wellnow wrote:
Yes indeed, maintaining stride length is crucial.... It takes a huge amount of concentration to hold the same rhythm for that third hour, but you can do it because the physical effort is not high although of course it's tiring towards the end.
Which indicates again that it is just as much about holding stride frequency as it is about holding stride length
I have a theory too wrote:
wellnow wrote:Yes, those are fuels for muscle contraction. You do realize that lactate can be oxidized for muscle contraction during exercise too?
Yes, I realize that, as I had already indicated that in my post.
wellnow wrote:
That is aerobic use of lactate of which up to 80% can be used during exercise for aerobic respiration with the other 20% used in the cori cycle for reconversion to liver glycogen.
Key point in here, the conversion of lactate requires oxygen (as you indicated earlier), it does not come for free, and energy production in anaerobic glycolysis in muscle tissue will ultimately use more oxygen than aerobic glycolysis, so let's not attempt to present lactate as though it's a 'free' fuel source, it isn't. When you push yourself into high lactate production, you're breathing hard for a reason.
wellnow wrote:
When I talk about muscle power in running, I am refering to the contractile force of the muscles and tendons both of which have a considerable elastic component. The more you can use this elasticity, the more power you can generate.
Now you're blending terms again in pseudo-scientific nonsense. Don't confuse contractile force with elasticity, these are different components. Contractile force requires energy production, you cannot just increase a muscle's 'power' as though it's an entity of it's own. Despite what you're saying here it goes against what you said earlier that muscle 'power' has unlimited development while aerobic development is limited. These items are intimately related and you cannot have one without the other. If one is limited, so is the other. If you want a muscle to produce more force, you need to develop the components it needs to do it. Do this incorrectly and you might have decent speed but you won't be able to sustain it. So you can't just do things to increase a muscle's force production and expect good results. You must develop 'cheap' force production, which means development of your purest aerobic component(s). Even running into lactate (anaerobically) will leverage a strong aerobic base by increasing your capacity to convert lactate back.
As for elasticity, it does not increase force production of it's own but it can be leveraged to retain some energy after a contractile cycle. The bulk of any benefit here is gained by nothing more than having an optimum turnover rate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You obviously don't understand how lactate is oxidized during a race. Oxygen is always available, lactate is NOT produced due to a lack of oxygen. Lactate production is inevitable, anaerobic glycolyisis is a misleading term, all glycolysis and glycogenolysis is anaerobic, you don't use more oxygen as you say, in this process, you don't use any at all.
As for contractile force in running, it depends on many factors. You are completely wrong to imply that more contractile force requires more fuel. Different runners have different levels of efficiency. An inneficient runner can improve considerably without increasing aerobic capacity, surely you realize that?
wait a sec wrote:
wellnow wrote:Yes indeed, maintaining stride length is crucial.... It takes a huge amount of concentration to hold the same rhythm for that third hour, but you can do it because the physical effort is not high although of course it's tiring towards the end.
Which indicates again that it is just as much about holding stride frequency as it is about holding stride length
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stride rate is not the variable that you need to be worrying about. Slow but well trained runners don't have a low stride rate, they have a short stride length.
wellnow wrote:
You obviously don't understand how lactate is oxidized during a race. Oxygen is always available,
Being always available doesn't make it directly usable, that's a misconception. Availability is only part of the equation, muscle tissue must be developed properly to be able to accept it and process it. Capillary density is a necessary component to actually feed oxygen to muscle tissue, and mitochondria development is needed to actually use it.
Far too many armchair Google scientists like yourself see studies and statements that show oxygen leaving muscle tissue and conclude 'obviously muscles have used all the need, there oxygen isn't the problem'. The only thing this shows is the muscle hasn't used it, it does not support any conclusion about whether cells have used all they need nor that cells and tissue cannot be developed to utiliize oxygen more completely and efficiently.
Huh?
wellnow wrote:
As for contractile force in running, it depends on many factors. You are completely wrong to imply that more contractile force requires more fuel. Different runners have different levels of efficiency. An inneficient runner can improve considerably without increasing aerobic capacity, surely you realize that?
If you actually read what I posted, I didn't say it needs more fuel. I said it requires (more) energy production.
Oh right that makes a lot of sense.
wellnow wrote:
Oh right that makes a lot of sense.
As you decided to interpret my of 'using energy' as 'using fuel', you discarded the entire pathway of energy production in cells and the importance of aerobic base development.
Here's where the ultimate 'efficiency' takes place. After initial glycolysis, how metabolism continues is dependant on oxygen availability and the ability to use it. Pyruvate produced through glycolycis of glucose takes one of two paths:
a) without oxygen, it's reduced to (unusable) lactate to produce NAD+ to allow glycolysis to continue. Lactate cannot build up indefinitely and must be converted elsewhere in the body (either oxidized back into pyruvate or converted back to glucose). This entire process cannot sustain itself and will cease within a short while. It can, however, produce large amounts of ATP quickly when needed.
b) with oxygen, pyruvate is further processed into more ATP and ultimately broken down until only C02 and water is left. While it produces a large amount of ATP from glucose, it cannot produce it as quickly as can be done anaerobically.
Both processes use oxygen and burn glycogen as glucose for fuel. Oxygen based metabolism via the Krebs cycle produces far more ATP per glucose molecule than the anaerobic process (lactate). Building your 'aerobic base' is all about exploiting the ability to produce energy aerobically and is where most efficiency lies.
I have a theory too wrote:
Both processes use oxygen and burn glycogen as glucose for fuel. Oxygen based metabolism via the Krebs cycle produces far more ATP per glucose molecule than the anaerobic process (lactate) (amended to say, it also ultimately uses less oxygen as well). Building your 'aerobic base' is all about exploiting the ability to produce energy aerobically and is where most efficiency lies.
Wellnow you have really shot yourself in the foot. Your limited credibility is now in the gutter.
There is a chance for redemption though: Provide us with the sum total of all of your claimed and much vaunted knowledge: your actual day to day training program.
Wellnow's training program
please!
I have a theory too wrote:
wellnow wrote:Oh right that makes a lot of sense.
As you decided to interpret my of 'using energy' as 'using fuel', you discarded the entire pathway of energy production in cells and the importance of aerobic base development.
Here's where the ultimate 'efficiency' takes place. After initial glycolysis, how metabolism continues is dependant on oxygen availability and the ability to use it. Pyruvate produced through glycolycis of glucose takes one of two paths:
a) without oxygen, it's reduced to (unusable) lactate to produce NAD+ to allow glycolysis to continue. Lactate cannot build up indefinitely and must be converted elsewhere in the body (either oxidized back into pyruvate or converted back to glucose). This entire process cannot sustain itself and will cease within a short while. It can, however, produce large amounts of ATP quickly when needed.
b) with oxygen, pyruvate is further processed into more ATP and ultimately broken down until only C02 and water is left. While it produces a large amount of ATP from glucose, it cannot produce it as quickly as can be done anaerobically.
Both processes use oxygen and burn glycogen as glucose for fuel. Oxygen based metabolism via the Krebs cycle produces far more ATP per glucose molecule than the anaerobic process (lactate). Building your 'aerobic base' is all about exploiting the ability to produce energy aerobically and is where most efficiency lies.
**********************************************************
Sorry but you are laboring under a misconception.
Lactate isn't produced due to a lack of oxygen.
You are also confusing anaerobic respiration with lactate production as being the same reaction. They are completely different reactions. Anaerobic respiration is the hydrolysis of glycolytic and glycogenolytic ATP. When pyruvate or lactate are formed, the glycolytic and glycogenolytic ATP is also available for muscle contraction (plus a smaller amount for cell growth and regeneration)
Lactate can then leave the cell where it was formed, entering the blood circulation to be used as fuel by other tissue such as cardiac or skeletal muscle or by the liver to be reconverted to glycogen. Lactate is produced constantly for these processes. Lactate is an aerobic fuel.
Now don't try to lecture me that lactate isn't an aerobic fuel because it has to be converted to pyruvate and then..blah blah blah. LACTATE IS AN AEROBIC FUEL, JUST AS PYRUVATE IS AN AEROBIC FUEL.
flow wrote:
Wellnow you have really shot yourself in the foot. Your limited credibility is now in the gutter.
There is a chance for redemption though: Provide us with the sum total of all of your claimed and much vaunted knowledge: your actual day to day training program.
Wellnow's training program
please!
Peter I have three things to say you.
1, I'm not going to be lectured by someone who reads a few very out of date textbooks.
2, I don't have a training schedule, never have and never will. You can put whatever negative connotations on that which you will, keep it yourself I ain't interested.
3, Get over me already.
wellnow wrote:
Sorry but you are laboring under a misconception.
Lactate isn't produced due to a lack of oxygen.
yes it is, it's a product of the reduction of pyruvate.
wellnow wrote:
You are also confusing anaerobic respiration with lactate production as being the same reaction.
I'm not, but I'm sure it won't stop you from saying so.
wellnow wrote:
They are completely different reactions. Anaerobic respiration is the hydrolysis of glycolytic and glycogenolytic ATP. When pyruvate or lactate are formed,
[\quote]
this isn't an either/or situation, lactate is produced from pyruvate...not as well as.
wellnow wrote:the glycolytic and glycogenolytic ATP is also available for muscle contraction (plus a smaller amount for cell growth and regeneration)
I already covered this earlier. Glycolysis produces pyruvate and ATP. Pyruvate can be used to continue glycolysis but it will consume a new glucose molecule in the process. Lactate is formed and can no longer be used in the anaerobic production of energy. The key difference between lactate and pyruvate is that lactate MUST be oxidized to be usable in energy production while pyruvate doesn't.
Lactate can then leave the cell where it was formed, entering the blood circulation to be used as fuel by other tissue such as cardiac or skeletal muscle or by the liver to be reconverted to glycogen. Lactate is produced constantly for these processes. Lactate is an aerobic fuel.
Another pseudo-scientific term...'aerobic fuel'.
Lactate cannot be used as-is as a fuel, it requires oxidation.
wellnow wrote:
Now don't try to lecture me that lactate isn't an aerobic fuel because it has to be converted to pyruvate and then..blah blah blah. LACTATE IS AN AEROBIC FUEL, JUST AS PYRUVATE IS AN AEROBIC FUEL.
To your pseudo-scientific term 'aerobic fuel', I'm assuming you mean they can both be processed in an oxygenated environment, and yes they can, and this takes us back to aerobic base building, and once again the ability to utilize and process oxygen.
Key point to remember, when pyruvate is used to prolong glycolysis, it uses up more glucose to produce ATP/energy. The process is fast but expensive, consumes glucose and glycogen quickly and cannot be sustained on it's own for very long (you get less than 2 minutes worth without the introduction of external oxygen). When lactate is produced, oxygen MUST be utilized to process lactate back into a usuable fuel. Lactate exists as the end product (along with the resultant ATP) of anaerobic energy production. If you build the resources of oxidation muscle tissue and mitrochondria, you provide the ability to continue to break down pyruvate (and, through an extra oxidative step, lactate) into addition ATP without consuming additional glucose/fuel, but this can only happen with a new source of oxygen...the oxygen you draw in and process and you must have the proper development base to do it effectively.
You keep wantijng to conviently skip around the role oxygen plays in energy production. Anaerobic energy production is not sustainable on it's own and relies heavily on oxygen based metabolism to continue. If you have a strong aerobic base (capillary density, mitochondria density, etc.) you can produce more energy without consuming more fuel. If you have a poor aerobic base, you will consume your glycogen/glucose resources much quicker with lower net energy production. Good if you're a sprinter, bad if you're a marathoner.
Take which ever path you want, it's all in how you train and what you expect from your running.
Reposted with proper formatting:
wellnow wrote:
Sorry but you are laboring under a misconception.
Lactate isn't produced due to a lack of oxygen.
yes it is, it's a product of the reduction of pyruvate.
wellnow wrote:
You are also confusing anaerobic respiration with lactate production as being the same reaction.
I'm not, but I'm sure it won't stop you from saying so.
wellnow wrote:
They are completely different reactions. Anaerobic respiration is the hydrolysis of glycolytic and glycogenolytic ATP. When pyruvate or lactate are formed,
this isn't an either/or situation, lactate is produced from pyruvate...not as well as.
wellnow wrote:
the glycolytic and glycogenolytic ATP is also available for muscle contraction (plus a smaller amount for cell growth and regeneration)
I already covered this earlier. Glycolysis produces pyruvate and ATP. Pyruvate can be used to continue glycolysis but it will consume a new glucose molecule in the process. Lactate is formed from the reduction of pyruvate and can no longer be used in the anaerobic production of energy. The key difference between lactate and pyruvate is that lactate MUST be oxidized to be usable in energy production while pyruvate doesn't.
wellnow wrote:
Lactate can then leave the cell where it was formed, entering the blood circulation to be used as fuel by other tissue such as cardiac or skeletal muscle or by the liver to be reconverted to glycogen. Lactate is produced constantly for these processes. Lactate is an aerobic fuel.
Another pseudo-scientific term...'aerobic fuel'.
Lactate cannot be used as-is as a fuel, it requires oxidation.
wellnow wrote:
Now don't try to lecture me that lactate isn't an aerobic fuel because it has to be converted to pyruvate and then..blah blah blah. LACTATE IS AN AEROBIC FUEL, JUST AS PYRUVATE IS AN AEROBIC FUEL.
To your pseudo-scientific term 'aerobic fuel', I'm assuming you mean they can both be processed in an oxygenated environment, and yes they can, and this takes us back to aerobic base building, and once again the ability to utilize and process oxygen.
Key point to remember, when pyruvate is used to prolong glycolysis, it uses up more glucose to produce ATP/energy. The process is fast but expensive, consumes glucose and glycogen quickly and cannot be sustained on it's own for very long (you get less than 2 minutes worth without the introduction of external oxygen). When lactate is produced, oxygen MUST be utilized to process lactate back into a usuable fuel. Lactate exists as the end product (along with the resultant ATP) of anaerobic energy production. If you build the resources of oxidation muscle tissue and mitrochondria, you provide the ability to continue to break down pyruvate (and, through an extra oxidative step, lactate) into addition ATP without consuming additional glucose/fuel, but this can only happen with a new source of oxygen...the oxygen you draw in and process and you must have the proper development base to do it effectively.
You keep wantijng to conviently skip around the role oxygen plays in energy production. Anaerobic energy production is not sustainable on it's own and relies heavily on oxygen based metabolism to continue. If you have a strong aerobic base (capillary density, mitochondria density, etc.) you can produce more energy without consuming more fuel. If you have a poor aerobic base, you will consume your glycogen/glucose resources much quicker with lower net energy production. Good if you're a sprinter, bad if you're a marathoner.
Take which ever path you want, it's all in how you train and what you expect from your running.
Why do you assume that I am unaware of the role of mitochondria in distance running?
Also, the way you have phrased a few things over the past few posts is misleading. If you feel you have been misrepresented then take more care in your writing.
My point about aerobic capacity, which I have stated many times is that it is relatively easy to maximize. There is I feel a general misconception about this. Why would it take more than a few weeks at most for an out of shape runner to achieve this in both slow and fast oxidative fibers? For those of us who train seriously and regularly (even slow but serious runners) we are already at or very near maximum mitochondrial mass, the same applies to capillarization. Thus What makes the real difference in performance are factors other than aerobic development.
wellnow wrote:
My point about aerobic capacity, which I have stated many times is that it is relatively easy to maximize. There is I feel a general misconception about this. Why would it take more than a few weeks at most for an out of shape runner to achieve this in both slow and fast oxidative fibers?
***MAJOR SNORT***
This is the capper, I think on this note, we're done.
i knew you had nothing - i'm really not into pretenders like you Jon - you are stuck between ignorance and arrogance - very insane place to be.
ciao xxx
Why more than a few weeks? Well I guess it depends on how big can "a few" be? For someone how wants to avoid vagueness and confusion, you often speak in vagueness about what you feel.I thought adaptations like mitochondrial production and capillary development takes around 6 weeks. And by gradually increasing volume, we can have several/many cycles of developments. If you said "aerobic capacity improvements plauteau after many months or a few years at most", this would be a more defendable position -- but you still have to defend it.But isn't aerobic development much more than aerobic capacity, and mitochondrial and capillary development?Isn't another of the many facets of aerobic development related to your favorite aerobic fuel? Adaptations and improvements in lactate management/tolerance/clearance occur also on the scale of years. Whether you think in thresholds or not, blood lactate can be measured, and the trends in improvements can be observed.Once these improvements start to plateau, after several years of dedicated training, then non-aerobic sources of performance improvements like form, coordination, efficiency, etc., become the predominant sources of continued improvements.I think where you are losing everyone (in part), is that you give the impression that aerobic development is not necessary, or important.
wellnow wrote:
Why do you assume that I am unaware of the role of mitochondria in distance running?
Also, the way you have phrased a few things over the past few posts is misleading. If you feel you have been misrepresented then take more care in your writing.
My point about aerobic capacity, which I have stated many times is that it is relatively easy to maximize. There is I feel a general misconception about this. Why would it take more than a few weeks at most for an out of shape runner to achieve this in both slow and fast oxidative fibers? For those of us who train seriously and regularly (even slow but serious runners) we are already at or very near maximum mitochondrial mass, the same applies to capillarization. Thus What makes the real difference in performance are factors other than aerobic development.
flow wrote:
i knew you had nothing - i'm really not into pretenders like you Jon - you are stuck between ignorance and arrogance - very insane place to be.
ciao xxx
i was not going to speak directly to you again Jon, however, i realise i had missed something
you say you do not follow a training plan - fair enough, if your principles are so completely understood then i guess you could make up your training day to day depending on personal feeling whilst still being aware of the longer term approach to reaching competitions. You do compete don't you? I think i read somewhere in your own words that you compete regularly throughout the year.
Anyway we don't need your training program all we need is your training history - from your training diary or at least from your memory
could you provide us with this please
JON (WELLNOW) ORANGE'S TRAINING HISTORY
and note that you have brought this upon yourself, the straw that broke the proverbial camels back was your jealous and irrational attack on me in the current Canova thread. I am just taking up the battle :) I am a competitive and to use your word often 'intense' individual.
looking forward to some analysis of your training history
Peter (flow) Winter
flow,I usually like what you have to say, particularly about your experience and thoughts on form, balance, and periodization, even if it gets a bit too "zen-like" sometimes. However, sometimes, I find you a bit volatile.We don't need wellnow's (or anyone's) training programs, because, taken out of context, they lose meaning. For a similiar reason, Lydiard did not want to publish training schedules, as most people would skip reading the principles, and go straight to the schedules, and then blame their failures on Lydiard.If you want some insight into wellnow's training, you may find his thread here illuminating:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=2611632&thread=2607480Here he explains what are the "common denominators" of all good training theories.PS: I find it poor judgement to "out" someone in a public forum, with their real name, when they chose to post with a handle. I felt for you, when it happened to you.
flow wrote:
Wellnow you have really shot yourself in the foot. Your limited credibility is now in the gutter.
There is a chance for redemption though: Provide us with the sum total of all of your claimed and much vaunted knowledge: your actual day to day training program.
Wellnow's training program
please!