Is "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated?

That's illogical. Run more often, for better technique, not less often.

Well their isn't a lot of evidence to support drills either. And of course what is the best way to develop technique in distance runners. Probably running a lot of miles at the paces you want to race at.

GTD wrote:

wellnow wrote:

There is no limit to how good a technician you can be.

Dontcha think?

So we're limited aerobically, but not technically? Maybe we should run only 1 day per week and do drills the rest of the time.

Its funny. i actually tried one year to do nothing but very slow high mileage from scratch to 3-4 months. nothing above 135 heart rate, averaging around 7:30-8min miles doing runs of 60min to 2 and 1/2 hours. Then entered a 1/2 marathon and ran 1:12.

Im not against or for what you are saying, but it seems i did exactly what you said you could not do.

I know this thread has been here a while, but every time I see the title I now see it like this:

Is the "Over Analysis" of Training Outdated?

Huh? That post makes no sense at all.

You are quoting maardn not me, and even then, you don't seem to grasp what he is saying.

xxxx wrote:

I know this thread has been here a while, but every time I see the title I now see it like this:

Is the "Over Analysis" of Training Outdated?

Unfortunately, the analysis will get more and more anal.

wellnow wrote:

That's illogical. Run more often, for better technique, not less often.

Turn on your sarcasm detector.

wellnow wrote:

Huh? That post makes no sense at all.

You are quoting maardn not me, and even then, you don't seem to grasp what he is saying.

This from the guy who does nothing but argue semantics and tries to pawn it off as original thought.

wellnow wrote:

But don't you think that racing speeds have improved 'radically' in the last 100 years?

Yes

"Don't you think that this process will continue over the next 100 years?"

No.

Records improve but not radically as before. One need only look at the progression of world records over time. The improvement is asymptotic.

You probably did and I could do the same and run 1:12 just like you. But dont you think that you could have raced faster with 20 x 400m at 3000 - 5000m pace once a week combined with your mileage? Or just a single tempo run every week? Actually I believe in high mileage just like so many other on this board. The difference between me and the most of them is the fact that I dont see myself as an aerobic monster just because I have been doing almost 100 miles per week in average this year. Too many (almost every single) physiologist would tell me that I have become a better runner because I have raised my aerobic capacity and have higher thresholds and stupid stuff like that. But it's not true at all. When running my 200m reps in 30s with very short recovery I just float like never before. When I run my 30k runs at a good clip Im not really tired afterwards.

And actually it's not a question about whether or not we should periodize our training drastically like Lydiard or more of less do the same schedule the entire year. Wellnow very much disagrees with me here but in fact I think almost the entire focus should be laid on getting in big mileage in the off season and then slowly building in speed later. You might not improve much thorugh the winter only running 7 minute miles but you will definitely be able to feel the difference when you have become used to the faster stuff again later.

I think you presume too much about what McMillan doesn't understand.But to answer why, it's because athletes seem to think they need to know what's going on inside (hint -- they don't. They just need to know how to train and how to run. There are no science exams at the podium.). So coaches are somehow obligated to give a "science for dummies" powerpoint overview of the physiology, so that athletes can then focus on the important part: running and training.It's probably true, with some rare exceptions, that good coaches are bad scientists, and good scientists are bad coaches.But look past the alleged bad science, and think about the training zones. Then, in the spirit of the original question: Has any coach in the last 50 years succeeded by training differently? Doesn't everyone use Endurance, Stamina, Speed, and Sprint workouts in some form? Perhaps drills, plyos, and core strength training fall outside, but has anyone succeeded on those alone?How can something be out of date, if it is still widely used today, and hasn't yet been successfully replaced by something else tangibly different?

wellnow wrote:

Too much bad science in the McMillan articles for my liking. Why do so many coaches think they have to try and explain stuff they don't understand?

To some extent I agree - there are elements of Wellnows thinking that do make sense. I dont think anybody working in the field of exercise physiology would deny that the CNS plays an absolutely crucial role in regulating exercise performance. Without the CNS doing 'something' there wouldnt be any exercise at all - muscles only do what the brain tell them to do.

However, his statements regarding the 'myth' of aerobic conditioning etc are a little bit sweeping. Undoubtedly there are changes within the active musculature (and the blood) in response to aerobic endurance training that occur long after growth has completed. If he was to look at the two papers by Andy Jones regarding changes in Paula Radcliffes physiology from the age of 16 through to her WR marathon performance, then he would see that PR's Lactate 'threshold' and 'turnpoint' both shift to a higher speed almost year on year. Interestingly it is also demonstrated that in any given year the speed she can maintain over the marathon almost exactly coincides with 'threshold' speed, and that 10k performance almost exactly coincides with 'turnpoint' speed. Jones recognises that although our understanding of what lactate thresholds actually represent in recent years, a rightward shift of the lactate / speed curve is indicative of positive METABOLIC adaptation.

With regards to the 'skill' of running, clearly this is also important. However, it does seem as though the kind of high intensity training being advocated to development this only makes up a tiny fraction of the training performed by world class athletes. In research presented by David Martin and Stephen Seiler in the previous year or so, the ballpark figure of ~10% seems to be the norm (information collected from retrospective training diary analysis of world class athletes in a range of endurance sports). Although the exact reasons for this are uncertain, one of the proposals was that LSD training makes athletes better able to cope with the 'stress' of high intensity training. I actually attended a presentation by David Martin where he kept talking about 'playfull' running, and actually used quotes from Joe Hendersons LSD book which he thought pertinent ("LSD is more of a recovery system than a training system). Information was presented regarding the preparation of elite Australian track cyclists who produced some of the fastest ever 4km pursuit times immediately after completing major tours which can hardly be considered 'specific' (and therefore require a different skill) in any way shape or form.

Although it does seem to be acknowledged almost universally that some event specific training is necessary in order to optimise performance, current thinking is that this generally just achieves the effect of mobilising current physiological / metabolic capacity. An overemphasis on 'skill' and underemphasis on physiological conditioning is therefore just as likely to result in underperformance than the opposite.

Sorry - in previous post I should have said that specific training typically takes up ~5% of total load, not 10%

maardn DK wrote:

Too many (almost every single) physiologist would tell me that I have become a better runner because I have raised my aerobic capacity and have higher thresholds and stupid stuff like that. But it's not true at all.

What is the truth.

That's all good in another thread about technique. I guess your problem (or maybe every one else's problem) is finding enough people interested and willing and competent enough to talk about it.Did you read Matt Fitzgerald's "Braining Training"? I think he gives a good summary of some key characteristics of good form that he has observed in all great runners. Then, he gives a list of different exercises to perform in cross-training, and proprioceptive cues you should think about while you are training, to help improve/perfect your form (i.e. train your neural pathways to get better at running with good form).Perhaps this would be a good starting point to form the perfect "Running Technique" thread.I bet once we've looked at Running Technique long enough, we will find that we are limited in technical perfection, not the least of which is that running technique can only be perfected for some 20 years or so, before our core physiology starts to weaken.

wellnow wrote:

[...]

Here's some stuff we should be discussing:

When we run downhill, knee lift is low, but the feet kick forwards noticeably (have you noticed that)

When we run uphill, knee lift is high, the feet don't kick forwards noticeablbly

When running on the flat, there is a subtle combination of the two techniques. In all running, a powerful push allows a longer stride, which gives more speed, which gives a heavier landing which allows an even more powerfull push, etc etc........

There is no limit to how good a technician you can be.

Dontcha think?

The 'training zones' of the original post are:

They are out of date because the dogma surrounding them ignore the fundamental issue of neuromuscular coordination.

Hayduke wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Huh? That post makes no sense at all.

You are quoting maardn not me, and even then, you don't seem to grasp what he is saying.

This from the guy who does nothing but argue semantics and tries to pawn it off as original thought.

*********************************************

So you ran 1.12 for a half marathon off slow training? So what?

And don't make stupid comments about what you think I know or don't know. If you can't engage intelligently, don't bother posting?

*************************************

Don't you see the obvious contradiction in what you have written there AJR?

Jones shows how Paula's VO2 max dropped by 3% during that period, yet she got faster.

What you wrote about 'lactate turnpoint' shows that you don't understand that this apparent metabolic improvement is nothing of the sort. It's a neuromuscular development.

I am not underestimating the metabolic developments, you are overestimating them. And you are also underestimating the skill improvements.

For another thread perhaps. There will never be many people interested enough though. We can't talk about the limits of technical perfection though, there is so much to learn. And as for a time frame of 20 years? No, I'm 47 and I feel so much room for improvement in my stride rate x stride length x endurance.