Norway is the global leader in blood doping.
Google this.
Norway is the global leader in blood doping.
Google this.
Parsec wrote:
norseMN wrote:
Thanks for pointing out my error. It looks like they go intense close to the peak races and threshold the rest of the year. Interesting in the the interviews with his coach that they set at 1.0 mmol of lactate for endurance training. That’s very easy FatMax training.
Vast majority of all elite endurance athletes, with the pseudo exception of runners, train this way. Rowers. XC skiing. Cycling. You name it.
60% or so of HRmax is a pretty typical day. About 80% of training sessions and 90% of training time is that intensity. The other bit is your hard intervals at/above threshold, often focused on extending interval duration rather than intensity.
It works because interval stuff is dose dependent (time * intensity = benefit), but general aerobic pathways are time exposure (time = benefit) dependent.
It doesn't make a difference, metabolically, if you go at 1mmol lactate/60% of HRmax or 2.5mmol/80% of max. Same aerobic benefits.
So, you go easier and keep CNS fatigue low, avoid injuries, and can do much higher volume easier and still execute quality intervals.
Runners are the only group that dont do this. Most non pros seem to run at 75% or higher of HRmax, around 2-3mmol, and most pros are still around 65-70% or so.
Even in running its surprising how few guys running 14-20' that haven't caught on how much easier the pros train. Threshold pace for an elite is like 4:30-4:40. Most elites are doing general mileage between 6:00-7:00 pace. At the fastest end thats 75% of threshold speed.
Scaled for a 17' guy thats 7:20 at the fastest to 8:30 at the slowest. Slower for recovery. For a 20' guy thats 8:30 at the fastest! 10:00 at the slow end.
That’s an excellent explanation. One that I wish more US runner would understand and apply.
this should be pinned to the top of the message board
Great post parsec.
For your average 14-15min 5ker there is nothing beneficial happening on 5:45 to 6:30 mileage days that couldn’t be accomplished at 7:30 or 8:00. Too slow to be moving the fitness needle, but fast enough to be fatiguing and making the athlete wonder why they underperform in races and feel flat all the time.
Damn I want a time machine and go back to my prime and train intelligently.
I follow a guy on strava who runs 100mpw at 6:00 pace or faster and has prs of 14:40 and 2:15 marathon.
Parsec wrote:
Vast majority of all elite endurance athletes, with the pseudo exception of runners, train this way. Rowers. XC skiing. Cycling. You name it.
60% or so of HRmax is a pretty typical day. About 80% of training sessions and 90% of training time is that intensity. The other bit is your hard intervals at/above threshold, often focused on extending interval duration rather than intensity.
1) It works because interval stuff is dose dependent (time * intensity = benefit), but general aerobic pathways are time exposure (time = benefit) dependent.
2) It doesn't make a difference, metabolically, if you go at 1mmol lactate/60% of HRmax or 2.5mmol/80% of max. Same aerobic benefits.
3) So, you go easier and keep CNS fatigue low, avoid injuries, and can do much higher volume easier and still execute quality intervals.
4) Runners are the only group that dont do this. Most non pros seem to run at 75% or higher of HRmax, around 2-3mmol, and most pros are still around 65-70% or so.
Even in running its surprising how few guys running 14-20' that haven't caught on how much easier the pros train. Threshold pace for an elite is like 4:30-4:40. Most elites are doing general mileage between 6:00-7:00 pace. At the fastest end thats 75% of threshold speed.
Scaled for a 17' guy thats 7:20 at the fastest to 8:30 at the slowest. Slower for recovery. For a 20' guy thats 8:30 at the fastest! 10:00 at the slow end.
To
1) For endurance sport possible the most important factor is the invested net training time per week. In this respect you can not compare a pro with an amateur. So to get the most out for the invested time another strategy must be used for the guy who invests muss less of time.
2) But there are other benefits , e.g. recruiting more and different muscle fiber groups
3) Pros need to train so low, because they train much more often as an amateur athlete. That stresses the whole body and brain and this is the real reason why they have to go lower.
4) The Norwegian Olympic Federation they use a 3-Zone model and lactate around 1.5-2.5 mmol is 72-82%HRmax. And 0.8 -1.5 mmol is 55-72% HRmax. (Note: The reference values are guidelines only, and individual adjustments are required. )
edsjfddkjha wrote:
Norway is the global leader in blood doping.
Google this.
Please enlighten us. And no Norwegian caught. How is it then possible to be the global leader?
He just won the MTB xc gold medal
That bikie won the mountainbike gold medal.
lexel wrote:
1) For endurance sport possible the most important factor is the invested net training time per week. In this respect you can not compare a pro with an amateur. So to get the most out for the invested time another strategy must be used for the guy who invests muss less of time.
This^
A friend of mine was a 29,57 10k runner in the 1990s. He worked full time in the army, had 2 kids when he was in his early 20s and had a wife who worked full time. He didn´t have the time or energy to do any kind of mileage. If your kids wake up at 5 am you don´t tell your wife to deal with them while you go for a morning run.
His training was 80 km/week with 2 workouts and the rest of the mileage was run at a fairly brisk pace. That gave him enough endurance to run 30 km XC in low 1,40s too.
He just won an Olympic cycling gold:
Dude looks way older than 27.
That was Tom Pidcock. He just won Olympic Gold on his mountain “bikie”.
well,, wrote:
lexel wrote:
1) For endurance sport possible the most important factor is the invested net training time per week. In this respect you can not compare a pro with an amateur. So to get the most out for the invested time another strategy must be used for the guy who invests muss less of time.
This^
A friend of mine was a 29,57 10k runner in the 1990s. He worked full time in the army, had 2 kids when he was in his early 20s and had a wife who worked full time. He didn´t have the time or energy to do any kind of mileage. If your kids wake up at 5 am you don´t tell your wife to deal with them while you go for a morning run.
His training was 80 km/week with 2 workouts and the rest of the mileage was run at a fairly brisk pace. That gave him enough endurance to run 30 km XC in low 1,40s too.
The vast majority of benefits come from running hard workouts and recovering from them, and from total time spent doing aerobic exercise.
You think cuz someone runs 14km in an hour that it's so much better than 10km in an hour because it's 4km more "training" but in reality they're both just an hour of easy aerobic exercise, and the 14km is causing unnecessary stress / delaying recovery. All the stress should come from the workouts. Imo he would have run the same times or faster by slowing down all the running between workouts.
Why are so many people repeating that Tom Pidcock won gold. It's been stated at least 8 times in this post and four times on this page alone? How did you see the question asking what happened to him and not see the other EIGHT PEOPLE respond he won gold? Don't forget about me today, rigth?
Ernest wrote:
Blummenfelt slowed a bit before the tape to showboat, which we've seen end it disaster.
I don't understand why triathletes and runners do this. Sure, it only ends in disaster occasionally but this is an important race and would be so sad to wipe out right at the end due to fooling around. Or get passed. I think one woman lost the Chicago marathon right at the end due to high-fiving the fans as she ran the last few meters. And wasn't there a half-marathon world championships for men that the guy lost because he put his arms up and eased right at the finish?
Beyond that, Blummenfelt was looking around so much as he broke away. We also see this in track even without breaking away. Uses energy and doesn't give you any useful info. If the guy was 2m behind you 3 seconds ago, why do you need to check his position again when you've got 800m to go. It's not like you need to immediately cover a move that far out.
uhhhh oh wrote:
well,, wrote:
This^
A friend of mine was a 29,57 10k runner in the 1990s. He worked full time in the army, had 2 kids when he was in his early 20s and had a wife who worked full time. He didn´t have the time or energy to do any kind of mileage. If your kids wake up at 5 am you don´t tell your wife to deal with them while you go for a morning run.
His training was 80 km/week with 2 workouts and the rest of the mileage was run at a fairly brisk pace. That gave him enough endurance to run 30 km XC in low 1,40s too.
The vast majority of benefits come from running hard workouts and recovering from them, and from total time spent doing aerobic exercise.
You think cuz someone runs 14km in an hour that it's so much better than 10km in an hour because it's 4km more "training" but in reality they're both just an hour of easy aerobic exercise, and the 14km is causing unnecessary stress / delaying recovery. All the stress should come from the workouts. Imo he would have run the same times or faster by slowing down all the running between workouts.
That´s nonsense. If you for some reason decide that you will do mileage way below your max (like in my example above), then you have to compensate for that reduced milage in some way, otherwise your total training load will decrease. It´s this silly LRC dogma that you can basically run as slow as you like on your non workout days, and the only support for that dogma is that silly "why I sucked in college" article by wejo, and the misconception that the Kenyans do all their easy miles at a crawling pace.
If you run 150 mpw+ at altitude, like wejo did, then you can run your mileage at 8 min/mile, but if you want to maximize your capacity at low mileage, then you either have to do like Jim Spivey: running monster workouts or increase the pace on your easy runs.
well,, wrote:
uhhhh oh wrote:
The vast majority of benefits come from running hard workouts and recovering from them, and from total time spent doing aerobic exercise.
You think cuz someone runs 14km in an hour that it's so much better than 10km in an hour because it's 4km more "training" but in reality they're both just an hour of easy aerobic exercise, and the 14km is causing unnecessary stress / delaying recovery. All the stress should come from the workouts. Imo he would have run the same times or faster by slowing down all the running between workouts.
That´s nonsense. If you for some reason decide that you will do mileage way below your max (like in my example above), then you have to compensate for that reduced milage in some way, otherwise your total training load will decrease. It´s this silly LRC dogma that you can basically run as slow as you like on your non workout days, and the only support for that dogma is that silly "why I sucked in college" article by wejo, and the misconception that the Kenyans do all their easy miles at a crawling pace.
If you run 150 mpw+ at altitude, like wejo did, then you can run your mileage at 8 min/mile, but if you want to maximize your capacity at low mileage, then you either have to do like Jim Spivey: running monster workouts or increase the pace on your easy runs.
Not nonsense - running easy runs too fast will give oxidative qualities to FT muscle fibres.
If not doing big workouts, I agree you can make the sessions harder, but you shouldn’t make your easy miles too fast.
Total training load sounds silly. Sprinters and marathon runners probably both train as much as they can, but are very different. It’s about the way you train.
Hey guys did you hear that Tom Pidcock of Great Britain won the Olympic Mountain Bike race?
Shame MVDP crashed on the first lap. Was looking forward to that battle.
I think you should go see how slow Kipchoge runs his easy runs compared to both his threshold pace and marathon pace. You will be surprised how slow it is relatively speaking.
well,, wrote:
[quote]lexel wrote:
1) For endurance sport possible the most important factor is the invested net training time per week. In this respect you can not compare a pro with an amateur. So to get the most out for the invested time another strategy must be used for the guy who invests muss less of time.
[/quote
This^
A friend of mine was a 29,57 10k runner in the 1990s. He worked full time in the army, had 2 kids when he was in his early 20s and had a wife who worked full time. He didn´t have the time or energy to do any kind of mileage. If your kids wake up at 5 am you don´t tell your wife to deal with them while you go for a morning run.
His training was 80 km/week with 2 workouts and the rest of the mileage was run at a fairly brisk pace. That gave him enough endurance to run 30 km XC in low 1,40s too.
Nice post and thank you for the information I’m going by the last two lines in your post mentioned that he ran a 30 km cross country and low 140s I’m guessing that maybe this guy was Swedish or Scandinavian those long cross country races in those countries?