Isn't "Event Specificity" More Important Than "VO2max" And "LT" Zones And All That?

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.[/quote]

No it would not - it says that physiology does not discriminate between a group of athetes of similar performance levels. Therefore, if you look at the Olympic finalists in any event then the results of any tests of fitness would tell you nothing about the finishing order - i.e. 'something else' (technique / psychology etc) must account for performance differences.

However, if you examine groups of more widely varying ability, then results of physiological assessment will be different. You would expect your Olympic finalists to score way better on any test than for example a field of regional/club level runners. Therefore, if you are a regional athlete who aspires to become an Olympian, you must go away and raise your general level of fitness before coming back to more event specific work which allows you to make the most of this. Eventually it may become impossible to further enhance your levels of fitness (either because of some predetermined genetic 'ceiling' or because the volumes of training required are so high as to almost guarantee breakdown) and therefore the only avenue to further improvement is continually improved specific training.

As one of the other posters commented - Lydiards approach is entirely consistant with these ideas. He simply identified that conditioning through base work and strength work on hills was required to get the benefit from a subsequent short period of event specific training. From my understanding of Renato's philosophy, I feel he too would entirely agree with this. He may arrange his training slightly differently to Lydiard and others, but the principles are exactly the same.

B0ulderite wrote: There has been some good material posted by Pete about percentage of max heart rate attained by well trained marathoners in real-world race situations. Not a large sample group, but Pete's data suggests well trained runners can stay pretty close to threshold pace during a marathon.

Hey, this is a pretty good thread, and I've been cited in it.... I think I'll put that on my resume. :-)

The data I used in that thread was used to debate a specific subject (HR during the marathon). My personal experience has been (for me and for the friends whose data I used) that AVERAGE HR during the marathon race for a well-trained runner will be about 87-90% of HRmax. But, it will start lower, drift gradually upward during the race, and probably plateau at some point (or in some cases - when the runner has run out of glycogen early - start to drop).

But those numbers shouldn't be compared to HR at LT in some shorter test. Personally, I find that HR at paces faster than M pace is not very stable. So 88-90% of HRmax might be correct during maybe the first 10 minutes of "LT" running (as a guess - I can go back through my logs and give better numbers), but it'll probably be higher after that.

nice way of putting things humbug.

I want to follow up on this only futher avenue to continued improved performance would be continually improved specific training.

I agree and am looking at what these imporvements can be. Unfortunately it seems these improvements are minimal.

If this continued improvment in the specificity of training has something to it then i think it might be in the are of improved efficiency and this occurring in two areas.

The first is the mechanical. Improved mechanical function to the point where greater internal connectivity can take place providing better efficiency and changing performance capacities.

The second is mental, and through mental training of various types, different states of mind can be attained and then utilised in training and racing potentially providing substantial changes to performance.

sprinter800,

I'm not saying that LT training has no place in 800m race performance- because it does. I was just stating that a well-trained LT is not nearly as important for running the 800m as it is with the marathon.

I do not know very much about 800m training (I am 5k/10k/marathon guy), but I'm pretty sure that the main components of 800m performance are basic speed (400m speed) and a high V02max.

Now the thing with most 800m runners is that they need more endurance. Say you have a guy that runs 50.0 in the 400m all-out, but his 800m is "only" 1:55 ( 57.5 400m pace). That 7.5 sec 400m differential needs to be minimal. So you make that 800m runner train more, by running increasingly higher mileage. So days this might include LT training and some light V02max work....all with the goal of extending the runner's endurance and aerobic qualities so that he can run instead a 1:52 or faster (56 per 400m) which is very possible because that is still a 6sec difference off his 400m time. Like Lydiard, you want him training in a "base phase." However, unlike Lydiard, he probably shouldn't be "training like a marathoner" because that entails running more LT type workouts and running some "steady state" efforts on easy days (in addition to the famed 10 weeks of 100mpw). Most mid-d guys would get hurt and/or their relatively few ST fibers would become exhausted.

However,LT training has a place, as with long runs and some V02max work. However, during more specific times of the season the focus should be on fine tuning the anaerobic system, working on sprint mechanics, and running repeats at a relatively high intensity not straying too far away from race pace.

This is all very good Mr Canaday but i can make similar theoretical analyses as well. I think it would pay to read Lydiard's manual for that is a method of coaching that is practically developed and just so happens to follow the rules physiologists like to follow.

I'm an Olympian myself, a decathlete. I also have a degree is Physical education, so there's not much point listing the basic factors and generally postulating about their relationships.

I want some harder facts based on experience really. I don't know if anyone in the US actually knows deeply how to train for 800m. Johnny Gray at 142.60 is a slowish national 800m record. How is it possible that distance running is the weakest area in US track and field?

Has the US been sidetracked in this by the physiologists and their continuous and expert testimony that 'this' is how to do it. Or is it some layover from the collegiate system which has such emphasis on sprints and relays including the 4x400m relay that many potential 800m runners end up as 400m runners. You guys do dominate the 400m.

So what was Johnny Grays training like, especially as a junior.

johnny gray was trained under an Igloi type system from HS through professional.

cheers sjm.

i've just been going through another letsrun thread about Mihaliy Ogloi. He seems to have many of the qualities of a master. Fascinating and thanks very much.

sprinter800 wrote:

I thought i should add that after finishing coaching in New Zealand Arthur Lydiard was invited to different countries around the world. He spent two years in Finalnd in the late 1960's and worked closely with a few coaches. Two of them coached Viren and Vasala.

sprinter 800

When do you realise that all Fin runners from the late 60s the 70s and the early 80s they were all on blood doping ? Juko Khua (earlier steeple WR), Juha Vaatainen (5000m-10000m double european champ in 71, Viren, Vasala (1500m 72 olympic gold), Tapio Kantanen (3rd in olympic steeple), Pekka Paivarinta (1973 world cross country winner) Maninka (10000m european winner), Martii Vaino (3rd in 10000m 84 olympics desclassified due to the use of blood doping) the all were on blood doping. This is well known. The Finn fedaration had a dope programme that did include self blood transfusion. The italian Federation goes to Finland to meet the Finn athletics federation and they teach the italians how to use that doping method which they did in some runners during the late 70s early 80s.

Therefore please, stop to insist about Lydiard influence on fin sucess. they were all doped and that´s the main reason they win often.

I'm sorry i have never heard this. where is some evidence please.

If you are going to talk about 800m racing and LT, then at least know at least some of the research that has been written on the subject before spouting off...

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0079.htm

i expected a few amounng you would take offense!

sprinter800 wrote:

I'm sorry i have never heard this. where is some evidence please.

Lasse Viren, the runner who Prefontaine was trying to beat at the Olympics and couldn't do so, was blood doping along with Viren's teammate Pekka Vassala who won the Olympic 1500 meters.

In 1980 Lasse Viren lost to other runners and Finnish runners at the Olympics who it turned out later confessed to blood doping. Same thing in 1984 when Finnish runners were caught blood doping. It turned out that the Finnish federation knew about it and made sure every athlete had his own private doctor like Viren had had to take care of it. Better techniques were developed to detect blood doping and after 1985 you never heard of any great Finnnish runner again.

nice work i know! after looking at the very next post to the one you just presented i saw this issue is a very contentious one that is more about 'pre' bias than anything else. Although you never know.

The follwoing post also states Lydiard and Bowerman had approaches that were very similar and were good friends so i guess there wasn't a lot of emnity there.

I like what Lydiard did.He had great success in New Zealand. The same approach appeared to bring great success to Finland for a period after a great hole in their history. I have specific reasons as well.

ciao

blindman i'm not sure what that article is saying in your favour. It seems the premise is that the 800m needs development of a number of things and one of those is the lactate threshold. The later the onset of lactate the better i thought. So does your article.

This is not evidence, I can make up some propaganda too. just cause some guy write it on a message board does no make it true.

I guess Viren should be stripped of his gold. So should Carl Lewis and every other gold meda winner in the last 40 years cause they have all been acused by someone of cheating

Ebay wrote:

This is not evidence, I can make up some propaganda too. just cause some guy write it on a message board does no make it true.

Therefore, by your own admission, your statement "That is not evidence" may, in fact, not be true.

"the blind leading the blind"

I admit not being an 800m coach or runner- but since you said I am "spouting off" then I must defend myself. (Remember this is all just opinion, so no need to take offense)

your article source at

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0079.htm

isn't the most scientific "study" or piece of evidence.....uh, when it refers to "high" V02max values of 63 and running the 800m in 2:00 I'd start to question the knowledge of whoever wrote it.

Also, it seems to agree with what I said in regards to having a high V02max, and good 400m speed. It mentions doing 5k and 10k V02max sessions (not LT workouts by any pure definition).

The 800m requires a high "anaerobic capacity" which is usually naturally endowed to those with the optimal FT to ST muscle fiber distribution and naturally higher V02max. Of course training helps this.

Have you read any of Peter Coe's books? I'd think that LT training is more like what he refers to as "Anaerobic Conditioning" which is different from targeting the "anaerobic capacity" and developing a more efficient buffering system/response at higher lactate values.

Finally, I didn't say LT training had not place in 800m events- it does.

to wondering and Sprinter800:

Renato talks about this in the giant (locked) thread near the top of the message board. At the top of page 7 in the giant thread, Renato talks about LT and how it relates to 800/1500 guys and longer distance guys.

Also, the "double whammy" thread talks about this. Despite the language issues, for me Renato's stuff is easier to understand, but the double whammy is worth checking out as well.

Get your facts right, first of all Viren never admitted to doping nor Vasala,. Sandy Vanocur a reporter for ABC news who knew nothing about track and field but was assigned to the OG in Montreal came across a study about transfusion work for anemic patients flipped the story into and coined the phase blood doping , he had already been scooped by another reporter in regards to the East Germans mainly the swimmers. For the hell of it he created the story then pursued though it were real to see if it would stick.

Viren was offered considerable money later on by a German newspaper to admit to "blood doping" tand turned it down.

It was Karl Maanika ( spelling) who was either the silver or bronze medalist who would later not in 1980 admit to blood doping, though he stated Viren did not.