If Tim Noakes "Central Governor" Model is Correct AND there is NO Lactate Threshold, HOW should this effect my train

Steve McGregor wrote:

Actually, it was a very controversial study, again from the Noakes group, that looked at black vs white runners, who were all considered elite.

Steve,

I was referring to Billat's study of elite Kenyan distance runners, not the Noakes study of black vs white South Africans.

Living,

Taking a larger view, in essence what your post really draws attention to is that a new physiological theory is needed in order to a) explain what is really occurring in the body during runs of different intensities and b) what physiological changes will come about due to any particular workout.

No problemmo

Well, it's not that there's no particular reason, the reason is your last point, ... kind of. Everything in training is a cost/benefit analysis, the cost/benefit analysis in running is more complicated due to the injury component not present in other endurance disciplines. Anyway, it's not so much that there is *no* benefit to higher intensities than tempo, or whatever arbitrary intensity you want to cite, it's just that as intensity increases past a given level (MLSSv, if you will) the returns diminish. You still get benefits, but for a given time input, the relative output *may* be smaller at the higher intensities, or if not higher, more costly from a recovery standpoint.

Also, I know that this is a bit of tangential point, but try not to think of "lactate levels" in the blood as being other than a relative indicator of intensity. A high lactate in the blood per se, will not cause any negative ramifications, it's the intensity of the effor that elicited that lactate, and the associated high glcogenolytic/glycolytic rates that are problemmatic. They are are also necessary to elicit on occasion. Anyway, I need to make that point on occassion, sorry.

To a certain extent. There are a number of issues to consider, one of them is the recovery necessary to be able to train again. Generally, higher intensity training requires greater recovery. Also, due to the exponential nature of the time/velocity curve, it is not possible to accumulate as much training time at say VO2max pace vs tempo pace, or even MLSS pace. BUT, the return on the investment may be greater. At the ends of the spectrum (e.g. all out 200 m vs pure LSD) it's relatively easy to perform the cost benefit analysis. OTOH, as you get closer to MLSS (60 min pace), it becomes cloudier. It's probably safer to train a bunch at tempo, but will that be sufficient to elicit the "optimal" adaptation? OR, will VO2max intervals (5 min pace) be necessary? OR 200 m repeats? That's where the art and empiricism comes in.

I think what every individual needs to consider is the interaction between volume and intensity. So, if you are a classic Lydiard acolyte, it will be very difficult to do lots of "suprathreshold/MLSS" intensity because it will be costly from a recovery standpoint. OTOH, if one has minimal time to train, or simply wants to do more intensity, they can probably get to the same place by doing more "supra-tempo" work at lower volumes. Further, the nature of the event needs to be considered as well. Higher intensities will be necessary to train for shorter events, whereas larger volumes will likely be necessary to train for the marathon.

I guess if the question is, should I constrain my training to "tempo" work? The answer is, it depends on how much you are training.

Steve

Richard_ wrote:

Steve,

To piggy back on your comments - in many cases studies of elite training methods have revealed that the actual training of elites is often quite different from what is usually claimed about how elites train.

For example, I recall a study of elite male and female runners that found the fastest males ran few tempo runs and the females ran no tempo runs. Contrast that finding to the importance placed on tempo runs in most training programs.

Richard_ wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12569219?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This study has what to do with tempo runs? Groups were defined by training at vV02Max, not vLT, according to the summary.

Know your termnology wrote:

This study has what to do with tempo runs? Groups were defined by training at vV02Max, not vLT, according to the summary.

If you have access to it, read the full-text study. Or check out this article reviewing the study.

Either the full study or the article should answer your question.

No answer to the question I posed to you on page 19? I didn't think it was that hard.

While we are on the topic of tempo runs, a more recent study (2007 IIRC) of 2 groups of collegiate athletes had 1 group increase the volume of tempo workouts (by replacing some easy workouts with tempo workouts) while the 2nd group did their standard training.

The only real difference between the training of the 2 groups was the volume of easy workouts and the volume of tempo runs - high intensity work (above tempo pace) was the same in both groups.

At the end of the study the group that did a higher volume of tempo work improved significantly less than the 2nd group.

Steve, once again, thanks for your reply. That was very helpful in understanding why tempo runs are still an important training tool, even though though the reason has nothing to do with "lactate threshold." In a nutshell, it has more to do with the trade-off between intensity and recovery.

Richard_ wrote:

If you have access to it, read the full-text study. Or check out this article reviewing the study.

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/distance-running-training.html

Either the full study or the article should answer your question.

Okay, that makes more sense. The article defines the times spent at LT.

Why would you say this goes against the importance put on tempo training in 'most' training programs? The ones usually available online only have 1 tempo run a week, usually less than 10% of the weekly volume. That's as much as even the lower male group in the study.

Living in the Past wrote:

No answer to the question I posed to you on page 19? I didn't think it was that hard.

I've already answered it. Page 14, with a link on 15.

Well, not only intensity and recovery, but intensity and total volume. Look at it this way, if you compare more of a VO2max training approach, let's say 6 x 5 min @ 3 k pace, you will get an aerobic adaptation. You will get an adaptation specific to 3k pace, but the underlying physiological stimulus would be related to oxygen consumption. So, let's say your VO2max is ~ 4 l/min you consume ~ ((1 x 2 l) + (4 x 4 l)) ~ 18 litres of O2 per interval, you are consuming ~ 108 l of O2 per session (not including WU/CD). OTOH, let's say you perform 3 x 20 min @ MLSS pace (~87% VO2max), then you are consuming ~ (3 x 17 x 3.48) + (3 x 3 x 1.7) =~ 193 l of O2. So, you actually consume more oxygen (albeit slight) doing the tempo vs VO2max. Further, you may be able to perform the tempos more often than the VO2max sessions. (Those are very rough VO2 estimates, simply for demonstration purposes, so, don’t try and pick them apart. There’s a lot of hand waving to be sure). Still, if you can do three tempo sessions per week, but only two VO2max sessions, then the aerobic stimulus becomes much greater if you accept that the primary factor stimulating aerobic adaptation is the total aerobic work performed. If one is limited on time though, you can get the VO2max sessions done in about half the time and get a similar aerobic stimulus to the tempos.

Now, if you knock off a touch on the pace of the VO2max efforts, you will be able to do more, or longer intervals, and likely make up the difference. So, some might argue, training slightly above tempo would be the best approach. That would be one argument. OTOH, as you get above VO2max pace, the efforts cannot be sustained enough to elicit substantial VO2, and as such, are less of an aerobic stimulus, and certainly more energetically/recovery costly.

Again, where the grey area comes up is, how much cumulative fatigue will the VO2max sessions induce versus the tempo sessions (or the sessions performed at a pace between vVO2max and tempo). Because glycogen utilization is much more rapid for the VO2max sessions, there will likely be proportionally more “fatiguing metabolites” or other factors that contribute to overall cumulative fatigue. (what are they? Who the heck knows) From practical experience, some coaches may notice athletes are more likely to become sick or become seriously overreached as a result of substantially harder training on a regular basis. So, again, a cost/benefit analysis must be performed by the coach or the athlete.

Got it.

Steve

Richard_ wrote:

While we are on the topic of tempo runs, a more recent study (2007 IIRC) of 2 groups of collegiate athletes had 1 group increase the volume of tempo workouts (by replacing some easy workouts with tempo workouts) while the 2nd group did their standard training.

The only real difference between the training of the 2 groups was the volume of easy workouts and the volume of tempo runs - high intensity work (above tempo pace) was the same in both groups.

At the end of the study the group that did a higher volume of tempo work improved significantly less than the 2nd group.

which proves you can do too much. And?

My intention is not to do an inquisition. I wanted that you respond to my question, something that you say that you do when directly addressed to you. My question is a "figure of style". I don´t know if you know what the "figure of style" is.

When you did answer to another my MLSS early post you said “I'll buy it” twice. I can argue with you that i´m not in the trade business whatever. I can´t sell you and therefore you can´t buy it. A your sincere comment about Renato´s quote that would be to accept that i´m right and you are wrong to doubt or deny that a sub 14:00 5k pace tempo is a MLSS workout for world best runner´s. This time don´t try to run away from your usual teacher type of comment and have the humbleness to let us know your point of ignorance.

This said I ask you a second time. Please. This time don´t run away from the answer or try a tricky sentence with play with the words meaning. You said that when someone makes a comment directly addressing a statement you have made, it makes you think that they would like a response. So please use this your will to answer and answer to my questions:What you don´t know about the running sport ? What you don´t know about training or physiology ?

ps – I appreciate quite a lot that you sign your own posts as Steve. As we are stupids and we aren´t able to in the left side of the post who posts. Keep on doing. Good style. Very assertive.

hello Steve,

I have been reading your post's and learning very much, although most of it is over my head, you mentioned that a V02 max workout would be 6 x 5min at 3k pace, this appears to be quite difficult even more so for an elite runner who has an 8min 3k PR, the MLSS workout of 3 x 20min also seems difficult, are these actually workouts you would prescribe? what are V02 max and MLSS workouts would you prescribe, thanks

Ahhh.... the problem with using race efforts to discuss workouts;)

Is that a workout I typically prescribe? Not really, it's an extreme example the calculations were easy to perform. With equal passive, light active recovery, it should be doable though for a ~ 9:xx 3000 runner. A more realistic example might be 5 x 1 mi @ 4:40 for an 8:30 3000 m runner. I have seen a runner perform 6 repeats of that workout though, a very tough guy. Granted, he was a bit faster, so, the efforts were slightly shorter, likely ~ 4:20. There are a number of ways to skin a cat though. Another approach would be to run at 5 km pace, and shorten the recovery period. I just used a couple examples that were easy to calculate and as I indicated, they were for demonstration purposes only.

Steve

Whoops, forgot the second part of your post.

As I've alluded to before, I work with all levels of runners, so, the answer is, ... it depends. I really hate getting specific because really, every athlete is different. One approach though would be this. VO2max training for an 8:30 3000 m runner, we would start a block of training where day 1 would be 4 x 1000 @ 2:50, day 2 - 4 x 1200 @ 3:25, day 3 - 4 x 1500 @ 4:16, day 5 - 5 x 1500 @ 4:16. Depending on period, you might do these workouts once or twice per week. To me, progressive overload is important, and in this case you are overloading VO2max by increasing volume. If on day 1, the runner, can't do the workout, you don't progress. OTOH, if a runner got to day 5 and had not really fallen apart on the last effort, than go to 6 repeats, until you see a plateau. At that point it's time to reassess. It's very unlikely to see more than 6 x 1500 @ 3000m pace, so, maybe the pace is faster now. MOre than likely, if you do the workout once per week, you will have seen a plateau by the last week, and it's time to adjust pace, or move on to another focus. VO2max adaptations will happen fairly quick, especially in highly trained individuals. Honestly though, that is just one very simple approach. Simplicity is nice because assessment is straightforward, but after a while simplicity gets old for the athlete, at least some.

steve

Sorry, one more thing.... this might be a point of contention for some, so, take this as you may, but I would watch basing training intensities on PRs. I didnt' catch that part of your post until just now when I uploaded my response. That may be part of the issue. I think most of us will accept that more is possible in competition and to expect the athlete to repeat that on a regular basis in training may be problemmatic, especially off PRs. So, as in my Vo2max approach just posted, I like to progress relative to recent training benchmarks. For that example, I used 1000m intervals because they are short enough to be doable even off of a PR. If you started with 12s or 15s though, the athlete might have trouble.

The early 1920's concept of O2 debt attributed to A.V. Hill et al is wrong, but still the one that most people believe.

Arousal levels influence lactate production and oxidation, but if I can't cut and paste, can I cite a referece?

J Appl Physiol 91: 2635-2641, 2001;Vol. 91, Issue 6, December 2001

Effect of epinephrine on net lactate uptake by contracting skeletal muscle

Jason J. Hamann, Kevin M. Kelley, and L. Bruce Gladden

Department of Health and Human Performance, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849

Anaerobic capacity, how do you define it? I think that the term anaerobic glycolysis is misguided, since it is probable most glycogen is converted to lactate during any excercise.

I refer to anaerobic energy supplies as being strictly non-mitochondrial, and thus, my definition of anerobic capacity is not the same as the old definition which seems to refer to maximum production of lactate, or maximum rate of glycogeolysis.