Coaches - What should your Heart Rate be at for Tempo Runs?????

U.N.O. wrote:

You keep preaching the same old skill thing but here is the truth: to keep the lactate low at high speeds you need to condition the endurance of your muscle fibers, AND to get the maximum economy you need to also be efficient at your race speed.

Keeping the lactate low at high speed is purely a skill adaption. It is the SAME THING as economy.

Don't you see? That IS the endurance conditioning. The metabolic conditioning allows you to produce lactate for longer (more glycogen storage) and to use it aerobically, but the ability to move economically is determined by

Neuromuscular coordination = skill = range and economy and continuation of movement.

I would rather talk about economy training than endurance training when speaking of neuromuscular/running training. So yes, I see, you just play with words.

[quote]Voice of Ray-san wrote:

I was hoping for a little more science, and a little less anecdote.

To say it's the most important factor implies that we can isolate and measure the net effect of each of the many factors that lead to performance related improvements. I simply can't imagine how.

Otherwise, you simply can not say the "most", in a scientifically meaningful way.

[quote]

We can measure running economy in terms of the amount of oxygen consumed at a given pace. But I am more interested in how we improve it than worrying about scientific measurements. The only measurement worth anything is how well you race.

I've moved on to a different concern in the last few days. The question of why we can sometimes run very fast without breathing hard. This question has been baffling me for years.

U.N.O. wrote:

I would rather talk about economy training than endurance training when speaking of neuromuscular/running training. So yes, I see, you just play with words.

The right words, not the wrong words. Why don't you care about accuracy U.N.O. Why pretend that you know more than you do?

I think there is a practical difference for training, rather than just a terminological one. Consider two types of training that has been used by various prominent training groups:

1. Fast downhill running.

2. Workouts designed primarily to build the volume of running at a given pace (say, 5k pace). I'm no expert on Igloi, but he seemed to do something of this sort. Or people who trained with long sets of 100s. I'm sure letsrun can pull more names out of history than I can. Really any workout that uses shorter intervals with paces typically associated with longer segments, while not trying to minimized the rest so much that it becomes negligible (i.e. not 25x400 at 10k pace w/ 20 seconds rest, but rather running 8 miles alternating 100s at 5k pace, with 100s at recovery pace).

These workouts genuinely seem to have a different physiological target.

wellnow wrote:

Perhaps you should read more of the Hadd threads, and you will see why I am not a Hadd fan.

He talks a lot about the mythological lactate threshold, belief in which prevents people from seeing the bigger picture.

You never answered the question. You stated:

"My point is really very simple. Aerobic and Anaerobic capacities are very easy to maximize and I suggest that this takes only a few weeks at the most for an out of shape runner. For a regular trainer, we are already there."

How do you explain why coaches have their athletes cross train (while injured), and they're able to comeback within weeks (vs. someone who doesn't cross train and takes months to get back to the same fitness level)?

The right words, not the wrong words. Why don't you care about accuracy wellnow. Why pretend that you know more than you do?

answer the question wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Perhaps you should read more of the Hadd threads, and you will see why I am not a Hadd fan.

He talks a lot about the mythological lactate threshold, belief in which prevents people from seeing the bigger picture.

You never answered the question. You stated:

"My point is really very simple. Aerobic and Anaerobic capacities are very easy to maximize and I suggest that this takes only a few weeks at the most for an out of shape runner. For a regular trainer, we are already there."

How do you explain why coaches have their athletes cross train (while injured), and they're able to comeback within weeks (vs. someone who doesn't cross train and takes months to get back to the same fitness level)?

We are all eagerly awaiting your answer, Wellnow.

But I guess it will be the same old insults: "I´m the only one who knows what I´m talking about. You are just a bunch of ignorant idiots who are victims of some old dogma."

If you can maintain general fitness during injury, by cross training, then you should. You will get your specific fitness back quicker and possibly avoid getting depressed.

Now my question for you: what is the difference between general fitness, and running specific fitness?

Lets give this a third try:

"My point is really very simple. Aerobic and Anaerobic capacities are very easy to maximize and I suggest that this takes only a few weeks at the most for an out of shape runner. For a regular trainer, we are already there."

Cross training disproves your point.

With cross training: takes only weeks to get back back the neuromuscular losses.

Without cross training: takes months to get back aerobic fitness + neuromuscular losses.

The point being: it takes much longer to get the aerobic fitness back than the neuromuscular fitness, so NO, aerobic fitness IS NOT easy (or easier) to maximize.

How about this whopper:

It's the action of the muscles that determines the metabolic demands, not the other way around.

Lance Armstrong has one of the strongest metabolic engines on the planet but was no where near as good running as cycling. His Vo2max and lactate threshold are of course off the charts. He was able to "not suck" because of this, but he was still subpar compared to his cycling.

Alan

answer the question wrote:

Lets give this a third try:

"My point is really very simple. Aerobic and Anaerobic capacities are very easy to maximize and I suggest that this takes only a few weeks at the most for an out of shape runner. For a regular trainer, we are already there."

Cross training disproves your point.

With cross training: takes only weeks to get back back the neuromuscular losses.

Without cross training: takes months to get back aerobic fitness + neuromuscular losses.

The point being: it takes much longer to get the aerobic fitness back than the neuromuscular fitness, so NO, aerobic fitness IS NOT easy (or easier) to maximize.

What you are saying is nonsense.