More cold water on low heart rate training: The effect of slow running is not associated with training myocardial contractility

"Start slow and build." What part of that concept do you people not understand?

Who cares about stroke volume ?

It’s the mitochondria, stupid !

The article doesn't distinguish between eccentric heart hypertrophy and concentric heart hypertrophy. High intensity training leads to concentric heart hypertrophy, the size of the left ventricle doesn't increase. With eccentric heart hypertrophy the left ventricle size increases.

It takes a lot of low intensity volume for eccentric heart hypertrophy to take place. Elite cyclists and cross-country skiers, athletes who do lot of low intensity training, tend to have the biggest left ventricles.

The below article speaks of this matter. The PDF file can be viewed for free without becoming a member.

(PDF) Eccentric and concentric cardiac hypertrophy induced by exercise training: MicroRNAs and molecular determinants (researchgate.net)

"The first rise in lactate over baseline" isn't an actual method. We can say "baseline" and know what each other mean but lactate seems to be pretty much exponential, starting at very low intensity, it just appears flat to us, and there is error in each measurement so LT1 must be well defined using math in order to have a standard. IIRC, the closest of the common methods is log-log, then Dmax, B + 0.5, Dmax log-exp, and then OBLA 2 mmol/L which is what is most often used to define LT1 despite the fact that it is far above baseline for most people. Zone 2 as indicated by ISM and Peter Attia is also over baseline, so your anecdotal experience is in direct conflict with that.

So beyond all the confusion about what LT1 means, the issue is that there is not sufficient evidence that any of them actually represent the transition from moderate to heavy, but what would that even mean? Maybe you could look at VT1 and say, oh there is now a very tiny VO2 slow component so we are in the heavy domain, but that has no real impact. Why would I care that I'm at 1.6 mmol/L instead of 1.5? Or 1.1 L/min of O2 instead of 1.0? It's not a functional threshold like critical power or FTP, I'm not suddenly using a different energy pathway, and it's not going to delay my recovery much if any. It has no value to me as an athlete, it's just one point on a continuum. Go slower, get less stimulus, recover faster, or the inverse.

Another issue is that where zone 1 begins cannot be physiologically defined in a way that isn't completely arbitrary, like using a random % of VO2. There is obviously a point where the exercise is not intense enough to stimulate much of anything and it just gets ignored by the cultists because VOLUME = GOOD. Additionally, there is the matter of specificity, the easy pace of elites is mechanically far closer to their racing pace than in most amateurs who literally have to start jogging slowly if they want to stay below 2 mmol and then they have to walk up any hill.

Not true, it has been demonstrated in studies that you can replace some amount of running with cross-training and get the same results. It's just not particularly effective and it's more time-consuming since the ballistic movement of running is part of what drives a lot of adaptivity. How would your mitochondria know the difference and decide to stop being efficient? There is obviously carryover.

You’re confused.

I’ve seen hundreds of lactate curves. A good test most certainly shows a baseline.

Also, ISM zone 2 starts at fatmax and ends at the fat/cho crossover point. I have several PDF slideshows from ISM that show distinctly his zones. When you see lactate plotted with fact and CHO utilization, ISM zones make more sense.

Anyways, you’re kind of rambling about things. All I know is that there is a baseline lactate value. And you’ll return to this baseline after warming up until you reach a certain intensity where you no longer reach baseline. You can only see this in a series of constant rate tests with lactate sampling.

Do you do any lactate sampling? I have for several years. I own a modest personal metabolic lab. Do you?

I don't know how true this is. Hard to disentangle selrction effects from treatment effects, but we all know about Meb and the Elliptigo. Stepping outside the world of elites, Gordo Byrn and Marco Altini have been putting out some really interesting stuff about crosstraining with a lot of easy bike time.

No, I'm not. ISM's actual zone 2 protocol for his athletes has never been defined, see his own tweets on the subject where he has confirmed this and tried to explain his protectionism. On various podcasts, he has said it will generally be between 1.5 and 2 mmol/L, which again is above baseline for most people. If it was faxmax to a crossover point, that is also entirely arbitrary, before getting to how stupidly wide and variable that is. Is your crossover point as a percentage of max 4 g/min fat vs. 1 g/min CHO? Or 2 to 1? 1 to 1? How would those be the same? Why not use kcal since both grams have a different amount of energy? What physiologically happens once you pass this point?

Out of curiosity, what does your personal metabolic lab consist of beyond a cheap lactate meter? Do you have a metabolic cart to do fatmax testing? Why do you think this is an argument against anything I've said when you are not defending your claim of a hard threshold at lactate baseline?

I got the idea from Alan Couzens, he is big on low-intensity cross-training instead of low-intensity running. There's a saying along the lines of "well, you don't win medals for gene expression" to highlight that so much of what is studied fails to carry over into actual performance benefits. There are many metabolic scientists with various opinions on what is optimal but few good long term training studies.

You might like this lecture. Don’t mind the security warning, it’s a pdf from San Milan himself. Please see pg 41 and 42 specifically.

https://www.medicineofcycling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SanMilan-Inigo-Cycling-Physiology-and-Physiological-Testing.pdf

I own a portable metabolic cart (with gas calibration), a cheap lactate meter ;), some moxys, and a spirometer. I also have a few smart trainers, half a dozen other hrms, power meters , and other equipment to run tests. Nothing fancy. I do a lot of field testing on the track and on trails.

If we were close, I would offer to run some workouts (me testing you, my protocols) to demonstrate what I’m saying.

Not every runner runs or specifically trains to run faster. Most runners do not care about the specific types of physiological benefits of running.

The majority of runners, including those who enter and participate in organized 'races', run because: it burns calories which helps them lose or maintain weight, it makes them feel good about themselves, it improves mental well-being,its a social activity, its a healthy form of exercise that helps improve or maintain many bodily functions (better than being sedentary), the activity itself is pleasurable (release of endorphins/runners high, kinesthetic pleasure of movement, etc), its a positive addiction, etc.

Even elite competitive runners run partially because of the benefits running provides not directly related to training and physiological improvement

There are potential negatives associated with running faster, including an increased risk of injury and the fact that it is more uncomfortable and requires more effort.

Just saying that relatively slow distance running has many benefits, and is one of the primary reasons many runners run.

I had never even heard any of the claims that this article is purportedly debunking. I always thought the purpose of the"long" part of long slow distance was to promote cellular adaptations in muscle (the details of which I won't pretend to understand), and the "slow" part was to be able to do enough of it without destroying yourself mentally or physically.

Couzens is a triathlete, and I find that he deliberately posts to be controversial. I don’t think that a runner should train as if they were a triathlete. Otherwise agree with you.

I have seen many lactate test results, but not the numbers that you have.
In my experience many recreational runners don’t have a defined baseline. The lactate readings are all over the place at the lower levels. The lactate curve is a join the dots exercise with so many assumptions, that it does not give the accuracy for the money spent on the lab test.

The same concept applies to pro cycling. Most of their huge volume of miles on the bike is easy, if you consider group rides for 5 hours over rolling hills easy. But it’s easy for them. Their bodies are adapted to the bikes and volume.

Unlike elite runners, pro cyclists all train by power output (watts) as measured at the cranks. Each cyclist knows exactly what their threshold output is and how long they can sustain that output. It’s all monitored in real time why they race.

Would be interesting if there was a better way to measure running output other than pace or heart rate. I know Kipchoge does glucose monitoring, but few others do.

Charting lactic curves is neat but it's plainly not a requirement for effective training. Run easy most days, fast on some, is still enough guidance to produce world champions.

Really?!

No they immediately pointed out you starting from a false premise.

Thank you for this interesting article. From what I got from it, was not stating that we should run every day fast and hard, but we need to understand that ultimately to race fast we have to train fast. The article did speak of the benefits of LSD near the bottom of the page. The post from S. Canaday, further backs up the benefits of LSD, but admits that we need some workouts with higher speed and intensity...

If this LSD marketing of the past decades got more people involved with running, then that is a good thing. Not everyone desires to be an elite runner. As well as not everyone is one, then education like this to us novices is helpful.