If Tim Noakes "Central Governor" Model is Correct AND there is NO Lactate Threshold, HOW should this effect my train

sim -

In review of my post, it appears I deleted the range. But, you are coaching elite runners so the example given is good.

Regards,

Tinman

Tinman:

Gotta run but just quickly... How's life with the little one? ;o) Getting enough sleep? Say, my wife, who's an American, told me that in this country (US), husbands change diapers... Is it really true; or was I suckered???

Tinman, thanks again (and to Nobby and Fu....)Regarding this bit, i was wondering when HR and VO2max came together and you provided the answer - 99%. When i said intensity i meant effort. What proportion of maximum effort is needed to run at VO2 max for example. Now i see 100% VO2max is around 7mins flat-out for a highly trained individual. This might be 80ish% in effort?Sim

Tinman wrote:

from sim:

"I am confused about 100% VO2max being equal to maximum HR being equal to maximum intensity. Can you help?"

---

from me:

I'm not sure what you are wanting to know when you ask the above question. % HR and %VO2 consumed rise differently toward peak. At lower training intensities, %HR is about 10% above %VO2. Example, as stated before, 70% HR = ~60% of VO2%. When they reach about 99% they become equal, according to what I've observed in the lab.

You state "maximum intensity." I am not sure if you mean VO2 max or what. Please clarify what you mean. Thanks!

--------------------------------------------------------

Tinman

runfastcoach@gmail.com

-------------------------------------------------------

rest = 1mmol(0.9-1.2), HR 25-35%/max,

AeT/LT*= 2mmol(??), HR 80-85%/max, (3:20/km Tinman)

MLSS** = 4mmol(??), HR 87-92%/max, (3:10/km)

VO2max = 8mmol(8-12), HR 100%max^, (2:40/km)

Lydiard(Snell)

10mile 5:30/m; 3:25/km

11mile+ 6:00-6:30/m; 3:45-4:00/km

22mile 7:00-6:00/m; 4:25/km-3:45/km

for 22 mile run

1/4 effort 7min/mile; 4:24/km

1/2 effort 6:30/mile; 4:06/km

3/4 effort 6min/mile; 3:48/km

*when blood lactate begins to accumulate (at an intensity below that which it does not accumulate)

**when blood lactate accumulation steadies at a constant level at which work is repeatable for a significant length of time (30-60min)

^a sliding scale where HR=VO2max=intensity at maximum effort whereas 60%VO2max=70%HR and 99%VO2max=99%HR.

------------------------------------------------------------

So i would assume this means that most of Snell's longer running is done under the LT. The LT is not breached during base training phase. Is this true?

I believe that the combination of both may seem most effective. I may be at my aerobic threshold and feel wonderful

and sometimes I feel like I am putting so much effort for the same physical response( breathing rate and breathing effort).

So while Daniels tempos may seem effective on one level, I believe if one doesn't heed the warning of the psychological response to the exertion perhaps improvement may be limited or even go backwards.

A like the concept of the "central governor model". All things being equal in training,I have ignored negative signals to the brain, ignored the message that I am not desiring the effort to push at threshold and suffered plateaus and even have gone backwards.

It may be worthwhile to use a rating system ( scale 1-10) to judge the desire on has during a workout. Maybe then use some rule that dictates the response to this scale. Example( I start out at tempo pace, the perceived effort is very hard ( 7 or higher) from the start. After 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile stop and jog home. Recover for a period of time( jog slowly, cross train or whatever) so that one really recovers the system. Only then, after the desire and sense of effortlessness comes back, resume traing as normal.

The schedule is from Molvar's site. A good program, but (sorry!) not quite a good representation of Lydiard. That Snell's training schedule is probably an example of his best weeks.

Besides, I don't think it's even relevant to talk about lactate level and sll for marathon conditioning--it shouldn't dip into that level. They should all be aerobic; or, if this term is scientifically inrorrect, then it all should be done nice and easily to the point where you come in "pleasantly tired". Arthur's runners never had any problem just because they couldn't measure their blood lactate level during the run. But if anything, they were probably getting close to, and over a bit, the border line red zone, going up and down those hills.

The problem is; you just cannot put it down with the numbers (like 9 weeks or 7-minute pace or 87%). For all I can say is; Snell started out conditioning with back to back twice a day running at 7-minute pace (all of them) for a few months; then once started 100MPW, he "improved" his runs from 2:30 Waitak down to somewhere around 2:10. So he really wasn't basing it on his 5k time or 10k time or whatever. On the other hand, another Lydiard stable, Bill Baillie, told me that he never quite advanced from 7-minute pace for Waitak (which is a bit surprising because, in his younger days, he was known to race his training). Both did reasonably well so you just can't say anything slower than 7 is waste of time or it shouldn't be faster than 7 or things like that.

You progress from one stage to the next. Someone claimed that, because Snell didn't quite do 100MPW regularly, 100MPW is over-rated. Well, he actually "progressed" to the point where he handled 100MPW for a period of 10 weeks and that's when he had the best season (Tokyo). Could he have done better if he did 100MPW more regularly? Well, that's quite irrelevant--he couldn't handle it!

Sorry, I meant to say Snell started with easy twice a day for few weeks; not months.

Nobby -

Our baby is doing fine - nearly 5 months old, now! He's healthy, smiles a lot, and giggles. I never thought I'd be a first-time parent in my 40s!

Changing diapers is something I do about 1 in 5. I play with my wife and say, "Honey, how do you do this again?" I do, however, play with him often and give my wife a break, so I make up for it in other ways.

Hope you and your family are well!

Take care,

Tinman

I'm not Tinman, but where exactly is this Shangri la that you live, and how do I get a visa?

Steve

from sim:

"When i said intensity i meant effort. What proportion of maximum effort is needed to run at VO2 max for example. Now i see 100% VO2max is around 7mins flat-out for a highly trained individual. This might be 80ish% in effort?"

-----

from Tinman:

About 72-75% of best sprint speed over 200m is about 3k pace is for most distance runners. So, you probably can say 72-75% of best effort/speed = ~VO2 max. Example, runner who can run 8 flat in the 3k (32 seconds per 200m) probably can run in the 23-24.0 range at full effort, which is about 71.9-75% of best sprint speed. Note; some 8 flat runners will have better or worse srint speed. Those who have worse speed than 24 seconds will need to compensate by increasing their endurance capacity.

Regards,

Tinman

Tinman,

Good to see you posting. I don't always agree with you, but I like the exchange of ideas you always bring.

Jed,

Thanks! I hope you and your family are well!

Tinman

sim -

Yes, Peter's running during marathon (base) conditioning was below his LT, it appears.

At 5:30 per mile (Snell's fastest 10-mile run pace each week - at "3/4th effort") he was running ~75% of his VO2 maximum; a solid but not "hammering" pace for a man of his ability!

At 6:30 per mile, Snell's slowest pace, he was running just over 60% of VO2 max, provided he was able to run about 4:01 for the mile during marathon (base) conditioning at the time.

From every angle, it appears he was training optimally; and his results prove the training method was effective!

Tinman

I have noticed a lot of elite runners do their "basic runs" or easy mileage at around a 7 minute/mile pace (with the exception being the japanese marathoners). There is something about 7 minute/mile pace. Maybe....

any slower and it is hard to keep the turnover

any faster and it is too fast (no greater aerobic development but extra fatigue)?

Another exception is Hicham El Guerrouj, who did tempos at sub 4:50 pace 4-5 days a week during the base phase. Didn't Lydiard say that this would impede aerobic development?

--------------------------------------------------------

rest = 1mmol(0.9-1.2), HR 25-35%/max,

--------------------------------------------------------

Marathon training phase

base/easy; 1/4 7min/mile+; (4:25+min/km,53sec/200m).

intermediate; 1/2 6-7min/mile; (3:55-4:25min/km,47/200m).

hard/approaching LT; 3/4 5:30/mile; 3:35min/km,43/200m).

--------------------------------------------------------

Lactate zone

AeT/LT*= 2mmol(??), HR 80-85%/max, (3:20/km,40sec/200m); 60%effort(24sec/200m)

MLSS** = 4mmol(??), HR 87-92%/max, (3:10/km),38/200m); 65%effort

VO2max = 8mmol(8-12), HR 100%max^, (2:40/km),32/200m); 75%effort

--------------------------------------------------------

800m in 1:50 = 27.5secs/200m,2:15/km; 84%effort(23/200m)

1500m in 3:45 = 30/200m,2:30/km; 77-80%(23-4/200m)

3000m in 8:00 = 32/200m,2:40/km; 75%(24/200m)

5000m in 14:10 = 34/200m,2:50/km; 70%(24/200m)

10000m in 30:00 = 36/200m,3:00/km; 67%(24/200m)

10mile/16km in ???

*when blood lactate begins to accumulate (at an intensity below that which it does not accumulate)

**when blood lactate accumulation steadies at a constant level at which work is repeatable for a significant length of time (30-60min)

^a sliding scale where HR=VO2max=intensity at maximum effort whereas 60%VO2max=70%HR and 99%VO2max=99%HR.

------------------------------------------------------------

what do you guys think?

Now that i look at it again Tinman i have a few questions

When VO2max is at 99% and HR is meant to be at 99% of it's maximum, i take it this is not absolute maximum. What is it?

I found it difficult to imagine that out of 26 weeks only 4 would be hard anaerobic/lactate training. Now it seems more plausible. 12 weeks aerobic base training, 4 weeks hill training, 4 weeks anaerobic repetitions, 6 weeks sharpening/peaking. Repeat twice for a double periodised year.

As a decathlete trained under a modified Soviet style of periodisation i see training during general preparation as being totally aerobic. Within this expanding aerobic bubble technique, strength, speed and power are also developed, and they could be called strength endurance, speed endurance and power endurance. Specific preparation sees the aerobic bubble remain however its growth slows as some energy is redirected into aerobic power and maximal strength development. Basically the primary purpose of these two phases is to allow for change (physical, technical) whilst building the aerobic capactity of the athlete.

The distance events are quite different although there could be strong arguments why the 800m is also quite similar. The difference is the lack of need to throw shot puts or jump over pole vault bars or sprint 100m to their maximal ability. This fact means that much of the time/energy spent on strength, power, speed and tecnique will be saved. This time/energy can then be spent on the extra aerobic running necessary for these events.

This is not to say that the broad athletic development of the athlete is to be ignored. Before someone is a middle distance athlete they are an athlete. To ignore athleticism is a serious mistake in my thinking. Throwers are the best example of this problem although middle distance runners may well be second. So strength is developed and technique are developed from the beginning for me through running training (80-100m runthroughs past me with feedback for about 8-10 reps), circuit training (learning correct posture through a variety of exercises) and technical event training (such as hurdle drills, bounding drills and medicine ball drills). It is all of low to 75% intensity and is engineered to promote change and to make the long running more technically efficient.

If i perceive it is preventing the athlete from resetting their base aerobic capacity (as i think Lydiard was looking for but i could be wrong) then i will have to let it go. If it doesn't inhibit this change or resetting then it will remain.

would love some feedback

Sim

sim -

In MY opinion and from my observation, VO2 peak (100%)is reached often at 99% of HR max. So, a cross-over at 98.57% (according my calculations) of VO2 peak. AT 99% of HR max VO2 peak is reached and maintained until 100%. Remember, this is my opinion and observation.

Let me give you and example, when I was in my low 20s (over 20 years ago) I had a HR max of 201 beats per minute. When I was tested for VO2 max (peak) on multiple occassions, I reached that same number: 201. But, every time I looked at the data from the computer, I reach VO2 max at 198 or 199 beats per minute and it was maintained beyond that.

Later, as a graduate student in exercise science, I was a lab tech and teacher. I tested many, many runners in the lab (from the team as well as from local running clubs) and found that almost always a runner hit VO2 max. at 2 or 3 beats per minute below their HR max. IF they were older (let's say over age 30) then it would be 1 or 2 beats below max. And if they were over about age 45 they would reach VO2 max at 1 beat below HR max. I suspect, however, that since the HR measuring sensitivity was set at 1 beat per minut that there could be a slight difference. There were some times when I used an EKG machine and it appeared (again this is eye-balling the numbers) that the graph recording reflected the theory I have presented here: VO2 peak is reached at ~ 99% of HR max and thereafter maintained.

I don't really think it matters that much, in the bigger picture. 99 or 100% of HR max = 100% of VO2 peak.

Now about the training you have done as a decathlete, I'm not sure I follow what you are asking of me. Specifically, what feedback do you request?

Regards,

Tinman

Sim:

I totally agree with you on your above comment. Becoming a good runner takes a hell of a lot more than simply figuring out lactate level or pace chart. I believe there are a lot of "missing link" with what Arthur's Boys did which Arthur didn't really publicly promoted.

He said to run 100 miles a week. So if someone in Pacakesville, FL, runs 100 mile a week on dead flat area, I think the outcome could be very different regardless of the pace/effort. His runners never did any "core strengthening exercises". Does that mean it's not important? Well, go run up and down rugged XC courses typical in NZ (or Australia) and come back and see how you get some soreness in deep stomach or your butts and see if that alone would or would not strengthen your "core muscles". He said weight training is waste of time. Consdier someone like Bill Baillie who was a carpenter and carried bricks up and down the ladder all day long.

The truth is; I always curl my toes when some young high school kid comes to me and tells me he/she would follow Lydiard training by running "a lot". I believe they would benefit so much more if they mix up some elements like hills and sprint works and cross country training along with long aerobic runs; which is what they actually did in the initial stages (which I call "Chapter One"). And all along, you'll need to nurture their motivation.

Poking mucles and bones and creat some charts is one thing but, I feel, that's quite a bit different from actually coaching a human being to the podium. This is why some people might seem to know some research and studies but never have any practical idea of what to do with it.

Nobby -

I don't think there has to be an adversial relationship between those who like to use pace charts to guide their training and those who like to run by feel. Using charts and sensations can complement each other, and for some runners it can give them better direction than going be feel.

One thing is true about elite runners - they have a great biofeedback systems. They feel the right efforts and paces better than an average Joes do. *But, I would not state emphatically that they got that way by ignoring their watches or pace charts. They may have been naturally good at noticing what's happening in their bodies OR they may have integrated feedback from timing themselves while noting their sensations. Regardless, using time to guide training can be beneficial to some runners and to state that running by feel (only) is the way to train is not going to be helpful to runners who prefer measurable feedback.

Most elite runners I've met or contacted say they time their runs. *If going by feel was not important then why do elites typically wear watches? Obviously, they combine measuring something with their sensations.

IF Jim runs 6:00 a mile at what feels like his normal effort on Monday and later, on Friday, 6:00 pace feels like a moderate effort, he knows something needs to be addressed. He better back off, sleep more, eat more carbs, watch his fluid intake or the like or his he'll start to go in a slump!

Anyway, there is more than one good way to train.

Regards,

Tinman