Hopefully not. Good luck to you.
Hopefully not. Good luck to you.
Hello
I think you read Bill wrong there. He was extremely impressed by Jazy and the way he left them with 400 to go, but unfortunatly for him some 150-200m too early. I always read Bill to mean Jazy would have won easily had he waited. Bill also believed Clarke could have run a lot smarter race by keep a higher pace.
Together with Keino these 2 runners moved 5000m running to the next level as we know.
So, what is the rationale behind the notion that anaerobic training will contribute to the erosion of one's aerobic base?
kudzurunner wrote:
wellnow wrote:The problem with that article is that the author doesn't realize that what he calls "anaerobic intervals" is actually aerobic training.
But then most people don't know the difference between aerobic and anaerobic anyway including 99.9% of letsrun posters.
However here is something to condider, I reckon that Haile Gebreselassie's aerobic capacity is likely to be lower than it was 10 years ago, so how does he run so fast?
Because the main improvements over time come not from improvements in aerobic capacity, they come from improvements in neuro-muscular coordination and contractility, in other words the ability to maintain an efficient powerful stride for longer.
That's the real truth people, that's what intelligent posters should be discussing. NOT AEROBIC DEVELOPMENT!!!!
I'm no exercise scientist, but even I can see the tissue of errors that you've assembled.
1) "likely" means what? What proof do you have? Even if his V02 max is slightly lower--and that's a big "if"--his lactate threshold might be higher. Continued development of LT with prolonged training of the right sort is well established.
2) Haile is clearly slowing slightly at shorter distances, so to say that he runs "so fast" is misleading. He runs plenty fast, but he's gradually slowing at shorter distances--even as he's learning the parameters of the half marathon and marathon and lowering his times there.
3) I'll grant you the importance of NMT, but there's no reason to frame it as an either/or proposition relative to aerobic development. Why not allow for a both/and understanding?
************************************************
kudzurunner, your points are valid, however, if I was to explain everything relevant to the points I am trying to make it would take a very long post indeed. I don't do long posts. Who would read them?
Yes Haile probabably (can I have your permission to use that word?)isn't going to run 1500m indoors in 3.31 early next year, but he was still in sub 26.30 shape at the Olympics.
Many people say he is 38 not 35. He isnt' getting any younger is he? So how come he so fast still?
Because it's not all about aerobic capacity, which peaks in our early twenties for men and slightly younger for women. So how come kids can run faster than you and old men can run faster than you? Even though their aerobic capacity is lower than yours? Because aerobic development is only a small part of the picture. Millions of runners have maximimized their aerobic development, but they are still slow runners.
flow wrote
1. the energy requirements at higher intensity are outweighing those supplied 'just' by by aerobic sources - hence the breathing harder and faster - the breathing action is trying to bring in more oxygen and continues to do so up to it's maximal breathing rate. Once it hits this maximal rate it is a short trip to unconsciousness.Most people will stop before this occurs of course.
2. the athletes system is becoming more and more anaerobic. It is a proportional thing. Once past the MLSS, the lactate indicates that it's system is becoming overloaded when trying to supply the increased energy. The aerobic system is maximised already and the anaerobic is becoming maximised. When both are maximised the athlete is very close to the stopping point.
So in my mind it is very wise to develop both systems through training methods as most people realise to some degree. The maximisation of the aerobic system through training can continue indefinitely, the mitochondrial density and the intra-muscular capilliarisation literally has no end point although there is obviously a slow-down somewhere along the path. The anaerobic system does have an end-point, however.
So if one has an end-point and the other not then surely it makes sense to focus more time and energy on the system which can continue to be trained literally forever.
No Peter, your points are wrong. Go back and read what I have written to you before. You are mythologizing. I have tried to explain these points to you several times, but you don't take them on board.
Bob Schul disciple wrote:
So, what is the rationale behind the notion that anaerobic training will contribute to the erosion of one's aerobic base?
It's a false notion. In Lydiard's time, people thought that high intensity interval training was "anaerobic training" it's not, it's still mostly aerobic.
We use aerobic and anaerobic fuel sources all of the time.
What Lydiard meant was that you don't need a huge amount of speed work, too much will lessen your ability to recover and maintain the slower paces. But then, too much of any pace will cause heavy legs or other types of fatigue, for instance, too much mileage can cause several weeks of fatigue, so it might be best to have the occasional lower mileage week when you are tired.
What you need as a serious athlete is a well balance training programme that allows you to cover a variety of paces in your races. It doesn't matter what methodology you follow as long as you are improving. You have to find that balance through experimentation, but of course it helps if you have the best coach around. If you don't have the best coach, there are always plenty of experienced runners who can advise you. All you have to do is filter the most common sense advice and incorporate and avoid the wacky ideas.
Knutk,
That is a very fair point, and I agree that Jazy and Clarke were amazing runners.
I merely assert that Schul's training not only out him in a position to win, but it honed his speed to take advantage of it too.
Wellnow,
I really appreciate you clearing that up for me! I could never understand why speedwork detracted from one's base.
Do you advocate a periodization based program like Lydiard, one that could be personalized from.- or do you prefer a consistent weekly program that has balanced variety in it such as used by DeCastella?
Thank you!
Good point.
wellnow wrote:
flow wrote1. the energy requirements at higher intensity are outweighing those supplied 'just' by by aerobic sources - hence the breathing harder and faster - the breathing action is trying to bring in more oxygen and continues to do so up to it's maximal breathing rate. Once it hits this maximal rate it is a short trip to unconsciousness.Most people will stop before this occurs of course.
2. the athletes system is becoming more and more anaerobic. It is a proportional thing. Once past the MLSS, the lactate indicates that it's system is becoming overloaded when trying to supply the increased energy. The aerobic system is maximised already and the anaerobic is becoming maximised. When both are maximised the athlete is very close to the stopping point.
So in my mind it is very wise to develop both systems through training methods as most people realise to some degree. The maximisation of the aerobic system through training can continue indefinitely, the mitochondrial density and the intra-muscular capilliarisation literally has no end point although there is obviously a slow-down somewhere along the path. The anaerobic system does have an end-point, however.
So if one has an end-point and the other not then surely it makes sense to focus more time and energy on the system which can continue to be trained literally forever.
No Peter, your points are wrong. Go back and read what I have written to you before. You are mythologizing. I have tried to explain these points to you several times, but you don't take them on board.
Jon, should i be thankful that i am favoured with bold type? Jokes of course. Seriously though you will have to actually rationalise an argument to convince me, and you know i am always able to be convinced when a rationale is provided. You have probably seen me change my opinion as soon as that occurs. But i have to say you have never done so with me and so i continue to follow this path of thinking i am on.
Which of my above points do you find disagreement with. Please be precise. If you can be convincing through your precision instead of your own mythology i will be happy to change my view. As it stands i don't know exactly what you disagree with nor what you actual argument is.
Please rationalise your own beliefs to me once again on this issue for you know that i agree with you in many other ways already (eg the importance of running economy), but not this one.
flowing like peter
wellnow wrote:
Bob Schul disciple wrote:So, what is the rationale behind the notion that anaerobic training will contribute to the erosion of one's aerobic base?
It's a false notion. In Lydiard's time, people thought that high intensity interval training was "anaerobic training" it's not, it's still mostly aerobic.
We use aerobic and anaerobic fuel sources all of the time.
What Lydiard meant was that you don't need a huge amount of speed work, too much will lessen your ability to recover and maintain the slower paces. But then, too much of any pace will cause heavy legs or other types of fatigue, for instance, too much mileage can cause several weeks of fatigue, so it might be best to have the occasional lower mileage week when you are tired.
What you need as a serious athlete is a well balance training programme that allows you to cover a variety of paces in your races. It doesn't matter what methodology you follow as long as you are improving. You have to find that balance through experimentation, but of course it helps if you have the best coach around. If you don't have the best coach, there are always plenty of experienced runners who can advise you. All you have to do is filter the most common sense advice and incorporate and avoid the wacky ideas.
i'll have a go at this one. I agree with balance by the way.It is the primary principle when training for the decathlon - the most balanced event existing is track and field. This is besides the point i just thought i would agree with you on something :)
What Lydiard could have meant is that we only have a given amount of time and energy to apply to training. So why spend time doing things other than aerobic development during the development stages of training when it will merely eat into this finite amount of time/energy?
Yet there is this other argument i quite like: when you are doing training that places and leaves the body in an acidic state you are putting it in a state that is similar to an injured one. Both this acidic training state and the injured state have a higher pH than our normal state.
So i have to ask Jon, why is there this similarity in pH between a chronically injured state and that state left by training which goes above (well above) a purely oxygenated state?
flow wrote:
1. the energy requirements at higher intensity are outweighing those supplied 'just' by by aerobic sources - hence the breathing harder and faster - the breathing action is trying to bring in more oxygen and continues to do so up to it's maximal breathing rate. Once it hits this maximal rate it is a short trip to unconsciousness.Most people will stop before this occurs of course.
2. the athletes system is becoming more and more anaerobic. It is a proportional thing. Once past the MLSS, the lactate indicates that it's system is becoming overloaded when trying to supply the increased energy. The aerobic system is maximised already and the anaerobic is becoming maximised. When both are maximised the athlete is very close to the stopping point.
So in my mind it is very wise to develop both systems through training methods as most people realise to some degree. The maximisation of the aerobic system through training can continue indefinitely, the mitochondrial density and the intra-muscular capilliarisation literally has no end point although there is obviously a slow-down somewhere along the path. The anaerobic system does have an end-point, however.
So if one has an end-point and the other not then surely it makes sense to focus more time and energy on the system which can continue to be trained literally forever.
Wellnow wrote: No Peter, your points are wrong. Go back and read what I have written to you before. You are mythologizing. I have tried to explain these points to you several times, but you don't take them on board.
Jon, should i be thankful that i am favoured with bold type? Jokes of course. Seriously though you will have to actually rationalise an argument to convince me, and you know i am always able to be convinced when a rationale is provided. You have probably seen me change my opinion as soon as that occurs. But i have to say you have never done so with me and so i continue to follow this path of thinking i am on.
Which of my above points do you find disagreement with. Please be precise. If you can be convincing through your precision instead of your own mythology i will be happy to change my view. As it stands i don't know exactly what you disagree with nor what you actual argument is.
Please rationalise your own beliefs to me once again on this issue for you know that i agree with you in many other ways already (eg the importance of running economy), but not this one.
flowing like peter
Bob Schul disciple wrote:
So, what is the rationale behind the notion that anaerobic training will contribute to the erosion of one's aerobic base?
Wellnow wrote:
It's a false notion. In Lydiard's time, people thought that high intensity interval training was "anaerobic training" it's not, it's still mostly aerobic.
We use aerobic and anaerobic fuel sources all of the time.
What Lydiard meant was that you don't need a huge amount of speed work, too much will lessen your ability to recover and maintain the slower paces. But then, too much of any pace will cause heavy legs or other types of fatigue, for instance, too much mileage can cause several weeks of fatigue, so it might be best to have the occasional lower mileage week when you are tired.
What you need as a serious athlete is a well balance training programme that allows you to cover a variety of paces in your races. It doesn't matter what methodology you follow as long as you are improving. You have to find that balance through experimentation, but of course it helps if you have the best coach around. If you don't have the best coach, there are always plenty of experienced runners who can advise you. All you have to do is filter the most common sense advice and incorporate and avoid the wacky ideas.
i'll have a go at this one. Mainly because you seem to have convinced Bob Schul disciple so incredibly easily i am truly wondering who his real identity is :)
I agree with balance by the way.It is the primary principle when training for the decathlon - the most balanced event existing is track and field. This is besides the point i just thought i would agree with you on something :)
What Lydiard could well have meant is that we only have a given amount of time and energy to apply to training. So why spend time doing things other than aerobic development during the development stages of training when it will merely eat into this finite amount of time/energy?
Yet there is this other argument i quite like: when you are doing training that places and leaves the body in an acidic state you are putting it in a state that is similar to an injured one. Both this acidic training state and the injured state have a higher pH than our normal state.
So i have to ask Jon, why is there this similarity in pH between a chronically injured state and that state left by training which goes above (well above) a purely oxygenated state?
Well Flow, before any conspiracies gain traction (we both know this board!) I must assure you that I am just a humble Bostonian who knows his way around Faneuil Hall's running center!
But I am me and not he or she, ya see?
I do not see your opinions as at all contradictory. Are you not both endorsing balanced training plans? Even with your acidity notion, it is an indirect affect upon one's aerobic base at best, right?
wellnow wrote:
No Peter, your points are wrong. Go back and read what I have written to you before. You are mythologizing.
¨
You´ll have to provide some evidence to back up your claims, otherwise you´re not any better.
>>
So you like making stuff up? Making stuff up, when you don't know better? Always trying to spout off when you don't actually know?
>>
He didn't clear it up, because HE IS AGAIN WRONG! Next, he will be telling us that HE was the guy that revealed chocolate milk is a great recovery drink.
wellnow wrote:
What Lydiard meant was that you don't need a huge amount of speed work, too much will lessen your ability to recover and maintain the slower paces. But then, too much of any pace will cause heavy legs or other types of fatigue, for instance, too much mileage can cause several weeks of fatigue, so it might be best to have the occasional lower mileage week when you are tired.
No, that is NOT primarily what he meant when he indicated that it "pulls the condition down".
He talked about the affects of high blood acidity on the system, and anyone that does even a cursory search would know that. You again reveal you don't know what you are talking about.
wellnow wrote:
What you need as a serious athlete is a well balance training programme that allows you to cover a variety of paces in your races.
That is what Lydiard training is all about, with emphasis on periodization.
wellnow,If I can summarize what I've gathered from you over time:1) A lot of people mis-use the terms aerobic and anerobic. Things are a lot more aerobic than previously or currently believed.2) Smart posters should stop talking about aerobic, and more about muscle-contractility, neuromuscular coordination, and lengthening their stride.For me, this first point is completely about labels. If we changed some of the labels to be more accurately descriptive, that would completely solve that issue. Terms like "Aerobic Threshold", "Anaerobic Threshold", and "Anaerobic Intervals" are merely misnomers, but the concepts are not vague and confusing, and are still as valuable today, as when they were developed.No athlete or coach is confused about what "anaerobic intervals" are, as a workout, because basically everyone does them, or has done them. Only some physiologists are confused, because they understand "aerobic" and "anaerobic" differently. "Anaerobic Intervals" on the track are about repeated high levels of lactate accumulation, to provide a stimulus that improves lactate clearance or tolerance, rather than some simple ratio of aerobic to anaerobic energy production. We just need to fix the label to avoid confusing physiologists.For me, the second point is covered completely by the topics of efficiency and economy. As you become more efficient, your stride length will increase for the same stride rate. You insist aerobic developments will just come without talking about it. I can counter-propose the opposite: efficiency will come with time, if you do the right balance of aerobic and anaerobic workouts.My running model tells me improvements come from several sources: developing a high aerobic capacity, improving lactate threshold, and finally improving efficiency, and therefore, (hopefully) running economy.You seem to want to take the first two for granted, and only talk about the last, blurring the multi-faceted aspects of the many kinds of aerobic developments under a single label "aerobic", or worse yet, just the single facet of "aerobic capacity". Intelligent posters can and should talk about all of the above.Your example of Gebrselassie focuses on VO2max. This focus on aerobic capacity is too narrow. You misrepresent "the popular myth". To do the aerobic model justice, you should apply it correctly, before shooting it down. According to "the popular myth", success at the marathon is so much more than developing a high VO2max, especially considering that marathon pace is sub-maximal. In the aerobic model, you also need to push your Aerobic Thresholds and Anaerobic Threshold higher, so that you can maintain a higher percentage of your VO2max. Gebresellasie is better today, not because his VO2max is higher, but because his other thresholds are higher, as well as his running economy.Regards,
wellnow wrote:
Labels, labels, labels. These terms are all vague and cause more confusion that anything else.
It's easy for a runner to build aerobic capacity. You just have to run a few miles a few times per week for a few weeks. So, contrary to the popular myth, the top distance runners DON'T have a huge aerobic capacity, they have a hugely developed muscular power/endurance ratio.
Bekele and Gebreselassie are both 5'5" but they can run on the track with a stride length of over 6 feet at 190-200 strides per minute.
When I talk physiology, what I'm trying to get accross is that runners, coaches and physiologists talk an awfull lot of bullshit. So I point out their lack of knowledge in order to steer the conversation around to what is really important in running.
It's all about maintaining a long stride, yes we all have a different style, some have a longer rangier stride, some a short choppy stride, but the bottom line is: lengthen that stride.
I've asked this every time this business of the misuse of the terms "aerobic" and "anaerobic" turns up here and have never really gotten an answer. But what difference does the terminology make?
There's a difference between running at a pace that you can maintain for an hour and a half to two hours and running at a pace that you can't maintain for even a minute and half to two minutes. The old terminology, even if not totally descriptive, did a nice job of allowing us to know which sort of pace and/or effort we were talking about.
Beyond that, the idea that the bottom line is about lengthening your stride is deceptive. Sprinters have wonderfully long strides in most cases and generally couldn't compete at, say the mile, against mediocre high school runners because they get into too much oxygen debt, breathe too hard, become too anaerobic, become too aerobic,
aern't transporting enough oxygen, are transporting loads of oxygen...
I don't know how to describe why the sprinter has trouble racing longer distances now. But we know what happens to him and we know that he probably has great stride length until the effort of hard running for a long time constricts his stride length and frequency and we know he'd do better at the longer distance if he did more running at what we used to call aerobic paces, even if that was done as interval work.