Double Whammy? Hadd do you know what he is taking about

Some good stuff here. Balance is indeed a key to improved performance and continued career development. There are now many well-known "training zones" as well as established (and popular) individual sessions which target these zones. That is why so many workout plans look similar to each other, when in fact they may be worlds apart in effectiveness. Once you know the fundamental principles, it is the amount of time spent in each zone at different stages of your preparation, as well as the intelligent sequencing of your workouts, which assumes utmost importance. This necessitates design wrought by wisdom and experience. Someone once said, "It is not enough to learn; you must become." Some message board posters refer to this process of "becoming" as finding your "sweet spot."

Well, ... while muscle fibers are always involved, adaptation also occurs in cardiac output, respiratory function, and so forth. Zones should be selected which target improvement in these areas along with training properties of muscle fibers.

Also, efficient selection of muscle fibers is trainable. This involves summoning the requisite fibers to achieve the desired power output, allotting them to their ideal function, and setting the stride frequency for optimal use of oxygen.

Achieving your ideal weight is also important for attaining economy of movement and experiencing that weightless, effort-free sensation.

"In most cases" is a good qualifier there. Depletion can occur in slow twitch and fast twitch fibers without recruitment of the fast twitch units. Even moderate depletion can precipitate changes in oxidative properties across the spectrum of muscle fibers.

As well as creating oxidative adaptations in the muscle cells, repetitive low-intensity running reinforces the ability of slow twitch fibers to contribute effectively to stability and posture, which is crucial even during high-intensity running.

Thanks, Balance. I do want to know what you mean by strength endurance. Also, what is definition of aerobic capacity? What is definition of aerobic power? Finally, what kind of track workouts should a 400-800 type runner be doing pre-competitive and competitive seasons? Thanks again.

Dear petals,

I don't disagree with anything you said. The changes that occur in the body from training are very complex and many. It could take a very long time to speak to them all, and really I don't think we need to concern ourselves with all the possible changes that occur from training. Although they are fun to contemplate. Thanks for sharing. But as far as being practical for training purposes I think it is best to try and simplify it all into something useable and specific. There are definitely better ways of achieving our goals than relying on them to occur by running long and slow all the time. I understand that we may be able to achieve all the necessary adaptations by just training long and slow, but this is probably not the best way, and may take to dam long. By the way long and slow does not necessarily mean running slow on purpose, it just means running easy. If six minute pace per mile feels pretty easy to you then it just might be. We are all different. Each person has workouts and volumes that work best for them. So it is impossible to tell someone to just follow such and such a schedule and become successful. In most cases we need a way to test and monitor progress. Olbrecht uses lactate tests. I find these to be very informative. They can tell you whether the training you just conducted over the past six weeks or so has facilitated the desired changes you wanted. If you find you did not progress in the desired way or even saw your fitness decline you would want to question whether or not the training you just did was actually any good for you. If it was not, you wouldn’t want to continue to do it. That would be a waste of time. By monitoring your fitness over time you can eventually find out what works best for you and only do the training that is going to help you achieve your goal. If that means running less or more based on what your testing has told you then this is what you should do.

By the way in order to increase V02max one would probably need to run at least fast enough to achieve 50% of there VO2max. This is pretty easy to achieve though and rarely will anyone ever run slower than this. Science has been unable to explain why running slower seems to also aid in fitness, but my guess is it is all about aiding in recovery from faster running. Increased blood flow opens up the capillaries and brings new nutrients to the muscles. This can be very beneficial in aiding regeneration, and in most cases will be more beneficial than just taking a day off. In reality though you can’t run at an intensity slower than this all the time and expect to see any improvement in fitness.

Peter wrote:

Thanks, Balance. I do want to know what you mean by strength endurance. Also, what is definition of aerobic capacity? What is definition of aerobic power? Finally, what kind of track workouts should a 400-800 type runner be doing pre-competitive and competitive seasons? Thanks again.

Strength endurance is a term that is used to describe training that is run at speeds slower than your race pace but not more than about 20% slower. I believe Frank Horwill came up with the term, but I might be wrong about that. Go to

to learn more. I don't like Horwill's schedules very much because most people can not come anywhere near being able to handle the kind of intense workloads that he prescribes, but his five pace theory is very interesting and I believe it is correct. He is not a huge advocate of high mileage, intensity is the name of the game for him, but again not everyone can just follow a schedule and hope to be successful.

Anyway an example of a strength endurance workout for a 5k runner would be running at 10k race pace. An aerobic power workout for the 5k would best be something like 6 x 800m with about a minute recovery or shorter if you can handle it, and maintain the desired pace. If you run at 10k race pace you will be able to achieve more volume of faster running in the workout achieving double the workload of a 5k pace workout. An example would be 6 x 1 mile with a 60 second recovery or so. The increased volume of fast running will usually have the effect giving you the strength and endurance to be able to run your 6 x 800m workout faster, hence the name strength endurance. A 10k runner could do an anaerobic threshold run at half marathon race pace and gain good strength endurance for their event. Don't think you need to run a half marathon to achieve good strength endurance from a tempo run though. Tempo runs are continuous with no recovery so they should give you good strength endurance as long as they are at least 20 minutes or so, maybe up to 40 minutes.

I can only give you examples of workout for runners, since everyone is different. I have to go now but I will get to the 400m and 800m workouts later.

That may depend on your age, where you are in your career, and how much longer you want your career to last. There is good evidence that slower running (this means extremely slow, in the fashion of a Japanese marathoner's second or third run of the day) does make achieving fitness take a longer time, but that it also results in better ultimate fitness over a period of several years. If you wish to get fit and be fast quickly, you should by all means expedite the process with more purposeful running on your "easy" days. This is what the top college programs use. Very slow running works toward developing aerobic endurance, too; it just doesn't work as well within the two to four years that college teams need to win in the here and now. If college championships are to be the be-all, end-all of your running career, your best bet is to find that pace that's at the upper limit of easy and use that as your baseline pace (a la Arkansas, Wisconsin, Iona, etc.). Doing this may also preclude mileages higher than about 90 per week, especially for a college student balancing athletics with the occasional late-night cramming or partying. Inclusion of more slow days (as long as an adequate amount of that quicker threshold running is also accomplished) will normally cause a temporary slowing of the improvement curve, but will better prepare you for more focused work in later years.

Lactate tests are probably the best objective measure available. If at all possible, they should be correlated with heart rate values and the HR data used as a numerical measure to stay within desired effort levels on days where a specific effort is desired. HR measurement is non-invasive, less time-consuming and less expensive. Of course, HR training isn't perfect, either, since cardiac drift and other day-to-day fluctuations can affect the data. The best method for assessing effort is subjective - listening to your body's own internal dialogue. Most running aficionados are familiar with Lydiard's story of Dick Tayler doing repeats on an unmarked field and without a stopwatch. Tayler knew what effect was the proper one for this session, knew by acquired familiarity what that felt like, and knew when he had had just enough to get the maximum benefit from it. He also knew by feel (and by trusting Lydiard's experience) how that effect would blend with other recent sessions and his background work.

It is true that testing can provide an objective measure of certain specific indicators of fitness, which can be referred to later for comparison. How are we to tell from testing at six-week intervals (or any other short arbitrary time segment), though, if a temporary decline in some of these markers (due to dramatic emphasis on certain workouts to the near-exclusion of others) would eventually result in better overall fitness (and better performance) once the other training procedures were introduced and carried to their completion? Achieving complete fitness isn't a "dynamic programming" scenario, in which maximizing the objective function value at each individual stage of the process is the goal. The goal is to maximize the objective function value - your running performance - 1) over the course of your career and/or 2) at the dates on which your most important competitons occur. I say "and/or" since many people try to achieve aim 2) in high school or college and wind up doing so at the expense of aim 1).

That's part of it. Once accustomed to daily running, and as long as overuse injury is not imminent, people do recover more fully (and faster) if they do some light running the day following a stressful effort. For beginners who are not every-day runners, a no-impact exercise such as easy swimming or easy biking can be substituted to facilitate recovery and to become accustomed to daily exercise.

There is the issue of relaxation at very low intensities, which fosters precision of movement and elimination of wasteful tension. This is a fundamental tenet of Oriental martial arts, and you can see the same practice occurring with many of the Asian marathoners. It's un"proven" in a laboratory setting, but this priniciple of practicing high-repetition, low-intensity movement for the purpose of ultimately achieving maximum speed and power is a time-tested and well-known principle. More on this later.

That´s quote illogical.

In the first item - that one of the effort training - you advise "Listen to your body" when you know that we have a few estimates of the training effort - heart, rate, lactic acid meter or simply the chrono time to estimate the effort.

In the second item, - that one of the recover runs versus rest/regeneration day off - you prescribe easy intensity runs or no-impact exercise, Why don´t you let each runner decide by his own by "Listen to your body" as you did in the first item?

In a item that such a subtleness exists as the "proper" pace/intensity to assert efforts, you pretend that runners as high-school boys are able to perceive such subtleness paces as aerobic condition from aerobic power from anaerobic power, as Dick Taylor did. I know runners that are able to perceive a change of pace as 0.5 average range in a workout of 15X400m, but i also know runners that aren´t able to perceive by themselves what´s a lacatete threshold run intensitu from what´s a aerobic power intensity and that independently to what´s their running talent.

But in such a personal and individual item as the best way to recover - this very subjective, you have no way to measure neuro-muscular tension or phychological tension after an ghard workout - you advise some easy effort as a rule. Let me tell you this. Experience often dismiss concepts. I myself did coach several runners from top intrenational class to average runners. Most of them the did reacts very positively and their shapes that improves after a day off better than a easy active recover run. The most paradigmatic case that i know that´s canadian runner Olympic runner Peter Fonseca - that did born as a portuguese, that after many marathon attemps in 2:15-2:17 results, did progress to 2:11-2:13 performances with the same training plan, simply by the fact that he did a week day off rest. If you know the schedules of Tecla Leroupe, or Paula Radcliffe, or Carlos Lopes - all good performers - that are people that worked find by take a day off from time to time (take a day off each 1 week to 10 days).

Once again the experience that´s first step to the training method and not concepts based in labs or physiology, as that ones of the anaerobic threshold -they did build an intersting theory - that one to may train mainly in the anaerobic thershold pace/intensity - and the experience in the terrain dismisses that a lot.

To elaborate: The objective data can be used in lieu of subjective perception until the athlete is experienced enough to correlate the readouts (mmol/l or HR or RER or what have you) with that internal perception of effort. The gadgetry can be used on a near-daily basis if necessary, but at some point this becomes unwieldy and in most cases is impractical for racing; ergo, the internal sensitivity is required for complete understanding of personal capabilities. People are not robots. It is not enough to learn, you must become.

Oops, my bad. I should have said that most people recover faster with some activity the day after a stressful effort. Recovery and regeneration are complex enough that certain aspects may always be facilitated via light exercise soon after, but this benefit may be offset in certain individuals by other (often intangible) factors which would be more of a setback than an asset as a whole.

The point of all this rambling goes back to the initial idea of balance. Familiarizing yourself with your own body's needs over time is important, but general guidelines are also useful as starting points until you know something about your capabilities, limitations, recovery needs, etc. Objective meaurements from gizmos provide needed assistance for runners who are not yet sensitive enough to tune in to a subtle internal dialogue, or for runners who are impatient enough to ignore that dialogue if they did hear it. And yes, this perceptive ability (as well as patience) is sometimes lacking in very accomplished runners, just as it is in high school people. Portable lactate analyzers and pulse monitors are made for these people.

In the arena of balance, respect general time-tested principles of preparation. Play the odds intelligently by using those sound priniciples as your main path up the mountain to success. Veering from one side of the path to the other and even forging small side trails is fine if you discover along the way that you need to do so.

It's not really illogical - find your sweet spot, but do it within a framework of intelligent, proven design.

I am sorry, but science is quite clear why running slowly adds to fitness. There are several reasons, including improving the output from fat burning, improved blood flow, structural alterations within the cell that speed the chmical process, stress upon the muscles to deliver movement by chemical means when there is little dynamic response from the tendons etc etc The key however is to keep this in balance and not to do the slow running more than is required for the appropriate responses. Other responses are as important.

Zuzu's petals

Of course that you writes in good english intersting sentences but that doesn´t mean/argue nothig against my comments. You said we aren´t robots - but to train in accurate pacs that´s not to make the runner a robot. That´s to make more rationale in his training. But if you tell a runner to do a easy run recover when because the science says that´s the best or that because most people feel recover while doing that easy run there you are turning a runner in a robot or a slave to soem knowledge.

Let me say something my fact observation for more than 30 years that i may argue with you in this discussion and not with what the books they say, or they don´t. I did coach and saw to caoch many world top class runners and they aren´t able to perceive what pace their are running or training. And i have lots of non-class runners - some are still young with inexperience - but that they are able to folllow a very accuarte pace without no measure intervention. Thus the learn/knowledge of the pace estimation is intensities that are non-maximale doesn´t depend so much from the self learning but from external teaching, but that´s not the case of the recover activity - each body is able to perceive if they are ready to do activity or if they don´t - as you say that´s complex but because that´s complex and not estimte to a complete extend by no tst analyis - you may let the runner decide - not be a lave of coach idea. The fact that most runners cases or the science says us that activity recover goes find that´s not a reason to prescribe that - that´s simply a science concept and each individual case may be according or don´t with that science concept or that main use. Thus i think that what Balance posts that´s right when he expresess both options. Besides if the effort is really really hard - as a tough marathon or an HM - ther´s no way you prescribe/do easy but active recover in the next day(s) after a run. even the tiop class runners aften they aren´t able to have no notorious easy activity. A few times even walk that´s too much. those who say that science tells us that we shall do easy/moderate activity they don´t know what they are talking about. they never rpivate with Khalid Khannouchi after London WR or Tergat after the Athens marathon, they simply did read that science in a book. They did read many books, but they never assist to the day after a marathon that a top runner he did try harder.

But i end this interesting our intersting discussion here because i want more posts from Balance.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

Zuzu's petals

Of course that you writes in good english intersting sentences but that doesn't mean/argue nothig against my comments.

I am aware that all you have said is correct! You are, as we would say in the States, "preaching to the choir." There is no point of contention in my posts and I am not arguing. I am attuned to the fact that some runners do learn to recognize effort states without external data, while others require that data. Also, recovery is a gestalt, and individuals should learn their own needs as opposed to adhering to hard-and-fast rules.

Consider these proverbs:

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

and ...

"Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors."

The first quote refers to learning from the past so you will not ignorantly or stubbornly make all the mistakes your predecessors made before you finally realize there was a lesson to be learned at all.

The second quote refers to the fact that you need to experience difficulties in your own process of trial-and-error discovery in order to become first competent, then masterful, at handling all the situations you might face.

At first glance, these maxims would appear to be giving contradictory advice. You might even say it is illogical to apply both at once. But, looking closer, it becomes apparent that the first quote instructs you to learn lessons from mistakes which have been repeated enough times that the lessons can be considered fundamental in nature. The second quote says that the specifics of your situation will often be different, as well as your ability to handle those specifics with your personal attributes. Though you should learn from your predecessors, they cannot handle your present situations for you, so it is up to you to become proficient at micromanaging the details which arise in your personal challenges.

So you see I am saying experience is paramount, but objective data can still be used as a frame of reference for effort levels. Rules are also useful, although most rules are bendable. There is no absence of logic and no point of contention present.

Exercise science will always pale in comparison to experience (both that of others and your own), as it is restricted and normally one-dimensional, failing to even identify, much less control, all the variables of human performance. But some laboratory findings can at the same time be used to intelligently tweak and nugde our workouts.

Zuzu's petals wrote:

You are, as we would say in the States, "preaching to the choir."

Consider these proverbs:

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

and ...

"Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors."

Many thanks for your replies.

With the presumption that i understand your proberbs, let me change my decision. I´ve said that i willn´t post no more about this our/your issue and the reason is that because i want know more information from Balance, but as Balance delays his coming back from Easter and because your post is so good in argumentations - despote you says that you don´t argue - but not so good in the training contain issue (i said not so good, not bad...) - let me break my self rule and make some more comments to you.

First, as in the past we portuguese we have been and known as sailors all over the world there are lots of portuguese proverbs that mention the sea or the water element - the universal element. The first one that i want to introduce to you to reply to your own about preaching that´s the idiomatic sentence "carrying water by the river" something similar to "preaching to the choir".

Second, in my land we say something similar - another idiomatic sentence but that´s a resume to your 2 last proverbs. It goes like this "there are more waves in the ocean than sailors to go to the sea for sailing". What that means? That the number of occasions to challenge the waves are more frequent than people that sails them. This is the same with the training relate to your/our 2 lines of consideration - that are more workouts to be done and people to train and more days to consider the recover that a runner needs (or don´t) THE WAVES than - as to say - the "frame of reference" or the concepts THE SAILORS. What that means about training ? That means that the occasions that have to face a decision from a certain issue (train by feeling versus intensity accuracy or innactive versus active recover) are more frequent than how many concepts we build about each training issue. Thus that´s "in" experience and "in" discrimination that may be the decision and the main priority and that´s not the training concept that shall rules. The concept may be subservient to the experience. That´s quite unuseful to mention the concept in certain contexts - bacause - as you said - each individual case may deny the rule. This is what´s relevant in the training method - is not to know the concepts or frameworks, the first priority is that´s to know in - what level - the experience may deny the concept. Thus the knowledge may contain the frame work and the concept but also the experience comes first. Of course for those who have a framework.

Let me put that in a different prespective.

1/ First you have the training concepts - generalised concepts

2/Then you have to train according the specifics for each distance event needs

3/Finnaly comes the individual level - you have to face and to work with the runner individuality and talent and the runner limitations

This would be your scheme. But i think that the margin of unknown an uncertitude about each individual case, denies the field of the concepts a lot that in lots of cases to Keep the concepts in background that unuseful or an empeachement to discover the correct training.

For me the item 3/ comes later but takes the first priority in each training approach.

We need to base our decisions and our options - in one word - discrimination - that means to base our training mainly in our experience and trial-and-error and the concepts a few times they are not effective or they can´t take them in consideration in that individual context priority. Let me finish with one idea. That´s me as a coach that i need to fit my workouts in each the runner individual case - and not the opposite - that´s to push the runner to my own training concepts. the question here that´s discrimination.

I agree with most of what you said but remember this key: discrimination - that´s in each individual case to decide from the multi/pluri options among the concepts where lies what´s is right and what´s "is not so right" among all our training knowledge. We arený able to use both experience and concept if they don´t agree ! We can´t decide to use in the same workout that´s done by the running feeling and also by measure pace accuracy and we aren´t able to advise a day off and an active day recover for the same situation.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

... in my land we say something similar - another idiomatic sentence but that's a resume to your 2 last proverbs. It goes like this "there are more waves in the ocean than sailors to go to the sea for sailing". ... What that means about training ? That means that the occasions that have to face a decision from a certain issue (train by feeling versus intensity accuracy or innactive versus active recover) are more frequent than how many concepts we build about each training issue.

Then should the waves dictate the sailing procedure, or should the skills of the sailor dictate the procedure? Or should the sea itself, as an entity to be navigated in its entirety (something which is greater than the totality of its waves) take first priority? If so, should the sea as a whole remain the first priority as each wave is encountered, or should the imminent wave take precedence in the mind and actions of the sailor at that moment?

All good questions. And the answer to the whole problem, of course, is that attention must be given to all concerns at once.

In my thinking, the "prime directive" (to borrow a military term) is successful navigation of the entire body of water you intend to sail. To do this, you must recognize that the waves are not the sea, although they are part of it. To change metaphors, many people "cannot see the forest for the trees."

I realize I am deviating from the original meaning of the proverb here, but there are many sailors who wish to cross the sea yet will acquire neither a seaworthy vessel nor the sailing skills to be successful. These are some of those concepts which must always be addressed for all individuals, and which no experience could ever deny.

How does this apply to running? It means that effective training is both steady and dynamic. Note that "steady" in this case is not synonymous with "unwavering," and "dynamic" is not interchangeable with "ephemeral." This brings us back to balance - not only in workout procedures themselves, but also concerning concepts/experience and events/individuals.

Hello all. Lots of interesting stuff being talked about here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas. Zuzu's petals, I'd like to point out that I am not a huge fan of intensity for the sake of quick fixes. Like I said before, I am a huge fan of Lydiards training, and I understand the importance of patience, and passing on early moderate success while focusing on the long term goals which might be loftier. As this post is meant to focus on the training ideas of Olbrecht I will be trying to stay in tune with his idea's. That being the case I'd like to point out that Olbrecht recommends that at least 80% of your training volume be long slow regeneration running. The other 20% or less is more intense, but again it is not in large volumes and in the base phase and is not meant to get a runner in race shape. Again for Olbrecht, the longer the base the better. The volume of intense training that is suggested during this period per workout is very small, about 3k for aerobic power workouts, and much less for anaerobic capacity workouts. The recovery periods for both of these workouts in the base phase are relatively long, and should not place undue stress on the organism. An example of an aerobic power workout in the base phase could be 8 x 400m with a minute recovery, of course the recovery can be longer if you like, you are not trying to get into race shape during this phase of training, just increase fitness parameters. The purpose of this training in the base phase is to make the fast twitch fibers more oxidative, therefore increasing V02max not just in the slow twitch fibers, but also in the fast twitch fibers. I know you are going to say that we can do this by just running long and slow, but I don’t believe we can do it as effectively and I don’t believe the small amounts recommended are going to hurt your long term goals. In fact I believe they will help them. I hope I don't bore you if I ever repeat myself, but I would like to be as clear as possible.

Well I’m back to share some knowledge. This is after all the point of this isn’t it? I hope we can continue to stay productive. Since some of you seem to want to learn more I will continue. Hope you all had a good weekend.

According to Olbrecht, very short sprints like the 60m and the 100m do not necessarily require a highly developed aerobic power. Most of the energy created to run these races will be created by creatine phosphate. Since the 60m is usually run in at least 6 seconds and creatine phosphate creates most of the energy for the first six seconds of activity runners in this event don't have to worry about anaerobic power. The same can also be said for the 100m. This race is usually completed by 10 seconds meaning only 4 seconds of energy needs to be created from glycolic sources. It is hard to imagine that a sprinter can not keep there momentum going for the small amount of time necessary to finish the race. This is probably why relaxation is so important at the end of the race in the 100m. If they can keep tension to a minimum and stay fluid they should be able to float to the finish line.

Athletes wanting to maximize their performances in the longer sprints like the 200m and 400m must maximize their anaerobic power. This is also the case in the true middle distance events like the 800m and the 1500m. In order to be successful in these events athletes must be able to continue to run while experiencing a high level of acidosis from lactic acid. Even though the goal of training is to prevent overloading levels of acidosis from building up during the race, people are still going to continue to push their limits and try to withstand the pain associated with it. Anaerobic power training allows athletes to do this better than they would otherwise be able to. The true middle distances (800m and mile) also require the athlete to train their aerobic power as well as their anaerobic capacity in the precompetition phase of training.

The anaerobic capacity workouts are designed to increase the maximum amount of lactate that can be produced. Sprinters and middle distance runners will want to develop a much higher level of anaerobic capacity than a 10k and marathoner. This is probably not going to be a problem if they do the workouts because they will naturally have a higher level of anaerobic capacity than the long distance runner. This is one of the reasons they are running the shorter events. We tend to move to the events that we are naturally better at. I believe the individuals with greater anaerobic capacities are actually the ones with the most potential in every running event because they can always train to lower their anaerobic capacity. It is much harder for someone with a naturally weak anaerobic capacity to try and develop a good one. This is mostly the reason why slow runners tend to stay slow, and fast runners tend to stay fast. Fast runners are lucky enough to be able to move up in distance much easier than the slow ones can move down. Lucky them huh? Kind of pisses you off if you are one of those slower runners not endowed naturally with a high anaerobic capacity. Not all is lost though we can all still improve on it with the proper training.

As for the anaerobic power workouts, these are performed at speeds close to all out just like the anaerobic capacity workouts, but unlike the anaerobic capacity workouts we don’t want to take long recovery periods in between fast runs. Did I mention before that anaerobic capacity workout require long rest periods? Well they do. You want to be fully recovered before you start another one so that your blood sugar levels are back to normal. This way you can maximize the utilization of sugar when you start to sprint again. The rest should be about 4 times the run period and be passive, not active. Just stand around waiting to do the next one. You can perform these on hills also, and in some instances it would probably be preferable, especially when you start doing them.

When performing Anaerobic power workouts the real goal is to be able to tolerate higher and higher levels of lactic acid so that when you are in a race you won’t slow down. It isn’t as simple as just trying to run as fast as you can as long as you can though. We will not be able to get in enough volume of training to achieve the desired physiological adaptation if we do the workout this way. The way to accomplish this is by running close to all out for short distances, while taking very short rest periods of say about 20 second or so. This is not very much recovery time, and it is unlikely that we will have cleared all of the lactic acid out of our muscles in this amount of time. When we start the next repeat run we will already have high levels of lactate in our legs. This is similar to what people refer to as speed endurance, except that speed endurance workouts are often run at slower speeds. This is usually about 800m race pace or 1500m race pace with short rests. For our purposes these kinds of workouts would better be classified as aerobic power workouts because the speeds although relatively quick are no where close to sprinting. Anaerobic capacity workouts require close to all out speeds to maximize their effectiveness.

Anaerobic power workouts tend to all look the same for every event be it the 200m or the mile. An example would be 5 x 200m with a 20 second recovery (there are a lot of ways to do this so be creative when making workouts). You shouldn’t worry so much about the volume of running in these workouts, just the speed. If you are not able to maintain speed with the short recoveries then you will just stop the workout. A good effort is required though. You can also do these workouts in sets, e.g. 2x (3 x 200). Take a longish recovery between each set.

The volume of fast running for an anaerobic power workout will probably max out around 1 mile. It is not advisable to do more than that, and you may not be able to do so even if you tried. These are tough workouts and they will require a long recovery period afterwards. By the way just like aerobic power workouts, anaerobic power workouts can have the effect of moving the lactate curve to the right (representing an increase in the anaerobic threshold). This is not necessarily desirable for shorter events who can benefit more from a high anaerobic capacity at the risk of having a lower anaerobic threshold speed. In order to prevent this from happening you need to take adequate recovery between hard sessions and also do plenty of easy regeneration running during the recovery days.

As for aerobic power workouts, the recovery periods in between fast runs will vary by individual. The important thing is to be able to maintain the required speed over the entire workout. You want to be able to complete the workout. If you need more rest to maintain speeds in an aerobic power workout, take it, but it is best to take the minimal amount of recovery necessary. Mark Wetmore of Colorado has designed a good aerobic power workout. He has his runners training for a 5k do 10 x 500 at 5k goal pace with a 100m jog recovery. Eventually they try to only take about 38 seconds of recovery between each 500. This is a pretty tough workout, but it serves the purpose of developing the aerobic power necessary to run a 5k at the desired speed.

There is a lot to talk about, and I hope I am not bouncing all over the place. A lot of what I am talking about can be found in Olbrecht’s book. It is a swimming book of course but the physiology is the same. A lot of what I mention may sound familiar to some. It does not seem that different from the way Renato Canova trains his runners. Renato does not speak English very well though, so it close to impossible to completely understand what he is talking about. I have read enough of his ideas on training to realize that he is basically saying a lot of what I am saying. I would not be surprised if he is very familiar with Olbrecht’s work. Sorry this is so long winded, I had a lot on my mind I guess.

As you insist with all your eloquence and politeness – and I thank you, and i´m no able to contest your concepts such as Gestalt or the training - if and when that´s steady or dynamic – a kind of who comes first, the egg or the chicken - instead of have navigation examples, since there are lots of people in this site that they never saw the sea – they born and live in the continental parts of the earth, let me try to come to my idea with simple examples in an easy speech.

One runner want´s to run and compete in running distance. The first thing I teach him is that apart from the talent he needs to train. Remember that the main target why the needs to train that´s to compete and face the competitions. One of the main strategic training elements of training – without what he willn´t be a good competitor that´s Pace Running. To be able to manage his pace, during a race according the distance the estimate shape conditions. During the workouts he needs to have a good pace to run in a pace that is in the zone of intensity that the coach decides to made him run. In the routine easy run sessions – just to be able to recover or train very easy aerobically. This is a kind of first lesson to teach. Now, as I said earlier, there are poor runners that have that “innate feeling about the paces” that tye coach doesn´t need to interfere too much in the pace teaching. But there are others – independently that they are good or poor runners – that they have the energy and the will to run and to train – but they aren´t able to “feel the pace”. Ther´s no other way if not to discipline them, to teach them. If I consider the larger problem that´s is done by most of the long distance runners that´s pace ignorance and that or they train in different paces thay should train or they compete in different paces they should done – usually by start too fast according the main event pace. Don´t you see that mistake during the runs ? I´ve seen that for decades and lots of running generations. As I also have seen inexpedient runners that simply they start the run routine session in one pace and they end in another –they run in positive split all the time. Ther´s no solution if not to teach that runners to use and control and pace by any mean.

Without a good pace management you don´t go anywhere as a runner, you willn´t get the best from you. Some runners they need since the start an add in all workouts to follow a strictly recommended pace, that the coach did estimate. I use a whistle to split the pace, some they use a light rabbit, others they simply cry the split times– and most of times that´s not easy to teach a runner to manage the pace. A few times you need to teach the runner to run slowly – as van Aaken says he did when he did meet Norporth – “My first advise that was to teach him to run slow”.

Thus a pace feeling, or if te runner he doesn´t have that pace feeling talent you need to teaching him that right now, that´s one of the first coach lessons, not coach tyranny or slavery – but the needed discipline and knowledge that a runner needs to have to have success. That´s a “sine-qua-non” (unique) condition to be named a runner, out of that you are a runner yet, he is simple someone that waist his energy by running !

Then as you know we have several options to pace accuracy – the chrono and the distance, and the HRM etc, etc.

We have a recent case that figures what I want to say. Dan Ritz. A great runner really, but (apart from the blisters or a bad day) in The last st. Etienne WCCC Ritz did ignore in what race main event pace he shall run that race – and that he shall done first laps in that cross circuit. As you see even top class runners they fail a lot due to a wrong pace management. That´s the case of Brian Sell in the last marathon Olympic Trials. He did start faster as he may have done – wrong strategy you can say, but for me he taught that he could have hold that pace. Of course that I also understand and respect your arguments – to train by the feeling that´s also a need. Let´s think that the runner is in a good shape moment, or simply he is in the basic period of the season – and you as a coach you decide that´s the best solution that´s to make him run that workout “by feeling” and not pace accuracy, because the pace after that you teach that - the runner he may perceive that. Or because your season periodisation strategy advises you to run that in an outdoor terrain unmeasured course instead of a track. You are right, I remember what Lydiard said about Dick Taylor workouts before the Commonwealth Games that Dick did win in a sub 28:00 defeated Juma, Dave Bedford etc.

Now think that a runner did a hard workout and that despite the previous coach advise he goes out/faster than the correct pace, or simply because by some unknown fact he feels extremely tired after a run. Don´t misunderstand me. My main training concept is based in aerobic/steady runs. And to make you know that I prescribe aerobic slow runs all the time season and in all situations I quote one idea from a JK article that I read in LetRunCom named “Maximizing Oxygen Uptake”. I hope that proves that´s im close to your training concepts.

"…Dudley's 1982 research is often cited to bolster the argument that running at VO2max eliminates the need for running longer distances at slower speeds in order to maximize aerobic development. The practical fruits of this myopic and spurious reasoning were harvested in the United States during the latter years of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, as high mileage training fell out of favor and hard track work - sans aerobic base - became the norm. During this time, U.S. distance running performances declined significantly. The truth is that both high-volume, low- to moderate-intensity training and skillfully integrated low-volume, high-intensity training are necessary to completely prepare for any event in which oxygen transport and oxygen consumption contribute to energy production.

Dudley, et al. did demonstrate that from a mitochondrial standpoint, higher intensity is generally preferable to duration. However, running performance is ultimately more complex - a gestalt that depends on the interaction of a myriad of factors, a few of which may not yet be identified (or may indeed not be identifiable at all)…”

The last sentence for that´s Key sentence for me "...a gestalt that depends on the interaction of a myriad of factors, a few of which may not yet be identified (or may indeed not be identifiable at all...", and by that you see that I guess that i´m close to you or in complete agreemenet about the need of the slow runs, I would say that´s a myriad of factors – some we know, some we don´t know yet – that makes me think that we need train all the way, all the time with the use of easy/slow runs also for the recover. But that doesn´t mean that the runner when he is tired that he may not take a day off. Even van Aaken the father of the endurance that did prescribed slow-runs all the time – 5 times a day in some cases – he said that to if you feel tired ther´s nothing as to take a day off. Ther´s no contradiction here. You may have a high volume mileage schedule with lots of slow runs in between workouts but you may have a day off from times to times. A van Aaken said: that will be good to take a day off from times to times.

Good on ya!

Good on him!

Variety in the off-season is crucial for many runners. It's been awhile since I looked at any of Jan Olbrecht's writings, but I remember his research was predominantly done with swimmers and a few triathletes. In his last book (oriented toward swimmers, if I'm not mistaken), he did mention the high aerobic energy demand in events as short as the 100m free (which only requires about 48 seconds for the best in the world). The energy distribution was nearly two-thirds aerobic for this event. I'm no swimming aficionado, but I've always guessed that it is more difficult to recruit as many fast twitch fibers in the water as is possible when running over land, since 1) a swimmer cannot turn a stroke over fast enough to invoke the most glycolytic fibers and 2) more slow twitch fibers are involved for stability in a high-technique sport such as swimming, where there is no time spent in a "flight" phase as in running. If this is true, a greater burden falls on the slow twitch units when swimming, thus making a 48-second swimming event more aerobic in nature than a 48-second running event. Of course, ST units can have both oxidative and glycolytic properties, but the involvement of the FT units is probably highest in swimming during the start or during a push-off following a turn. The fact that short course records are significantly faster than long course records illustrates that turns (and the subsequent few seconds of recovery) probably contribute to more speed through the water than the actual strokes do. Again, I'm no swimming expert, so this is all theory as far as I know.

It is interesting that Olbrecht, having come from a swimming background, recognizes the need for variety during base work. Another physiologist who works with triathletes, Dr. Philip Maffetone, advocates base training which is always kept below the athlete's LT. I realized a few decades ago that a small amount of regular variety in base training was extremely beneficial in running - probably more important than in a no-impact endurance sport. There are a number of reasons why this may be so, but in a very crude sense, it is simply wise to prepare the body in successive stages to handle faster speeds before a period of specialized, race-specific work begins. Furthermore, common sense dictates that lack of variety in range of motion and distribution of impact forces can quickly lead to overburdening connective tissue, as well as muscles and even bones. From another purely subjective standpoint, running faster on occasion may also reduce boredom and help runners feel "snappier," giving them a fresher and more enthusiastic outlook on the otherwise monotonous chore of slogging out the miles.

From an objective standpoint, economy of oxygen consumption is marginally influenced by improvement in certain anaerobic capabilities, both in the use or metabolism of lactate and in alactic fiber recruitment which accesses the high-energy phosphates. Variety in neuromuscular patterns, particularly rapid movements which replicate running motions (e.g., fast high knees) is known to contribute to slight improvements in economy. Even high-intensity training during the off-season - as long as it is restricted to very small amounts and repeated rather infrequently - is not the devil many runners set on pure aerobic training believe it to be. Prudent allocation of such training during the base phases can actually enhance aerobic development and allow an athlete to smoothly segue into a stage of specific preparation.

Well then, I guess we are all in agreement here. Nice to have good company.

Awesome! I was out for Easter weekend but I can see this thread has grown and continues to be informative.

Here's a suggestion. Can Balance or anyone with the knowledge here post more of like scheduled chart to see what workouts do what. As I was reading Balance's post, I did get lost with a little back and forth on the terminology and corresponding information. So basically what I'm saying is this. Here's and example:

To help with strength endurance workouts of: 10k pace etc.

Aerobic pwr: 6x800m at so and so pace with so and so recovery.

Anaerobic pwr: 5x200m etc etc.

You get what I'm saying. It would be better to understand and explain, rather than follow text. And lastly, what would one do next if base training is done, which consisted of Long slow runs some fartleks type runs, some strides. Essentially just increasing/working on the aerobic capacity. What next? What system would be more important to work on? Strength endurance, aerobic pwr, anerobic threshold, anerobic power, etc.

And lastly I thank all those who are posting here. Again it is a joy to see solid discussion on training and concepts once more.

bump bump bump.