Aerobic Threshold???

Training Guy wrote:

The major question I have about all of this is:

DOES TRAINING AT AEROBIC THRESHOLD IMPROVE AEROBIC GAINS BETTER THAN TRAINING ABOVE THE AEROBIC THRESHOLD?

and by aerobic gains, I mean:

-increased capillarization

-increased mitochondria size/number

-increased heart rate, stroke volume and cardiac output

-etc.

The limiting factor is the time length of the run. Longer runs (aerobic threshold) will improve capillarization, mitochondria size/number, aerobic enzyme concentrations, and some cardiac components (blood volume). Since faster runs are also shorter runs, you would see a proportionally smaller improvement in these areas as a result of faster training.

AT does NOT mean Anaerobic Threshold, it means Aerobic Threshold, this is according to USATF, who are trying to standardize terminology.

Dr. Bong-

How are you going to race a marathon at or below Anaerobic Threshold pace????? Everyone I know can't hold 10 mile race pace (AnT pace) for a marathon.

Training Guy,

My thoughts on the USATF manual are that they are just estimates, or ranges that could be at and are not set in stone. It does show consistency with Dr. Vigil's book, along with the HR's. And since Vigil has a big part in developing the material, there might be some confusion there. Vigil writes that them numbers are your "training" threshold, not "aerobic" threshold. The point where you would get the maximaum training effect on your runs other than specific vo2 & lactate threshold, etc.. I dont have the specific numbers but its a % of HHR, or between a given HR. This is something that was confusing to me as well in the USATF manual.

If you took the level two exam, you would definantly see how the instructors really were not that concerned with anyone failing the test, and even gave you the questions of the test to make sure everyone passes. I believe these instructors said at the begining of the endurance training that they consistently change the manual and admitted that there were typos and errors.

Anyway, its really not that difficult to understand the difference between "aerobic" & "anerobic" thresholds.

Your aerobic threshold approximatly at the point of change from predominantly fatty acids to carbohydrate metabolism.

Anaerobic threshold is the change in a steady state utilization of carbohydrate usage, below the accumulation of subtrates that inhibit muscle contraction.

Think about it as a low & high point of cho metabolism, with out accumulation of subtrates that effect performance.

Now in regards to using % HR and lactate samples to determine these "break points". This is something that gets on my nerves, when I read others work that it should be set in stone that HR should be at given number, or that lactate should be at x Mmol/l. Every one is different, with differnt % in muscle fiber types, or training adaptations with different training backgrounds.

Some one with predominantly fast twitch fibers with glycolytic enzymes, would produce higher lactate values than some one with a higher percentage of slow twitch fibers. This being because more mitochondria are closer to ST fibers and are of avaliable to take in pyruvate. FT fiber have less mitochondria content so pyruvat accumulates and is converted to lactate and the red blood cells take the pyruvate to shuttle it away or it accumulates along with H+, and other events that prevent muscle contraction.

Another is that is said often is that it should be so many seconds slower than 10k or half marathon pace. Or that its your best hour effort. Ive heard coaches say that its 4miles, and others say its close to half mary pace. This isnt set in stone and an we train, we train our cells to adapt and to handle more stress. This time frame where we are able to run a that threshold is different for every one. Anerobic threshold could be 6-8-10k pace for some one that does not training at this intensity. Or it could even be as longer that 12miles for elite runners. At a Vigil lecture I attend he said Deena had built up to 10-12 miles, and Meb was at 15miles. (Key word - built)

I've also read that George Hincapie threshold's was about 45mins, after a period of training its closer to 120mins.

Aerobic thresold in my experience is close to marathon pace. Its your maximum aerobic effort. Marathon being 99% aerobic, it makes sense to say that would be your aerobic threshold.

Two things to take away from this.

1. AeT & AnT are continously changing with your training and are not set to a particulatr % of HR or # Mmol.

2. Your velocity and time at your threshold can change through adaptations of proper training.

Thank you for the thorough answer. One thing I am curious about is the range of HR's for AeT. Is it possible that some people have an AeT around 130 BPM, while others have one up around 150 to 160 BPM. And I'm not talking age differences here, I'm talking early to late 20 year olds with AeT HR's ranging from 130 to 160. From all the talk on this board and in books/classes, most people seem to think there is a very distinct range for AeT, granted their own range may vary. I guess I might be answering my own question. The fact that people differ so much in the range they set for AeT probably denotes to the fact that there is a gigantic range possible for any distinct individuals AeT. In simpler terms, one person might have an AeT of 130, while another, 155 (in equal conditions of course).

Yes, It could be possible that an indivdual may have an aerobic threshold in the 130 range. Even if that individual is fit, I'd guess that their HRmax isnt that high aswell. Now, there may be an upper limit to how high a persons aerobic threshold may reach. No way would someone run at 100% of HRmax or Vo2peak. But it can be possible, from what I've seen to reach close to 90% of HRmax. However, if trained properly, the velocity at aerobic threshold might be limit less.

In my own case, I've enabled to run at 89% MHR with a lactate value at 2.0 (+/- .2 Mmol/l). My resting lactate values are in the 2.0 range, so that suggest that, this effort is strongly in the aerobic threshold zone.

I've built up to workouts such as 4x5k w/ 3-4min jog at marathon pace at 184-186 bpm. This pace being avg's at 5:40-5:45, at 186bpm. That value is way outside of your 130-160 range, however my HRmax is 209, so its at about 88-89%. My age is also in the mid-20's.

just a coach wrote:

Alan

I'm going to ask you again. What is your coaching history? Have you coach 3:00 runners? Have you coach a 2:30 runners? Have you coach 2:20 runners? Have you coach 2:10 runners? How many of each type of runner in each time range?

I don't coach, have no desire to. A coach isn't someone who prescribes exercise. Anyone with enough background can do that. A coach is someone who is there mostly for the effect of them just being there...motivation...inspiration...someone to pull in the reigns...accountability. I've given advice to countless runners and exercisers based on my years of running experience and my 4 year degree in exercise science. Also, coaching success has absolutely nothing to do with the number of sub 3, 2:30, 2:20, etc. runners he has coached. It has everything to do with the perceived success of the individual runner. Does the runner or exerciser feel he has benefited from the training? Has he improved sufficiently?

Alan

As I recall, Daniels said threshold pace was about 25 +/-seconds slower than 5K pace. That's still a reasonably hard workout. Notice I said reasonably hard, not comfortably hard.

Aerobic Threshold is roughly 1:00 slower than 5k race pace for me.

AnT is roughly 15k-10k race pace for me.

If you can run a marathon at you AnT you are the greatest marathoner that ever lived.

Threshold pace?? wrote:

As I recall, Daniels said threshold pace was about 25 +/-seconds slower than 5K pace. That's still a reasonably hard workout. Notice I said reasonably hard, not comfortably hard.

Did you even read a single bit of this thread? There are TWO, count, TWO, thresholds being discussed, Anaerobic (AnT) and Aerobic (AeT). There is no such thing as just threshold pace, it has to be a specific threshold.

Alan

If you don't coach then why in the world do you say that marathon pace is harder for an elite than for a slower guy.

Think about this

Marathoner A runs 2:11 = 5:00 per mile - it takes this marathoner 20 minutes to cover 4 miles.

Marathoner B runs 2:37 = 6:00 per mile - it takes this marathoner 24 minutes to cover 4 miles.

So you tell me which runner is running for a longer time at the same effort?

and what does this mean?

By the way the aerobic threshold is about the same pace as the marathon pace, in my opinion.

But it isn't the same effort. For the faster one, he is running at the pace where after 2:11 he can go no farther, while the slower one is running at the pace where after 2:37 he can run no farther. What you're saying is like saying that it's harder for a 39 minute 5ker to run a 5k than an elite because they spend 3 times the time to cover the same distance. It's simply not true.

I'm not talking about distance or duration. I am talking about pace...speed. The elite runner is going to have more adverse effects (muscle damage, etc) running at 5:00 pace than a sub-elite runner going 5:20 pace...REGARDLESS of duration. Also when comparing tempo runs between elite and sub-elite runners you must compare durations in minutes, not miles, or the comparison is faulty.

And in my opinion both thresholds are going to be a little different for everyone but scientifically speaking there is no such thing as aerobic threshold...it has not been physiologically defined, only assumed by some researchers and coaches to be at a lactate value of 2mmol and a hr of 20-40 bpm less than the anaerobic threshold. For some runners this is going to be marathon pace, for others it is going to be slower. Elite marathon runners are able to run the marathon much closer to their anerobic threshold than sub-elite runners...in general.

Sidebar:

When training for a 5k race how do you develop your training? How about a 10k race? Marathon race? If your answer is anything other than "Around the race pace and distance" you are fighting a losing battle. Basing your training on physiological concepts such as anaerobic threshold, aerobic threshold, Vo2max, etc INSTEAD of the actualy race parameters (speed, distance) you are losing the big picture. You train to improve race TIME and PLACE...increases in physiological concepts are a sidebar.

Alan

Runningart2004,

I'd have to respectfully disagree with your comment that an elite would have more damage regardless of distance.

The one thing that makes an elite runner able to handle the training load required is because the ability to recover from a previous session faster than a sub/non-elite athlete.

If we take the example about the 5:00 vs the 6:00 paced marather, the elite is running and isnt puttng in as much stress as the latter. I dont know how one would measure DMOS after the race, but I'd think that the slower would have more damage because of more time on his/her feet and more steps required.

About your sidebar, I think they both physiological and velocity /distance are equally important. Other factors (enviornmental, hormonal, etc) contribute to the current ability of the athlete, and lactate, HR, and Vo2 data are very useful tools if understood properly.

Can you tell how you would train according to actual race parameters with out the aid of lactate/ heartrate/ Vo2MAX data?

Then I mispoke when I said "muscle damage". There is more force produced by an elite runner running 5:00 pace than a sub elite runner running 5:20 pace and so that is why it is more difficult for an elite runner. Muscle damage wasn't the correct wording, maybe muscle tension then.

Also:

"Can you tell how you would train according to actual race parameters with out the aid of lactate/ heartrate/ Vo2MAX data?"

Easy. The basics of training: Find someone much faster than you. Train how they train, or similar. Keep It Simple Stupid. Training for a 5k? Most of your workouts should be at that effort/pace, with some workouts faster, some slower. Ditto for 10k, marathon etc. How far is a 5k? 5000m on a track. Given that the two compenents of a race are time and distance, one of your key weekly workouts would be either intervals at 5k pace (pace work) or 5000m time trial (distance work) at not quite all-out (say 5k at 10k pace or slightly faster).

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:Training for a 5k? Most of your workouts should be at that effort/pace, with some workouts faster, some slower. Ditto for 10k, marathon etc.

Alan

Race pace of course.

But you still didn't answer my 2 questions.

rivas wrote:

Aerobic thresold in my experience is close to marathon pace. Its your maximum aerobic effort. Marathon being 99% aerobic, it makes sense to say that would be your aerobic threshold.

Somehow, this doesn't make much sense to me. I would think marathon pace would be closer to anaerobic threshold. If you want to run a marathon at your fastest, you would want to run at the point just before lactate/H+ accumulation begins. If you can build up to being able to run the whole marathon around this pace, than you would obviously be running much faster than if you just stayed at aerobic threshold.

Isn't this why Lactate Threshold training is absolutely integral to marathon training. By raising Lactate Threshold, you are also increasing the distance you can run at a single pace without approaching/exceeding AnT. This is not to say, Aerobic Threshold training is not the most important, because it is. But this does not mean you race a marathon at Aerobic Threshold. I look at AeT training as just increasing the bodies efficiency to run near AnT. By raising AeT, you make it easier to raise AnT with the proper training.

Specifity all that you say also depends on the personal "resistance" of the runner. That varies but I'm sure you already knew that.