CraigMac4h wrote:
wellnow, since my own efforts to find the research have gone unfruitful, can you post ONE LINK from a credible, peer-reviewed study that proves absolute aerobic development peaks at age 18-20?
That is from Jack Daniels' research. I have no reason to doubt it.
For me, Lydiard's philosophy is far better than the vast majority of other coaches. I hope to describe what I mean by that in the next few weeks because I share that philosophy.
CraigMac4h wrote:
wellnow, since my own efforts to find the research have gone unfruitful, can you post ONE LINK from a credible, peer-reviewed study that proves absolute aerobic development peaks at age 18-20?
wellnow wrote:
That is from Jack Daniels' research. I have no reason to doubt it.
Given your "colorful" (read: "competely made up") interpretation of the definition of VDOT in the other thread, you'll have forgive us if we don't just take your word for this. A link please.
And as I said: It doesn't bother me that much. I really hate running the 3k, 5k, 10k and actually also the 1500m. It's a bit of a shame that my ability lies in the 1500m - the 800m and very long distances are kind of the only thing I really like running. I just wanted to conclude that my ability in those races is not terrible.
And I don't think I lack your so called aerobic capacity. How can I run 30 km very hilly with less than 4 min pr km pretty easy the day after a tough track session and still are my 5 k and 10 k times bad compared to my 800m? It's very simple - I haven't been running very much at these excact paces before so im not economical at them at all!
And why do almost everyone think that wellnow is running almost no mileage? Not very long time ago in this thread he actually said that some few days before his best 1500m or something ran 15 miles at marathonpace!!!! You have kind of assumed what he thinks and bases all your arguments on that by yourself wrong conclusion!!!
Lydiard = periodization. How many world class runners follow some sort of periodization: Base, strength, speed, race? Answer, a lot. The popular training manuals out now, Daniels, Pfitzinger et al, all preach some sort of periodization. The basic Lydiard philosophy of the 60s has been adapted over years to include altitude training, additional speed training year round but the basic tenants are still there. Lydiard has more accolytes than you think.
I always find examples of actual training more enlightening than anything. "How They Train" books have always been my favorites.
Wellnow has a post that's just a bit before yours in which he says that he follows Lydiard's philosophy to a significant degree. I recall a similar comment that he made on some other thread a while ago and this sort of thing leads me to believe that he's more interested in correcting the physiological terminology that Arthur used than in correcting the actual training. But I'm not sure and that leads back to my preference for seeing what people actually do with their running. I'd love to see some actual samples of what wellnow does.
wellnow, I want to ask this as civilly as possible- I will admit that in the past I haven't been as open-minded as I might have been.
If we were to dispense with the arguments for a moment and hypothetically say your tenets are 100% irrefutable, exactly what changes in training should we make in light of that information?
I've mentioned before that I don't really care if doing a 4mi tempo run at 1hr race pace results in improvement from neuromuscular gains or raising the LT. Do you dispute the terminology, or do you dispute the training itself?
No, problem Craig, I don't take nuthin personal.
I don't dispute accepted training lore, but what do we include, and when, and what do we leave out?
I do dispute the terminology, because all voluntary movements are controlled by the brain by the processes of neuromuscular coordination, with the help of feedback from the the muscles and feet etc. So we can continue to improve long after we have maximized our aerobic capcity.
But so what you may ask?
Well we should ask ourselves how much can we improve, and why are the best runners so much better than others who train hard for years?
The answer is that we can greatly improve our economy at every pace, but how do we do that?
If we consider that our fast twitch fibers are mostly fast oxidative, that is; they have a high aerobic capacity, but contract more powerfully than slow twitch fibers, then it's obvious to me that this gives us the potential to run faster over longer distances by improving our ability to recruit these fibers. The skill with which we can control this ability is neuromuscular coordination, a skill for which there is no known limit for improvement.
If we also consider that all paces faster than about 5k pace are VO2max paces then it's obvious that all training paces involved in distance running should be covered.
Although we may think that we are doing this anyway, we can always improve the effectiveness of these tasks.
Ok, we want to activate the fast twitch fibers. Mazkes sense but how are you proposing to do it and why? Snell told me that one way to activate the fast twitch fibers is by depleting the slow twitch fibers of glycogen which happens, he said, after about 45 minutes of moderately paced running. Another way would be with faster running, probably some form of interval work.
This isn't a new idea. Are you proposing something else?
Aerobic capacity is mostly dependent from slow twitch fibers. But then, to maximize it you need to train fast twitches (oxidative and glycolytic or glycogenolytic whatsoever) too. Best way to train the endurance of fast oxidative fibers is from sub LT/LTP intensity to just a little bit over that threshold. I think that this is the only way to train those fibers effectively. I don´t agree with Snell that you could activate those fibers by depleting the slow twitches first.
I'm not quite sure what activated means, but I think I read on an old thread that while some FT fibers are depleted of glycogen and consequently undergo some aerobic adaptations during long runs, these FT fibers aren't actually recruited. As FT fibers are recruited during faster running, I guess some of the physiological effects resulting from these two forms of training overlap, with some effects specific to the type of training.
HRE wrote:
Ok, we want to activate the fast twitch fibers. Mazkes sense but how are you proposing to do it and why? Snell told me that one way to activate the fast twitch fibers is by depleting the slow twitch fibers of glycogen which happens, he said, after about 45 minutes of moderately paced running. Another way would be with faster running, probably some form of interval work.
This isn't a new idea. Are you proposing something else?
Train at all paces. The fast oxidative fibers are used in every race. What you are really looking for is to improve the pattern of recruitment, because your coordination of movement will fade before your muscles get tired. In other words, you stride becomes less efficient and that makes you work harder and harder to hold the pace.
When you speed up during training, you learn to recruit fibers better. The worst thing you can do is to try and do too much running hard when your pace is fading. This will have a negative effect, although in sprint and 800m races this is inevitable so there has to be an intelligent balance between the inevitable slowing down and the ability to hold the pace.
In interval training for longer distances, then it's obvious that slowing down during the training is going to have a negative effect on the training. However, just practicing race pace isn't enough to optimize race endurance, you need those long runs and tempo runs. I think it's important to finish these longer runs at a faster pace.
All of this training involves recruitment of the fast oxidative fibers. The aim is NOT to improve oxidative capacity (aerobic capacity), because if you are in shape to train hard, then these fibers already have a high oxidtative capacity. The aim is to improve both the power output at different paces and the endurance at different paces. All of these improvements are dependant on improved neuromuscular coordination. You should be able to feel this when you run, thinking about smooth powerful movements that can be maintained for longer and longer periods of time, with plenty of reserve at the end for a very fast finish.
U.N.O. wrote:
Aerobic capacity is mostly dependent from slow twitch fibers. But then, to maximize it you need to train fast twitches (oxidative and glycolytic or glycogenolytic whatsoever) too. Best way to train the endurance of fast oxidative fibers is from sub LT/LTP intensity to just a little bit over that threshold. I think that this is the only way to train those fibers effectively. I don´t agree with Snell that you could activate those fibers by depleting the slow twitches first.
No U.N.O. aerobic capacity is dependant on both slow twitch and fast oxidative fibers. As for training the fast oxidative fibers effectively, you have to train at paces right up to maximum sprinting speed, and be able to do this at the end of races and hard endurance runs and interval training sessions too.
wellnow, why you had to write to me? I didn´t want to get reply from you.
Where did I wrote that aerobic capacity is dependent only from ST fibers? I wrote that it´s MOSTLY dependent from ST fibers. Try to read what I write, not what you would like to think I write.
And you are wrong when suggesting right kind endurance training to FT oxidative fibers. Sprint training is different than endurance training.
I will not discuss with you, because you try to just play with words, and you obviously can´t read properly.
wellnow wrote:
why are the best runners so much better than others who train hard for years?
because being the best means their results are faster than others
so, they are better than
- those that train hard for years
- those that don't train hard
- those that don't train for years
- those that don't train hard for years
- those that ride on trains for years
- those that try to train but have no lower legs
- those that train hard for years, but they are downhill skiers and never really tried competitive running
- hobbyjoggers
- infant children that are just learning to walk
- blocks of wood
- my sister in law
- everyone else in the world regardless of how they've trained or not trained
U.N.O. You're still wrong. Aerobic capacity is extremely dependant of the fast oxidative fibers also.
And for a distance runner, you need to train your ability to hold top speed at the end of races, which means that those speeds are hugely dependent on the ability to maintain coordination at the peak of your aerobic capacity.
Think about it.
Congratulations on missing the point most spectacularly.
wellnow you did it again. You just play with words. Stop doing that.
I didn´t say that FOG fibers are not extremely important in aerobic capacity. That´s why I have preached about importance of LT training in this forum.
Third time: AEROBIC CAPACITY IS MOSTLY DEPENTEND OF SLOW TWITCH FIBERS.
Got it?
wellnow wrote:
Congratulations on missing the point most spectacularly.
the irony is killing me
So if I'm running at 3000m pace am I using mostly slow twitch fibers? It's probably more like 50/50 and at faster paces more and more fast oxidative fibers are recruited, but I am still running at VO2max, right up to my finishing sprint.
Think about it>