is there any science behind this lactate threshold nonsense?

Tempo wins.

Fortunately, it isn't either/or.

CoahcB wrote:

The HARDER you work, the GREATER the stimulus. However, the stimulus must be applied for an extended period of time in order to create a response. This is why we don't just run all out 100m sprints every day in training.

We don't run all out sprints every day because it is too stressful on the bones and muscles and leads to injury.

We do run in-out repeats or interval sessions as often as possible, arranging the recovery periods so that the stimulus, i.e. acidosis, exists continuously and does not abate completely until the workout is done.

It just so happens that the intensity that brings about OBLA corresponds to a very hypoxic state. You could run harder, but your muscles wouldn't get any more hypoxic.

Hypoxic how? They use precisely as much oxygen as they get from the blood. If there isn't enough for what's demanded of them, they produce energy anaerobically, but that doesn't mean they're somehow suffocating. On the contrary, the acids generated result in more oxygen being available.

The blood gets "hypoxic" too during intense effort, but this drop in O2 saturation makes oxygen delivery more efficient, not less. Faster-moving blood and less O2-bound hemoglobin results in faster O2 uptake (and CO2 release) in the alveoli, while low muscle pH facilitates gas exchange similarly in the capillaries. Static measurements of how much O2 is in muscle don't tell you how fast the O2 is being used.

After a hard track repeat, it can take several minutes for breathing to return to normal even if you're lying down doing absolutely nothing. There is no oxygen being used for kinetic energy during that time, but there's plenty of acid to get rid of. The muscles aren't suffocating, there's nothing missing, they're just burning up. Active recovery, where they keep drawing oxygen from the blood, speeds things up as cations are swapped out for that oxygen.

The critical factor in MD and distance track racing is CO2. The runner hanging on to the back is not lacking oxygen, only failing to hold down the acid. After altering their form, they finally resort to overbreathing to lowers their blood CO2. This buys them a bit of time but ultimately constricts their blood vessels. Only then is oxygen consumption itself impaired, often catastrophically as they bonk and end up jogging.

S. Canaday wrote:

What that Sweet Nell Fenwick guy said below is good.

In a nutshell: (for distance running/racing over 10km). You get most "bang for your buck" with Lactate Threshold/Tempo type of training (think 85-87% of max HR/effort) intensity.

You don't induce much lactic acid that you destroy aerobic enzymes,

and you can still hold form for a pretty long time (i.e. up to 60-min all out about in a race situation) and so lots of volume for moderate-high quality workout sessions.

There is no lactic acid. You mean hydrogen ions. And why would they destroy aerobic enzymes? Ever heard of the electron transport chain?

Lactate is a carbohydrate.

The acidic environment of the blood (in prolonged states) destroys aerobic enzymes. You don't want to erode your aerobic fitness with intense anaerobic intervals...it's why training must be periodized.

"Lactic acid" is a term I assumed many would understand....

Lactate itself of course is utilized a lot as a fuel via many possible "lactate shuttles" (even the endothelial cells and brain can utilize some of it!).

H+ comes in from ATP hydrolysis mainly.

But to address more of the OP's question:

Since LT pace/velocity falls right in the spectrum between Vo2max and Marathon Race pace it is a good "intermediate pace" where one would want to improve lactate clearance/utilization, train their skeletal muscular fibers, and spend high volume workouts at.

In the end, we're trying to improve what % of velocity at Vo2max we can sustain (this is especially important for half marathon and marathon racing) and while the biochemistry of lactate clearance "shuttles", excess CO2 production, bicarbonate buffering systems, etc. is good to know... just think that you are working to improve overall efficiency with factors that boost Running Economy (while not getting hurt).

Diminishing returns wrote:

JoeD wrote:

A lot if you space them out. Didn't Jack Daniels do an experiment where he had some team alumni running 400m at a time in 75" with 5 minutes rest for literally 8 hours a day?

Even if it's a daily 12x400 or a daily 20' tempo who says the 12x4 guys won't run faster?

And that's why JD has never coached anyone to great success.

Tempo wins.

0 for 2. JD uses tempos all the time and has coached many to great success, but thanks for trying.

oh please... wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

What that Sweet Nell Fenwick guy said below is good.

In a nutshell: (for distance running/racing over 10km). You get most "bang for your buck" with Lactate Threshold/Tempo type of training (think 85-87% of max HR/effort) intensity.

You don't induce much lactic acid that you destroy aerobic enzymes,

and you can still hold form for a pretty long time (i.e. up to 60-min all out about in a race situation) and so lots of volume for moderate-high quality workout sessions.

There is no lactic acid. You mean hydrogen ions. And why would they destroy aerobic enzymes? Ever heard of the electron transport chain?

Lactate is a carbohydrate.

An acid is any substance that produces hydrogen ions in water.

Good discussion here, but I'd like to bring up the "rut" metaphor to contrast the mostly aerobic vs the both aerobic and anaerobic intensities.

For 5k and above, I think we can agree that we want to make our current 5k+ race pace more aerobic. So then we ought to base ourselves in an aerobic pathway and push gently in the direction of faster running. If we place ourselves into a significant anaerobic area, we'll improve our anaerobic metabolism; which is useful, yes, but if not timed well or overused, will draw our average metabolism too far to the anaerobic side and we end up relying on that more and more. In time, the aerobic system is less used to power intensities that were once mostly aerobic and that missing aerobic stimulus degrades long term fitness.

That's the all too common rollercoaster people find themselves on. Balance is important and the optimal relative stimuli is hugely different for different people and their natural disposition. As an example, you can compare a Lydiard model verses a Jack Daniels. As far as the "tempo" and "interval" intensities go, the Lydiard plan is focused more on the easier side for longer work periods whereas the JD plan is focused more on the harder and shorter work periods. Either one can be optimal for an individual. My personal opinion is that it depends on muscle fiber type and amount of testosterone an individual has.

Since you referenced Lydiard and Daniels...

Keep in mind Lydiard mentioned "3/4 efforts" which were essentially "Steady State" (I'd call them "Uptempo Runs.") for like 10-miles at a time during "base."

Furthermore, consider his "Hill Rep Phase." (Much like Daniels early "Rep" Phase). With hill training/reps/short intervals one can easily be manipulated with intensity/rest breaks and length/duration of each faster effort in a way to moderate blood lactate levels for a desired training stimulus: Build leg strength, iron in good form/mechanics, improve running economy..but also challenge the heart/lungs with spikes above 85-90% Max.HR for short bouts of time. Stimulate the FT fibers as well.

You say: "Lydiard plan is focused more on the easier side for longer work periods whereas the JD plan is focused more on the harder and shorter work periods. "

IMO that is a gross an oversimplification of the methods/philosophy of each coach!

You could look at muscle fiber type and individualize training to some extent with that in mind, but differences in training also really amount to what event one is training for/focusing on (in the context of months and years of periodization/adaptations).

Sage, on the 85-87% of max hr as one-hour race pace... Is this right for most people? Am I remembering wrong that hadd said that a well-trained runner with a max hr of 200 should be able to run most of a marathon at 174-177bpm (87-89%)

What have you seen for marathon hr ranges for elites and sub elites?

There seems to be a pretty big range with max. HR numbers.200 is pretty high for a max...even if one is in their early twenties...considering max HR goes down with age. Could very well be for some though. Yes, the general idea is that with higher levels of training and more strength one can race a marathon at increasingly closer to 100% of Lactate Threshold HR/pace/velocity.So in a very well trained runner LT might be around 90% of Max. HR. Maybe they can race a marathon closer to 88% of Max. HR. For lesser trained/slower runners LT might only be around 85% of Max. HR and they are only racing a marathon at 75% of Max HR/intensity/pace. They have a lot of work to do! But again, this is being really nit-picky with %'s of Max. HR (which most people don't even know their true 100% value). So it's all kind of just speculation. Measuring blood lactate values, Running Economy, RQ etc. at a variety of paces around goal M.P. could very well be better predictors of performance at a marathon (not to mention subjective feelings and actual paces hit on certain workouts....For example: Long Runs over 20 miles, and 5km repeats with a short rest while in the context of high mileage [i.e. 120-140mpw] training.

South dakota wrote:

Sage, on the 85-87% of max hr as one-hour race pace... Is this right for most people? Am I remembering wrong that hadd said that a well-trained runner with a max hr of 200 should be able to run most of a marathon at 174-177bpm (87-89%)

What have you seen for marathon hr ranges for elites and sub elites?

Sage,

First of all, Lydiard's 10-mile 3/4 efforts illustrate my point perfectly. JD's tempos are shorter and higher intensity. Second of all, we don't need to go into other facets of training. We're talking about the lactate threshold here. The differences I point out between the Lydiard and JD models are strictly towards training centered around the lactate threshold idea. Both coaches' methods are too large a subject for an internet conversation. And Third, it should go without saying that the event type determines the training.

Lastly, I was agreeing with you. Good luck at Cal.

rojo, is that you? Was you one of the stupidist in you're frat?

Thanks! You're right in that it appears JD basically invented the "20-minute Tempo Run." Lydiard's 10-mile 3/4 efforts are working at the lower intensity range of the spectrum (I call it "Uptempo)....but really for effective training both are kind of needed! (i.e. 2 x 20min LT with a short rest is a little different stimulus from a 60-min progression run down to M.P.)I was implying that Hill Rep workouts can actually induce a Lactate Threshold type of stimulus in terms of overall HR intensity/Lactate Values (much like a Fartlek can be manipulated).But I agree, for the most part, JD's training has nailed down specific VDOT paces/intensities to a science where Lydiard was still coaching more in terms of "art/feel" (but just happened to be right about a lot of things now shown in the lab!).

turkey leg wrote:

Sage,

First of all, Lydiard's 10-mile 3/4 efforts illustrate my point perfectly. JD's tempos are shorter and higher intensity. Second of all, we don't need to go into other facets of training. We're talking about the lactate threshold here. The differences I point out between the Lydiard and JD models are strictly towards training centered around the lactate threshold idea. Both coaches' methods are too large a subject for an internet conversation. And Third, it should go without saying that the event type determines the training.

Lastly, I was agreeing with you. Good luck at Cal.

S. Canaday wrote:

The acidic environment of the blood (in prolonged states) destroys aerobic enzymes. You don't want to erode your aerobic fitness with intense anaerobic intervals...it's why training must be periodized.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2007.142109/full says:

Given the markedly lower training volume in the SIT group, these data suggest that high-intensity interval training is a time-efficient strategy to increase skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and induce specific metabolic adaptations during exercise that are comparable to traditional ET.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/84/6/2138.long says:

It was concluded that relatively brief but intense sprint training can result in an increase in both glycolytic and oxidative enzyme activity, maximum short-term power output, andV˙o 2 max.

it's on the track!

So let's take a step back and look at the big picture. Why do we run uptempo efforts? Whether they are strict 20 min tempos or longer sustained efforts or going way back to the hard efforts of someone like Jim Peters why do we run hard sustained efforts? Is it to improve some magical physiological variable? No. It's to improve race performance and all training should be geared to do that.

If your race is 10, 20, 30 or 60 or more minute in duration you should practice running hard for that period of time or longer.

We can validate ourselves all day long with exercise physiology because it looks cool, but the end game is doing what is necessary to improve your specific race performance. If that's a 60 minute uptempo run or a 20 minute tempo then so be it. You also need progression or you fail. Don't do something just because it looks cool. Do something because it will specifically benefit you better than what you did last week last month or last year.

Alan

ie6i5 wrote:

yeah, but... wrote:

The stupidist men in my fraternity...

This is like talking about the shortest guys in a village of pygmies. They're *all* short.

BTW: if it's a word at all, it's spelled "stupidest." Please tell me that you attended a state school.

Like, say, Cal, UVA, or Michigan?

That first study you posted was only 6 weeks of HIIT (if you call 30 sec reps on a bike at around 500W with a 4.5min recovery HIIT that is). vs. 65% of Vo2max -Easy.N=10 for the groups. Main thing is it didn't show much except that lower volume high intensity training can keep get one in shape much like higher volume lower intensity training (duh.)But again, they were doing sprint intervals on a bike...and it was only 6 weeks long!Not sure what you are getting at....obviously interval training and high intensity sessions get one in shape quickly....but long term?I'm not going to trust any study done on a bike with 30sec "sprint" intervals as something profound for distance running training. The fact of the matter is (in the long term) true Vo2max interval workouts and more anaerobic capacity sessions (think like 400m repeats at mile pace with a 2-min rest) that induce a significant drop in Ph are going to not be sustainable ...and eventually there will be a regression fitness (unless one periodizes and re- establishes an aerobic base again first with lower intensity training and then progressing with Uptempo to LT sessions).

Bad Wigins wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

The acidic environment of the blood (in prolonged states) destroys aerobic enzymes. You don't want to erode your aerobic fitness with intense anaerobic intervals...it's why training must be periodized.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2007.142109/full says:

Given the markedly lower training volume in the SIT group, these data suggest that high-intensity interval training is a time-efficient strategy to increase skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and induce specific metabolic adaptations during exercise that are comparable to traditional ET.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/84/6/2138.long says:

It was concluded that relatively brief but intense sprint training can result in an increase in both glycolytic and oxidative enzyme activity, maximum short-term power output, andV˙o 2 max.

it's on the track!

S. Canaday wrote:

Not sure what you are getting at....obviously interval training and high intensity sessions get one in shape quickly....but long term?

that interval training increases oxidative enzymes over time. You said it destroys them.

The fact of the matter is (in the long term) true Vo2max interval workouts and more anaerobic capacity sessions (think like 400m repeats at mile pace with a 2-min rest) that induce a significant drop in Ph are going to not be sustainable ...and eventually there will be a regression fitness (unless one periodizes and re- establishes an aerobic base again first with lower intensity training and then progressing with Uptempo to LT sessions).

Unsustainable for what reason other than supposedly lost enzymes? I'd believe maybe the much greater biomechanical stresses and anabolic demands during recovery. But in that context, reducing intensity merely amounts to rest. The benefits of rest don't mean rest is a better exercise.

After a long season of grueling workouts and track races, you're likely to see improvements just lying in front of the TV for two months.

Again, know doubt that a healthy mix of HIIT training (more anaerobic contribution) and Vo2max intervals leads to cellular adaptations (mitochondrial density and some aerobic enzyme activity) that can boost performance...esp at 1500m-10km.

You say "over time"...well again the studies you cited had cyclists riding 30sec intervals for a 6-week period....not very creditable....

The "over time" variable is key (as well as specifics of intervals/intensity/recovery/volume etc of course). What I'm saying (and what has been shown by Okkels et. al.) is that glycolytic enzyme activity has been shown to decrease from groups doing anaerobic interval training (read high intensity running intervals in the 200m to 600m range), when compared to a group of runners doing more (predominately aerobic, but occasionally crossing the LT) training with less than 10-11mmol Lactate values as a maximum intensity (read Vo2max intervals as highest intensity of training).

Again, a drops in blood PH induced by anaerobic capacity training is ("over time"....let's say over 8-10 weeks...a good "season building to peak fitness") is detrimental to long-term improvement.

In terms of skeletal muscular/fiber stress...: What we really want is the goal of mitochondrial development/oxidative capacity for Type IIb muscle fibers (fast oxidative glycolytic or "FOG"), because those are cellular improvements a lot more in line with LT/Tempo/Uptempo Training (the main topic of this thread). It is true, the stress of HIIT training on muscle fibers is great and often leads to burn-out/injury......but literal "burn-out" is the high intensity and high levels of Lactate/too frequent drop in blood Ph over too many consecutive weeks of hard track sessions.

And no, any high level performing, healthy athlete is not going to want to sit around for 2 months in front of the TV and do nothing. They would loose a ton of fitness.