Road Racing and Training Thread - Week ending 7/1/2018

pewow wrote:

Are you going to be at World Congress in Dublin next week?

I would really like to, but from my University, they are only taking teachers and pos-doc students. Master students will stay in Lisbon finishing their master thesis haha.

Are you going?

I don’t know enough about you to make a universal statement that you are under-performing in longer distances. But your speed in that track session certainly stands out. As a coach, I see a lot of potential in middle distance running for you, say from 800m up to 5K. I think you will surprise yourself when you jump into those shorter races next spring.

As you know, I am also an advocate of running very easy on your easy days. I think continuing to do that will help build up your base when you drop down to the faster stuff next spring. You are obviously highly motivated, and I love reading the enthusiasm in your reports. Keep up the great work.

PutoMiudo wrote:

pewow wrote:

Are you going to be at World Congress in Dublin next week?

I would really like to, but from my University, they are only taking teachers and pos-doc students. Master students will stay in Lisbon finishing their master thesis haha.

Are you going?

I was going to present but I withdrew my abstract because it was going to be way too expensive and I didn't have enough funding.

What is your master's thesis about?

pewow wrote:

What is your master's thesis about?

I'm doing a FEA for the contact pressures of the ankle cartilage when there is damage in the ligaments plus trying to validate computationally an experiment from a portuguese doctor that cut ankle ligaments from corpses and measured rotation angles.

Might get a publication out of this...still trying to find out that ahah

What was your abstract about?

Thanks for the responses to my meandering and poorly worded question. I find lactate threshold a fascinating topic, and this particular question isn't just a dive into the weeds of physiology. There are training implications.

Let me try to rephrase my question....

Things I understand and are important background info to my question:

1) Aerobic and anaerobic systems work in tandem at any speed, and the anaerobic contribution increases as pace increases. LT pace is marked by many coaches as an "ideal" pace for LT adaptation.

2) Buildup of H+, not lactate, through anaerobic respiration is the agent behind slowdown at high speeds, though lactate and H+ levels are so closely correlated that lactate serves as a good marker for anaerobic activity. An athlete's lactate buildup curve is one of the primary determinates of marathon pace.

3) Pre- and post-marathon lactate levels are nearly equivalent, implying low-level anaerobic activity at marathon pace. (The italicized portion is the belief I'm challenging.)

4) LT training increases the aerobic engine's capacity.

My question boils down to this:

Does LT adaptation also increase the anaerobic engine's contribution at marathon pace?

Puto (love your handle, btw), it sounds to me like you are saying YES. Does that hold true with my rephrased question?

Pappy, I meant the 1000 units of energy as a rate, not as total power during the race, though your answer is worth another discussion. So if my unadapted marathon pace demands 1000 units/min then the aerobic/anaerobic balance in my example is 800/200 units/min. If the answer to my question is YES, then it would imply my body could supply a hypothetical and arbitrary 1000/400 unit/min mix while maintaining blood pH at the same level, with a large increase in the anaerobic contribution. The implication is that alternations could be a more effective way to stimulate an increased anaerobic contribution at marathon pace.

jewbacca wrote:

My question boils down to this:

Does LT adaptation also increase the anaerobic engine's contribution at marathon pace?

Puto (love your handle, btw), it sounds to me like you are saying YES. Does that hold true with my rephrased question?

I would say Yes and No at the same time. I would assume that by having LT adaptation, aerobic growth would also occur and that growth would be (and is) major key at MP.

However, at MP the most important engine is the Aerobic one. So the Anaerobic actually becomes secondary and in my head I have it like this:

To have a faster MP you have to push your LT pace up. But to keep running that MP your Aerobic engine accepts most of the work and the Anaerobic actually stays behind.

Maybe it was too confusing...

PutoMiudo wrote:

pewow wrote:

What is your master's thesis about?

I'm doing a FEA for the contact pressures of the ankle cartilage when there is damage in the ligaments plus trying to validate computationally an experiment from a portuguese doctor that cut ankle ligaments from corpses and measured rotation angles.

Might get a publication out of this...still trying to find out that ahah

What was your abstract about?

I do CFD aka coloring for doctors. I've mostly done work on blood vessels but recently I've taken a detour into the brain.

The abstract was about how waves are reflected in blood vessels because when a stent or something is placed in a vessel it is much stiffer than the blood vessel and some of the blood pulse is reflected instead of travelling through the stent.

Been slacking in posting the last few weeks.

32/M chasing sub-3. 10k on 8/4, half on 10/6, Grand Rapids Marathon 10/21. PR's of 40:01 (2016), 1:25:54 (2014) and 3:04:00 (2014).

Week of 6/11 - 6/17 - 44 miles in 6:08:00. 8:22 average pace. Was in CO for work part of the week. Altitude is no joke. 13.25 mile LR right at 8:00 pace.

Week of 6/18 - 6/24 - 60 miles in 8:25:26. 8:25 average pace. LR of 16 at 8:25 pace.

Last week:

M - 8 easy

T - 10.5 with a few accelerations thrown in

W - 4.5 easy

T - 6 easy

F - 16 in 7:56 pace. Solid run, the heat was picking up

Sa - 7.5 easy

Su - 8 easy

60.5 total in 8:26:06, 8:23 pace. Finished June with 224 miles in 31:19 for an 8:23 pace.

Last week of base, likely around 65 before starting a Hansonesque 15 week program for Grand Rapids. Having eased into higher (for me) mileage of 60+ and I think the dividends will come.

Smoove wrote:

OR, just focus on the heat adaptation that you'll get from these days and how hat will prepare you even better for Richmond, especially if it turns out to be unseasonably warm.

+1

pewow wrote:

PutoMiudo wrote:

I'm doing a FEA for the contact pressures of the ankle cartilage when there is damage in the ligaments plus trying to validate computationally an experiment from a portuguese doctor that cut ankle ligaments from corpses and measured rotation angles.

Might get a publication out of this...still trying to find out that ahah

What was your abstract about?

I do CFD aka coloring for doctors. I've mostly done work on blood vessels but recently I've taken a detour into the brain.

The abstract was about how waves are reflected in blood vessels because when a stent or something is placed in a vessel it is much stiffer than the blood vessel and some of the blood pulse is reflected instead of travelling through the stent.

We had, in March I think, a set of conferences in Lisbon (at my university) for computational methods in biomechanics and medicine and I think I heard someone mentioning this kind of work...

+1

This is a fascinating disucssion, just fascinating...thanks Puto, jewbacca, Pappy, et. al.

All I can say is that my coach, who is a pretty thorough and knowledgeable guy (and a 29:59 guy), believed that the ideal pace for threshold development was just slightly above (slower than) LT pace...so something like LT pace + 3-5 seconds.

Question regarding the science (and this may be dumb, but here goes): You mention “the increased anerobic contribution.” Why would one want to increase anerobic contribution? Would not one want to keep things aerobic—and train the body to keep things aerobic? Perhaps you are suggesting some type of alternate training for the anerobic system here?

So, as threshold development would regard me in particular, AJ points out that 6:04 is the T pace for a 2:48 marathoner, and he suggests me running about 6:00. I gather that my coach would prescribe 6:04, or a tick or two slower, for T reps, esp. with eight reps beng performed.

I point out that I am somewhat hesistant to discuss all of this, as the science of T stuff is incomplete and still “under construction,” but it is a very interesting topic.

The Stone Cutter wrote:

If you are looking to progress the workout. I would suggest something like this for you.

6x1mi @ 6:00/mi off 1:00 recovery jogs.

5 x 1.5mi @ 6:00/mi off :90 recovery jogs.

8 x 1mi @ 6:00/mi off 1:00 recovery jogs.

4x2mi @ 6:00/mi off 2:00 recovery jogs.

3x3mi @ 6:00/mi off 3:00 recovery jogs.

This is one way of progressing workouts. I would suggest that for a strength-oriented runner like OR...if and when he decides to enter a sharpening phase.. what he could benefit from is to progress intensity not duration of the intervals...and for the recoveries to shorten as the peaking window begins to close.

He can start with 8 x 1mile with very easy 400m jog and progress to....

8 x 1 mile w/200m jog

10 x 800m w/200m jog

8 x (50/50) sprint/float

Pappy wrote:

The main purpose is to push the LT so you can stay under it in the race, be able to use the fuel and produce less hydrogen.

+1

outsiderunner wrote:

Question regarding the science (and this may be dumb, but here goes): You mention “the increased anerobic contribution.” Why would one want to increase anerobic contribution? Would not one want to keep things aerobic—and train the body to keep things aerobic? Perhaps you are suggesting some type of alternate training for the anerobic system here?

The main goal is to keep everything aerobic! But it is impossible and aerobically we always have a plateau, either genetic or by other factors such as age or environment. So you have to complement with a sharp and well trained anaerobic system.

Seems a 'not so wrong' approach ahah

Gordon Tremeshko wrote:

This would also support the concept that running a threshold run too fast is detrimental for endurance, because then you're encouraging Type2b development instead of Type2a development and that results in less lactate consumption and possibly more lactate generation.

+ 1

outsiderunner wrote:

Question regarding the science (and this may be dumb, but here goes): You mention “the increased anerobic contribution.” Why would one want to increase anerobic contribution? Would not one want to keep things aerobic—and train the body to keep things aerobic? Perhaps you are suggesting some type of alternate training for the anerobic system here?

I'm not sure if increased anaerobic contribution is what happens or if it's desired. That system is always active, even at rest, and its contribution is greater at marathon pace than easy pace. The original comment just got me wondering if there was an anaerobic adaptation that was important to marathon training. In theory, if you can handle a larger anaerobic contribution then you should be able to maintain a faster marathon pace.

The original comment said that we want to teach the body to use lactate as fuel. My original reaction was, "But lactate levels at marathon pace are low, so why would I care about that?" If, as Puto says, lactate clearing doesn't increase allowing for a greater anaerobic contribution, then I don't see a good reason for alternations over steady tempos or cruise intervals.

jewbacca wrote:

My question boils down to this:

Does LT adaptation also increase the anaerobic engine's contribution at marathon pace?

My opinion...you're equating LT adaptation with "LT pace"...a common misunderstanding among Daniels followers

PutoMiudo wrote:

The main goal is to keep everything aerobic! But it is impossible and aerobically we always have a plateau, either genetic or by other factors such as age or environment. So you have to complement with a sharp and well trained anaerobic system.

Yes...COMPLEMENT with anaerobic training more in the way of topping off. There is a reason that it takes only 4-6 weeks of anaerobic training to reach maximal gains whereas you can go for months improving your aerobic capacity.