What I meant was that the only real, scientific way to know almost exactly where your LT is is to take blood.....you can also learn to "feel" that pace by starting at around current half marathon pace and working down to about 15k race pace...which is something most runners should be able to eventually learn to do without all the tricky tests.
What I can't figure out is why people believe in LT anyway.
wellnow wrote:
What I can't figure out is why people believe in LT anyway.
THAT could be the title of this thread! :) I'd love to try and summarize the last few pages, and how it relates to "Event Specificity".
Half the time I reply, my computer freezes up. Only at letsrun. "Out of space at line 56" is an alert I keep getting. Anyone else? It began 3 days ago.
wellnow wrote:
What I can't figure out is why people believe in LT anyway.
It does exist - kind of. But it's a little arbitrary as to where you're going to decide the "inflection point" on that graph is. We ought to use "ventilatory threshold." At least that has a more precisely measurable requirement of definition. The compensatory zone between the ventilatory threshold and the respiratory compensation point is where most things normally associated with the "LT" really start to happen, though.
wellnow, LT is probably the only "intensity zone" that you can (and should) workout at almost every week of the year. It seems to preserve the fitness of a summer base, and the gains from harder, V02max workouts. Since running at that pace also can help economy, it is possbily the most important type of training to run at in terms of improving race performance from 8k to 30k.
Skuj wrote:
Half the time I reply, my computer freezes up. Only at letsrun. "Out of space at line 56" is an alert I keep getting. Anyone else? It began 3 days ago.
Same for me. Has to be something wrong with this site.
wellnow, LT is probably the only "intensity zone" that you can (and should) workout at almost every week of the year. It seems to preserve the fitness of a summer base, and the gains from harder, V02max workouts. Since running at that pace also can help economy, it is possbily the most important type of training to run at in terms of improving race performance from 8k to 30k.[/quote]
But how can I train at that "intensity zone" when know it doesn't really exist?
Of course lactate accumulates at a certain intensity, but that intensity, above maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) varies considerably, usually it is much shorter and faster than the ubiquitous definition of LT being the pace you could handle for about an hour.
Well, I think the "LT" zone/intensity does exist- and while it may be hard to identify, any training around that zone is going to improve your aerobic fitness in almost all aspects.
I agree it varies considerably and usually most runners run too hard and do "tempo" runs too fast- like they are races.
So what I'm saying is that while in theory it is optimal to train at this exact effort (LT), it is often not carried out in practice/training- but thats okay because it is all part of the energy spectrum that blends with MLSS, MP, Aerobic Threshold, Veneliatory Threshold, etc.
As long as you don't hammer a "tempo" effort too hard, and cross that line of getting closer to V02max you are going to be helping your fitness level....so you should train there on a regular basis.
S. Canaday wrote:
Well, I think the "LT" zone/intensity does exist.
Of course it exists as a zone. Pinpointing it as a precise value of blood lactate concentration is iffy.
It's kind of like identifying the "blue" region of the visible spectrum. Obviously it exists, but where does "blue" precisely occur - at a wavelength of 450 nanometers or 475 nm or 500 nm? It just depends on which shade of blue you want to label "exactly blue." As far as we're concerned, agreeing on an exact wavelength or shade to call "blue" ought to take a back seat to being able to recognize the basic color of blue from its neighbors, green and violet. Same deal in running. A runner should be able to recognize by effort when he's entering the basic zone in which the "threshold" somewhere lies.
If a guy said the color blue didn't exist, we'd know right away he was either totally blind or unable to distinguish blue from any other color. And when we see a wall painted with a color in the blue region of the spectrum, we don't think, "Oh, look at that 495-nanogram-wavelength wall over there!" We just call it blue without really thinking about what kind of quantitative definition "blue" ought to have. Being able to recognize the color of the wall in the first place is the idea. Knowing off the top of the head what wavelength of light is being reflected off it doesn't change the look of it one bit.
Since shorter wavelengths are more penetrative than longer ones, blue is a more intense color than green, but isn't as intense as violet. Ultraviolet or shorter wavelengths are potentially damaging to human cells. Carrying that analogy over to running, the entire "aerobic spectrum" is like the visible spectrum, which is comprised of wavelengths from about 400 nanometers (violet) to 700+ nm (red). Jogging might be somewhere in the "red" end, while extremely high-intensity aerobic work (near max VO2, which also requires a significant anaerobic contribution if sustained) is at the other end, near ultraviolet. The "comfortably fast" aerobic efforts lie in the green and blue regions, with the "threshold zone" somewhere in the blue. It doesn't matter what exact wavelength it occurs at, but it does matter that you can recognize a basic shade of blue when you see it. As a runner, you'd like to be able to tell when you're crossing from the softer green zone into the strong blue zone and you should learn how it feels when you get into the more intense violet zone so you can figure out what shade of blue is the right one for you to look at more often without "damaging your eyes." Precisely identifying a wavelength value for "blue" is just mentally punching the clown.
Well said.
i just came across the post and have read a good part of it. if my comments have already been covered i apologise.
I think that generality of training and specificity of training are two fundamental principles of training. Furthermore they are interconnected opposites like yin and yang:)
If they are actually inversely proportional then as we move from the beginning of the training period to the end of the competition period we also move from generality to specificity.
I also believe LT runs are part of the generality.
This pyramidal approach is in line with almost everything i have read since high school on training principles. It is also a Soviet style periodisation fundamental. It can be illustrated as a pyramid and the lowest level of that pyramid is general preparation. This is for establishing base levels and volumes for later training to be launched off. Enough time spent here is also excellent for creating longevity in careers.
Furthermore, Arthur Lydiard, whose way i also subscribe to, proposes large amounts of training done between easy sub max running and what seems to be threshold running. Massive amounts i should say. 100 miles per week is advised for 800-5000m. However, Snell the dual Olympic 800m champion, said he only reached 100 miles per week a couple of times per year. Mostly 70-80 miles per week was the average.
I have come to the conclusion that why I initially, and why people generally cannot accept Lydiard's proposal, stems from what i see as laziness. Now it is very difficult to propose that distance runners are lazy. So i will try to explain it like this. People will find it easier to do what is natural to them than what is not. A natural distance runner will want to do a lot of running. The lazier (must find a better word) MD runner will want to do a lot of race pace and faster stuff year round. This is like a sprinters mentality - less volume, more intensity. The less lazy MD runner will either know or accept the necessity to build up the deeper levels. The strange thing is that this training is actually easier. So it's not really a lazniess issue facing these certain MD runners. What is it? They don't want to do the stuff that they don't like. They say the don't like it because it boring. Why is it boring to them? Because they haven't found the mental state to appreciate it. The mental state of taking your time, that contains stillness, peace of mind. The maturer mind that comes with experience. Coaches need to counter this unwillingness of young athletes to persist with long running enough to start to enjoy the serenity of it. Running in beautiful places with friendly co-runners helps a lot.
If you are a runner - run, run, run. Be the person of olde who ran from place to place bearing communication. Let running become your thing.
Then apply intelligence to a process of preparation for a specific race distance. If Arthur Lydiard is any guide, once the deeper levels are well deveoped, plenty of time can be spent in the upper levels. The broader the bottom level of the pyramid, the longer and higher the peak of the uppermost level.
As you said Scuj - the fulcrum; where those life best performances can be performed.
Having said all of this - i am coaching a 15 year old 800m runner just 12 months in the sport. To date he has never done long running in his life except the occasional random one. His training was almost without aerobic content in the first year because he began training at the beginning of the season. I worked on his technical side, his mental side and his competitive skills side initially whilst trying to develop maximum speed and lactate tolerance eg 5x300/4min. There were two blocks of 6 weeks through this period where aerobic power was developed. eg session 8x400/1min.
Within 8 months he ran 154.8 which is the fastest state record in Australia. (there are no national records in u15 in Australia. He also ran 408.4 in the only 1500m that season and ran 51.79e for 400m. Again, he was not an athlete the previous season.
This last Winter for us in OZ saw him do more aerobic work (1,2,3 min reps off 1 min jog or walk for example) but still no regular long runs. He did however do a number of races and did seem to quickly hone his ability to run steadily.
In a few races so far this season he has cruised a couple of 408 1500s, a 155.1 800m off a 59 sec first lap and a 49.9 400m, also 50.2, 50.3 and a 48.7 relay split on a perfect night.
All of this is occurring without any LT training.
So i think LT training is a component like any other, bring it up to speed if it is lacking and maintain it if it is well ahead of other components. There are many other components.
general balance for the athlete, then specific balance for the intended event.
It is critical to have a well-trained LT in order to run up to one's potential in a marathon- whereas in the 800m the LT is not nearly as important. I assume that most people already realize this, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
LT and running economy can determine marathon performance quite well.
Look at finding your performance in 5k-10k and you look to the V02max, then the LT and economy as well as basic 400m speed.
Performance at mile to 800m is mainly a component of basic sprinting speed and a high V02max.
Lydiard's methods were great. For maximizing the relatively limited inborn talents of certain runners. Yes, for some running 100 mpw might bring out their best 800 time, but these people should be focused on other events, anyway.
What recent 800 WR holders did over 100 mpw?
Can you explain Mr Canaday why LT development isn't essential for 800m runners.
Even though this case example of this 15 year old has shown no development until recently, i still believe as Lydiard did, that developing this quality is essential for all middle distance.
It seems to me the 800m is a function of a maximum top sprinting speed, aerobic development to delay the onset of lactate and specific lactate work to develop buffering abilities.
If you increase the LT too much, his anaerobic capacity will drop too much.
Thus why doing too much LT work messes up pure 800m runners.
see i wasn't aware of this yet specifically. As an ex-decathlete balance is a very important concept to me so i tend to become aware when one factor is training is overly emphasised for too long and starts to have a negative effect on another.
However, i wouldn't have come to a conclusion on LT vs lactate work until t least next year so thanks. A shortcut!
Please tell me some proportions of each in say different phases of the year and/or from different ages. Furthermore i'd love to know opinion on levels for the 400/800 type and the 800/1500 type.
or anything else:)
Perhaps the surrounding stuff is "training to train", and the specific sessions I refer to are "training to race". Most training must be "training to train". ???[/quote]
Agreed - the specific stuff only allows you to get the best out of what you already 'have'. Without at some point geting away from the specific work and going back to building your basic qualities it will be impossible to continue to improve over the long term.
If you get time, have a look at the following article -you could argue against some of the points made, but it presents some interesting ideas about adaptation to specific training:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol31/rushall1.htm
Humbug wrote:
Perhaps the surrounding stuff is "training to train", and the specific sessions I refer to are "training to race". Most training must be "training to train". ???
Agreed - the specific stuff only allows you to get the best out of what you already 'have'. Without at some point geting away from the specific work and going back to building your basic qualities it will be impossible to continue to improve over the long term.
If you get time, have a look at the following article -you could argue against some of the points made, but it presents some interesting ideas about adaptation to specific training:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol31/rushall1.htm[/quote]
If you translated that article into running training, it would be the same shit that always pops up when physiologists write about training: low mileage, lots of high intensity training, technique work etc. I hope american running had learnt the lesson what happens if you follow that road.
you mean wrote:
If you increase the LT too much, his anaerobic capacity will drop too much.
How do you figure that? If LT work is anaerobic efficiency work, then I would think it to be very valuable for 800/1M types.
Thanks for that training to train vs training to race. I remember it from the past but it didn't mean as much as now.
So most of the training is getting ready to be able to do the race specfic type of training. I believe this is strongly within Lydiard's model.