a long hill hard with 15-25sec walk breaks and 5min between sets

It worked well for cycling so lets see how it works for running

Keep posting!!

Goodness me, really? That's almost exactly how the session was supposed to go hypothetically, but to actually do in practice what was proposed is wonderful. Congratulations.

The day after such a hard session has to be very easy jogging, on soft surfaces if the legs are a bit stiff and sore. The heart rates are what I hoped they would be, gradually rising to around max heart rate, which is how it should be.

maybe you didn't see my other post but was still looking for clarification as to what days go where

day1 should be sat? mon?

then later as the weeks progress again looks as if day1 changes can you please clarify?

thanks

g2 wrote:

Coach wellnow i seem to have a few other questions?

what day do would be best for these to fall on day1? and so on not really sure?

Week 5 4x100 9x200 9x400

week 6 race or your 1600 reps

week 7 4x100 10x200 10x400

week 8 road race or 1600 reps

week 9 track season starts

this stuff above gets really confusing because i'm supposeed to alternate the road race or 1600 with what workout the 100 200 or the 400's.

I'm assuming you mean to switch off with the 400 day correct? once the track season starts will i no longer so the 400's nor the road race or the 1600 repeats. That probably can't be right it must be some other sequence unless I'm supposed to change sequence once track would start?

thanks

It doesn't matter what day of the week you do the sessions, because you have to fit them in around your lifesyle as best you can, so you decide when to do them.

The 100's and 200's are to help you get used to faster running so that the 400's don't feel too hard.

As a distance runner though, a quick 3 miles or so helps to warm you up for the faster paced work, but there are no rules about this other than going by feel. Trust your body, if you feel worse and worse, and the pace is dropping then do what your body tells you and stop before you get too tired and try again the next day.

Also, no-one can predict how you will feel on a particular day, so it doesn't really matter if you fall slightly behind the shedule which is approximately six weeks from the 6x400 to the 10x400. It doesn't have to be exact, the only important thing is hitting the paces and getting the right feeling as you hit them, i.e. the first one isn't too hard, but the last one very hard.

Yes, the road races should be done in the two weeks when you are not running the 400's. This is the plan; your body can probably manage 6x400 in week one, 7x400 in week 2 then 8x400 in week three, but then you will need to do the 400's every two weeks instead of every week to make sure you are recovering properly and not trying too hard.

This is a normal rate of adaption, at first your body adapts quickly to a new training stimulus, for 2-3 weeks then the adaption slows down gradually.

Doing road races, such as 5k or 10k after doing the faster paced work should be a new and exciting challenge because you might surprise yourself. You will also be able to add some more endurance to the extra track speed you wii hopefully have developed.

You have to be careful not to get carried away in the first half mile of those road races, but if your track training has gone well, and you run the first few hundred meters sensibly then you should race well.

Once track season starts, the training should be focused on recovery and maintenence. So you run easy until you feel recovered and then maintain race pace with easier sessions, and easier tempo runs. The racing + recovery jogs + easier workouts should keep you fit and injury free for many weeks or even months.

g2, I would just like to add that I think you should stay away from the track for a few days, and do your workouts on a slight uphill in order to avoid getting injured.

It's not the track itself that causes injuries, it's the speed, so by doing the workouts at the same intensity but working against more resistance, you can avoid injuries.

Are your legs still a bit sore from the workout? The paces you were running, you are not used to, so you need to be cautious. How are your calves? are there any sore spots?

Try my calf test: grip your calves with your fingers around your shins and your thumbs placed against the calf muscles and push your thumbs into the muscles all the way up and down from below the knee to above the achilees tendon. Push quite hard to check for knots in the muscles. Any sore and tight spots will tell you that you are not ready to run fast, and that slower paced running is required until the soreness is gone.

Also, you may find your normal running pace to be difficult. My adivice is to run the mileage much slower, until your legs recover. This may feel very strange, in fact many runners just can't or won't run slow, but for many others, slow recovery runs allow them to run much better quality sessions. The key to enjoying slow runs is to allow yourself the feel the natural bounce in your stride, without any pain and this takes some practice.

wellnow,I may regret opening this can of worms, but there are just so many things which are unclear to me. In spite of your obvious struggles and frustrations, I'm just not yet convinced of the magnitude of any religious dogma, with its false prophets. Rather than worshipping false prophets, I think most athletes and coaches are simply concerned with pragmatic aspects that will guide their training to meet their goals. This would explain the general apathy for not changing something which appears to work already.If you truly want to be the voice of reason, in the interest of discussing things openly, perhaps you can reasonably clear up a few questions for me:- Is there any consequence of this alleged fundamental misunderstanding of how endurance training works?- How do you measure neuro-muscular coordination? You can not discuss something much in the literature without measuring it.- Would neuro-muscular coordination fall under efficiency or economy? These topics are discussed often. Anerobic Capacity workouts are mainly about improving form and running economy.- Has anyone shown that relying on the aerobic/anaerobic development model fails to work? This might explain why no one sees the need to change.- If a flawed (dis-proven) model still works, is it that important to change or replace it? Einstein broke all of Newton's laws, yet Newton's model is still almost exclusively used. Is anyone outraged that Newtonion dogma is still taught in schools? Does anyone call Newton a false prophet?- Has anyone introduced a better model? What are the alternatives? What does a "neuro-muscular model" say about how athletes improve?- Has anyone measured and quantified the typical contribution of improvements due to aerobic development (VO2Max and LT threshold) versus the typical contribution of neuro-muscular coordination?- If no one comes forth supporting a "neuro-muscular coordination" model as a replacement, can the issue be that important?- If 99.9% of the concerned population are stuck in their old ways, why hasn't anyone yet come forth with a radical "neuro-muscular" training plan that will revolutionalize endurance running, and completely destroy the competition.Here are some of my assumptions:- VO2max can be, and is often measured in labs.- Training causes improvements in VO2max.- Blood lactate can be, and is often, measured in the lab and on the track.- Training causes improvements in levels of blood lactate versus performance.- Aerobic development causes physiological changes such as improvements in mitochondria and capillaries to produce a higher rate of energy in the muscles, as well as (presumably) adaptations that better use lactate as a fuel.- Improvements often occur without changes in VO2max and blood lactate. These improvements are generally lumped into improved efficiency or economy, which in fact can be influenced by a great number of things, some trainable, and some not.In another thread:

Aerobic capacity develops normally and naturallay in healthy active people. About 80% of your aerobic development happens as part of your physical growth, another 10% or so comes from an active lifestyle and the rest comes from regular moderate exercise. As a runner, you don't even have to train hard to maximize your aerobic capacity.

So the idea of continuous aerobic development is false, and the notion that the best athletes are "aerobic monsters" is complete fantasy, they have the same aerobic development as millions of young runners.

It has been know for several decades that what the best athletes have is superior neuro-muscular co-ordination i.e. superior running skill. Our brains have to learn new skills by conscious practice and then rely on that stored information to repeat them as unconscious skills.

This has been well researched and published over many years. The fact that the vast majority of coaches and exercise physiologists fail to recognize the importance of this research is the main reason why I don't think I am overstating the case that the popular notions of aerobic development are akin to religious dogma.

So how can an awareness of neuro muscular co-ordination affect training ideas?

That is where the future of training lies. Up till now it has been fairly hit and miss, we have to guess what is going to work and the best guesses lead to the best results.

I think we should classify training into what will maintain running skills and what will improve running skills. So I believe that there are two types of tempo running for example. The regular tempo run to maintain efficiency, which should be a medium intensity run with little fatigue. Regular steady runs should be done on this principle too.

The other type is the hard tempo run which is run much less frequently. This is a hard run and is very taxing.

Hill sprints improve power and this also trasnlates somewhat to other training. Dowhill running improves resistance to eccentric muscle contraction fatigue.

Is this any different from what many runners do? no but there is also no limit to how well you can put things together.

i will not bother reading 15 pages of b.s. here, but by the fact that there are 15 pages devoted to 2 basic concepts, it tells me that the words each have different meanings for everyone (obviously everyone is an expert here) therefore the words are meaningless. sorry, but you can't communicate effectively if people cannot even agree on basic definitions.

You don't have to read 15 pages of b.s. mother clucker, here it is in an eggshell:

Aerobic = Mitochondrial

Anaerobic = Non Mitochondrial

I think most people are simply pragmatic, and not dogmatic. Most coaches and athletes use the aerobic/anaerobic cardio-vascular model because training by it works, and it's easy to understand.

If we've known the truth for decades, please tell me how do you measure the effect of improvements strictly due to improved neuro-muscular coordination? I know how to measure VO2max and Lactate Threshold, as well as power and time and distance.

Sadly for purists, the idea of a model built on a false notion is not enough to require changing the model (recall my Newton-Einstein example). To change a model requires realizing that an old model fails, and a new, better, model exists. A model is not reality, but only a representation. Training by the aerobic model, in spite of any false notions, still works (especially when it includes economy and efficiency fudge factors), and their doesn't seem to be one based on neuro-muscular coordination.

But one can always hope that a new more accurate model will come, paving the way for our children to break the 2-hour marathon.

I like the idea of describing training by the effects it has on running, such as improving stamina, endurance, or speed, rather than linking it to physiological phenomena that may or may not be happening.

Just some more research. Acidosis may not be the cause of fatigue.

http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/17

Muscle Fatigue: Lactic Acid or Inorganic Phosphate the Major Cause?

Håkan Westerblad1, David G. Allen2 and Jan Lännergren1

1 Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden; and

2 Department of Physiology and Institute of Biomedical Research, University of Sydney F13, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Intracellular acidosis due mainly to lactic acid accumulation has been regarded as the most important cause of skeletal muscle fatigue. Recent studies on mammalian muscle, however, show little direct effect of acidosis on muscle function at physiological temperatures. Instead, inorganic phosphate, which increases during fatigue due to breakdown of creatine phosphate, appears to be a major cause of muscle fatigue.

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

If we've known the truth for decades, please tell me how do you measure the effect of improvements strictly due to improved neuro-muscular coordination? I know how to measure VO2max and Lactate Threshold, as well as power and time and distance.

Think about your question logically. To do this you will have to break away from the aerobic development dogma.

As I explained, once you are training regularly, you are not going to improve your aerobic capacity, it isn't going to happen, it has already improved to the level it should be, you are aerobically developed, and your anaerobic capacity has been developed also, because the two are intertwined.

So any improvement in race times, indicates an improvement in running skill, a.k.a. neuro-muscular co-ordination.

Coaches have developed training plans with this knowledge for decades. There is no new training that I know of that is radically different. What we need to look for is ways of incorporating the best established ideas in the best way.

How do we improve our maximum power? that is an important consideration, since it affect all other running paces. At the start of any race, the fastest runners are very powerful in the first few strides. We can't talk about strictly endurance training or interval training or tempo running without this power development consideration.

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

I like the idea of describing training by the effects it has on running, such as improving stamina, endurance, or speed, rather than linking it to >>>>>physiological phenomena that may or may not be happening<<<<<<.

This may be one of the most profound statements ever made on "LetsRun".

Wellnow = Jon Orange who is NOT a physiologist. Just another struggling slowass runner who likes to hear himself talk.

This is one of my points -- neither "I" (nor you) need to break away from the "aerobic development dogma" to incorporate your decades old neuro-muscular improvements.

My development model says improvements come in this order:

1) Initial improvements come from building aerobic capacity. This can be confirmed by VO2max measurements, and explained physiologically by changes in capillaries and mitichondria. This plateaus in the short term. (Let's say 1-2 years, for example).

2) Once aerobic capacity improvements start plateauing, the next improvements come from improving lactate threshold. This can also be confirmed by measuring blood lactate. This plateaus in the medium term. (Let's say 5 or so years, for example).

3) Thereafter, once lactate threshold improvements start plateauing, the remaining improvements are attributed to efficiency and economy.

Of course once you develop your aerobic capacity and lactate threshold, you must still maintain them. You can not stop doing "aerobic" training, or this capability will deteriorate or disappear.

I think my model is typical of the mainstream dogma, and not unusual.

The reality of and magnitude of aerobic improvements, rather than being some false notion, can be confirmed by VO2max measurements and blood lactate measurements. I do not need to take your word that this notion is true or false.

So, your neuro-muscular coordination is, in the "aerobic dogma" usually accounted for in efficiency and economy improvements. It is not some secret or lost contribution that has been known by the learned, yet ignored by the mainstream, for decades.

Again I ask, how do we measure it? Sadly, the only measure I know is to describe efficiency power produced or economy in terms of speed, relative to oxygen cost. Even your answer suggests I must still measure oxygen, and then factor that out of the final result, to quantify what the missing "non-aerobic" component is. Is there no way to measure neuro-muscular coordination, except to measure everything it is not? You are asking me to break away from aerobic dogma. Give me a way to measure neuro-muscular improvements without measuring oxygen.

I think you yourself have not discarded the aerobic dogma. You simply want to say, let's take "1)" and "2)" for granted, and then wonder, why is no one talking about "3)"?

None of that matters. I find it poor etiquette to "out" someone writing under a pseudonym.Seems he is not all that slow, well for his age anyway.

FYI wrote:

Wellnow = Jon Orange who is NOT a physiologist. Just another struggling slowass runner who likes to hear himself talk.

FYI wrote:

Wellnow = Jon Orange who is NOT a physiologist. Just another struggling slowass runner who likes to hear himself talk.

Do you have a number one ranking in your country?

I do, as a masters runner.

#1 in M45 1500m 2008

#2 in M45 5000m

#3 in M45 3000m

I may be a slowass compared to the best M45 in the World, but I'm working to improve.

The initial improvements in VO2 max only take a few weeks, not 1-2 years. And that is from an untrained state. For many runners they are already at their peak aerobic development from regular training.

So if these runners are constantly worrying about aerobic development, then they are likely to train too hard trying to improve something which cannot be improved.

To measure improvements in neuro-muscular co-ordination (let's call it running skill or just skill) without measuring oxygen uptake is simple, you get faster when you train correctly.

Your last statement is correct:

"I think you yourself have not discarded the aerobic dogma. You simply want to say, let's take "1)" and "2)" for granted, and then wonder, why is no one talking about "3)"? "

Yes, as aerobic development is normal and natural, you don't have to worrry about it, so you should concentrate on running skill. So the question is: how do we train best to optimize our skill at various paces?