HR-training: can running too fast inhibit aerobic adaptations?

aboondo wrote:

train smart wrote:

He didn't even read my post before he agreed with it. Weird. I'm saying the concept of 'aerobic benefit' is nonsense, pure pseudocience. Neural adaptions are what we are looking for.

Guess you've never heard of mitochondrial density or capillary growth...

Yes, two more areas where you can spout your reductionist 'aerobic development' dogma.

So you think that more running will give you more mitochondria? But you have no actual evidence? Do you think it will improve your absolute VO2 max? Do you know what that means?

Capillary growth? Did you know that this is ongoing througout your life, regardless of your fitness?

Do you understand the neural adaptions? Do you care? No, you don't.

Pretty sure that "train smart" is J.O. and that Renato covered this awhile back:

With the due respect for the athlete J.O., I don't think the examination of a training of somebody 40-50 years old, with PB of 4' - 15'15" - 31' something, can really give some information about the system for reaching the peak when you are a top runner 25 years old.

However, I agree about your neural analysis, but obviously I don't agree with your idea that the bioenergetic system can't be developed.

If the answer of our body is neural only, how can you explain the fact that, when preparing specifically a Marathon (with correct volume and intensity), you go to reduce the produced lactate (running at the same speed), with a clear diminution of glycogen (and increase of fatty acids) in the fuel the athlete use ?

Here there is a set of sets SPEED / LACTATE / HEART RATE, named Faraggiana-Gigliotti test, made with the Olympic Marathon Champion 1988 (GELINDO BORDIN), in the periodincluding the best 15 months of his career.

The test consisted in 5 x 2000m run at even pace (using an acustic rabbit), increasing the speed of every test of 2.5 sec per km, with a recivery of 45" (time for taking blood from the ear).

We can see the results of 5 different tests, carried out in the following days :

12 Jun 1987 (start of the specific period before WCh)

02 Jul 1987

17 Aug 1987 (last test before WCH, Gelindo won bronze)

29 Mar 1988 (fundamental period for Seoul Olympics)

16 Sep 1988 (last test before winning Gold medal)

We can see the times of every 2000m, lactate and HR.

1 2 3 4 5

6:20 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.0 ---

171 167 167 158

6:15 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.3 1.45

175 171 168 161 159

6:10 3.1 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.50

177 175 172 164 164

6:05 3.8 3.1 2.1 2.15 1.75

178 179 174 170 168

6:00 5.9 4.9 3.0 2.85 2.40

185 181 177 172 172

5:50 --- --- --- --- 3.30

173

Speed per Km of Marathon Pace :

3:09 3:07.7 3:05 3:03.5 3:01

How is possible to see, increasing the SPECIFIC VOLUME OF KM RUN ABOUT MARATHON PACE (from 95% to 105% of the planned speed, in case of Bordin from 2'50" and 3'12"),

the muscle fibers learn how to use less glycogen and more fatty acid, and this is not a neural factor.

Jono, running technique can't be developed forever, and surely, if a coach is able to work in this direction, you can have big advantages in the first 2-3 years, but after you have a STABILIZATION of your technique.

In spite of that stabilization, the athlete continue to improve. The question is : WHY ?

And the answer is : BECAUSE WE PRODUCE VARIATIONS IN THE METABOLIC SYSTEM.

So, correct training is a combination of the two factors.

If it's wrong not to give the right importance to the development of neural factors, it's also wrong not to give importance to the development of metabolic factors.

Renato Canova

Just to be clear, everything in the last post after the first sentence was quoted from a Renato post in this thread, page 15, about halfway down the page:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5460433&page=14

gdm wrote:

U.N.O. wrote:

You can`t/shouldn´t

where do those funny apostrophes come from?

It's a normal apostrophe having an recovery day, in between hard posts.

Here's another way to think about it. Most of us are following some kind of training cycle, with target peaks once or twice per year and some active rest afterwards.

In the early stages you build up the volume of training. It doesn't have to be too hard. So you will add reps to sessions, and add miles to your week, keeping it very slow, and backing off a bit for a week when you need to. It's a LOT easier to increase the mileage when the running is slow. Deliberately going very slowly on your non-interval days will let you build up your mileage faster.

When you have got up to your target mileage, you'll start to focus on those quality sessions, and you'll naturally find that the easy runs start to speed up a few weeks later. It becomes no real effort to run at 7:30 miles, when you were doing 8:00 or even 8:30 and dog-tired previously.

And when you are really in form, you might find yourself zipping along surprisingly fast even on the easy days between speed workouts.

Nobody I met ever kept the same training pattern month-in, month-out, without any evolution. It just seems to work best to build up your volume first, and to do it with easy running. Maybe this is why people think slower running has some magical effect.

Cheers...

Fats, Renato has got that backwards. Improvment in efficiency is neural, more spring in your stride = less energy for a given pace, less glycogen, less oxygen.

The problem you and Renato have is that you don't even understand the concept you are discussing.

You're welcome.

J.O.

I agree mostly euro. However some people just don't seem to like running fast. They don't get that euphoria, but rather it makes them hurt. So there are negative emotions that they are attaching to fast running which need to be adressed.

I can't help but think, replacing a reductionist aerobic development model with a reductionist neural efficiency model is a step sideways.The body is a complex organism, with many systems: cardio-vascular, muscular, nervous, endocrine, and skeletal.It's not all about oxygen consumption, but it's also not all about springy muscles and tendons, and coordinated nerves.

train smart wrote:

Yes, two more areas where you can spout your reductionist 'aerobic development' dogma.

So you think that more running will give you more mitochondria? But you have no actual evidence? Do you think it will improve your absolute VO2 max? Do you know what that means?

Capillary growth? Did you know that this is ongoing througout your life, regardless of your fitness?

Do you understand the neural adaptions? Do you care? No, you don't.

It's not a reductionist neural model. It's holistic. You are building your neural adaptions on top of your already existing cardiovascular development and all other healthy (that word again) adaptions.

You wanted a reference to this? Costill 1972, Daniels 1973. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I'm sure you will find the references. How many papers did they publish in each year? Not many, each one takes months to prepare and submit and be accepted.

The point is that the heart is the driving mechanism of cardiovascular fitness on which is built the mitochondrial density and capilary density and all other 'aeobic' adaptions. The healthy heart doesn't keep growing. It is either healthy and normally developed or unhealthy and under developed (through extreme laziness) or it it is weakend through illness.

So your 'aerobic development' concept is really rather nonsensical. The developments that people are refering to are actually improvements in running skill and efficiency.

But you knew all that already didn't you rekrunner? You just wanted to draw it out of me?

Well check the references and pass it on.

J.O.: If I were a coach, I would love to have the "problem" or problems that Renato has.

Yes, he is an outstanding coach, I agree.

It's your "either/or" approach that has always bothered me. If it's holistic, you have to consider the whole, made up of all the pieces -- you seem to want to replace one piece with another, rather than accepting traditional models that have always included both (and more).

Aerobic development is not nonsensical, and neural adaptations do not disprove aerobic development, but supplement it.

Aerobic development is a short term adaptation which is quickly developed, and something quickly lost when you stop training.

Efficiency is a long term development, which does not go away (quickly).

train smart wrote:

You won't develop your 'aerobic system' that is a popular myth. Your heart isn't going to keep growing and growing, that doesn't happen.

Training adaptions are neural, you get more skilled, you get more spring in your stride and become more efficient.

That is false. Sure, training adaptations can be neural and increasing running economy is a source of improved performance, but it is not the only means.

And your heart growing larger is not the source of a "developed aerobic system". There are many factors that can be addressed to improve aerobic fitness.

Mitochondria density is highest adjacent to capillaries. Capillary growth stimulation is most effective when training at around 70% mhr, not because this produces the fastest growth rate, but because it's the most effective combination of training volume and growth rate.

I have a theory too wrote:

Capillary growth stimulation is most effective when training at around 70% mhr, not because this produces the fastest growth rate, but because it's the most effective combination of training volume and growth rate.

"An increased capillarization has been observed in training studies performed at 70–80% of VO2 max (Andersen & Henriksson, 1977; Denis et al. 1986)

whereas training at an intensity of 45% of VO2 max has been shown to have no effect on capillarization (Schantz et al. 1983)"

70-80% of VO2max is about 80-88% of MHR, which basically means training at/close to the lactate threshold intensity, and 45% of VO2max means ~65% of MHR. Maybe you meant 70% of VO2max? Or if not, what is your source?

the haddite wrote:

train smart wrote:

You won't develop your 'aerobic system' that is a popular myth. Your heart isn't going to keep growing and growing, that doesn't happen.

Training adaptions are neural, you get more skilled, you get more spring in your stride and become more efficient.

That is false. Sure, training adaptations can be neural and increasing running economy is a source of improved performance, but it is not the only means.

And your heart growing larger is not the source of a "developed aerobic system". There are many factors that can be addressed to improve aerobic fitness.

It's not false. Your oxygen uptake will not develop beyond your normal healthy state. Those many factors you might wish to address are misconceived by a lack of knowledge of the neural factors. You demonstrate this in you post by undervaluing this importance. Where do you think running economy and efficiency come from? From a more efficient stride. And where does that come from if your oxygen uptake is not improving?

train smart wrote:It's not false. Your oxygen uptake will not develop beyond your normal healthy state. Those many factors you might wish to address are misconceived by a lack of knowledge of the neural factors. You demonstrate this in you post by undervaluing this importance. Where do you think running economy and efficiency come from? From a more efficient stride. And where does that come from if your oxygen uptake is not improving?

You're correct that Running Economy (RE) is influenced by mechanical and neural efficiency... but they don't determine RE. RE is also influenced by metabolic efficiency. While maximal oxygen uptake is not likely to be the deciding factor in one's performance (in a well-trained endurance athlete), there are still improvements to be made in the delivery, transport, and utilization of oxygen within the body. Just because you're uptaking oxygen at a certain rate (at the limit of your physiology as you seem to be implying) doesn't mean you're utilizing that oxygen in the best way possible... this is where metabolic adaptations come in.

There's more to "aerobic" than your ability to take in oxygen...

the haddite wrote:

You're correct that Running Economy (RE) is influenced by mechanical and neural efficiency... but they don't determine RE. RE is also influenced by metabolic efficiency. While maximal oxygen uptake is not likely to be the deciding factor in one's performance (in a well-trained endurance athlete), there are still improvements to be made in the delivery, transport, and utilization of oxygen within the body. Just because you're uptaking oxygen at a certain rate (at the limit of your physiology as you seem to be implying) doesn't mean you're utilizing that oxygen in the best way possible... this is where metabolic adaptations come in.

There's more to "aerobic" than your ability to take in oxygen...

^^this