Is "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated?

You are very keen to promote McMillan, aren't you. Hmmm...

What I said: "For self-coached non-experts, I think a good explanation of the variety of workouts and intensities is McMillan's description of the 4 key training zones and 12 key workouts". If you have nothing else, it's a good starting point.I thought you, of all people, would find it refreshing, that his "physiology 101 for dummies" managed to include all of your fundamental issues of the central nervous system, neuromuscular coordination, and, as an added bonus, Brooks lactate shuttle.Isn't that precisely what you've been asking for?

wellnow wrote:

You are very keen to promote McMillan, aren't you. Hmmm...

To his credit, McMillan recognize that neuromuscular coordination is fundamental to all running paces.

However, one of the things I'm asking for is for coaches to stop talking nonsense about lactate metabolism.

rekrunner, why don't you re-write the McMillan stuff, here leaving out the lactic acidosis nonsense, recognizing that blood lactate accumulation is actually essential to racing performance (even as an early plateau in the Marathon)Also recognizing that perhaps fatigue causes acidosis, not the other way round. And include some information about real sprint training?

Well, I could come up with a whole load of reasons, but perhaps one basic reason is I still see a lot of sense where you seem to see nonsense.If I were to edit McMillan's stuff, I would basically leave it as is, except for a global replace of lactate for lactic acid, where appropriate.I might like to see a section added on stress hormones, cortisol levels, and signs of over-reaching and over-training.

wellnow wrote:

To his credit, McMillan recognize that neuromuscular coordination is fundamental to all running paces.

However, one of the things I'm asking for is for coaches to stop talking nonsense about lactate metabolism.

rekrunner, why don't you re-write the McMillan stuff, here leaving out the lactic acidosis nonsense, recognizing that blood lactate accumulation is actually essential to racing performance (even as an early plateau in the Marathon)Also recognizing that perhaps fatigue causes acidosis, not the other way round. And include some information about real sprint training?

rekrunner

Everytime i read you i see you are addict to science kind of mind astralize.

Cm'on. Lactate, stress hormones, cortisol levels, signs of over-reaching and over-training.

Do you really think that rocket science is the answer to the best training?

Rocket science it is the refugee of many.

How McMillan does? Does he tests the runner corticol in every training? Nonsense.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "science kind of mind astralize".I guess what I like about science, is that it requires that claims come with supporting evidence, logic, or some other rationalization, making them somewhat objective. This can make the words of anonymous posters as strong as world-renowned coaches, athletes, and scientists.But you are right about science. It may surprise you, but when it comes to training, I think science is secondary. Personal feeling is more important. I'm sure, McMillan doesn't test his runners in every training, nor should it add much value if he did.Personally, I find rocket science much easier than human science. For example, rockets don't suffer from psychological mood swings which could affect their performance.

sincere advise wrote:

rekrunner

Everytime i read you i see you are addict to science kind of mind astralize.

Cm'on. Lactate, stress hormones, cortisol levels, signs of over-reaching and over-training.

Do you really think that rocket science is the answer to the best training?

Rocket science it is the refugee of many.

How McMillan does? Does he tests the runner corticol in every training? Nonsense.

hey wellnow, what would you recommend doing during a base phase? Would you recommend doing the 16 x 100 every other week?

rekrunner

Don’t you see that McMillan is one man with an agenda and one business goal and no science or independence criteria?

As some on this board he isn’t free to judge training by the scientific logic whatever because he wants to spread their own coach pamphlet.

Ok guys, then it is your turn to offer some practical advice. All I see so far is theory and bluster, but I can go to the Mcmillan page and for free get enough information to apply his theories in practice. How do I apply your theory?

I simply don't understand what you are trying to tell me, or for that matter, why. No I don't see those things, because I didn't even look, and I'm not interested in unintelligible baseless conclusions. Remember, for me, words mean more when they are supported with verifiable facts, or data.I'm not trying to sell McMillan as a good coach, athlete, or scientist. But I stand by my claim, that the two links I gave are a good explanation of the 4 key zones (subject of this thread), and 12 key workouts (how the zones are used in practice), and I recommended them specifically for "self-coached, non-experts", who might not know any better.If you have a reference to better descriptions, please share them. But attacking the credibility of persons is the last resort of those who cannot properly debate the subject.If you recall the context, my claim was in response to "wellnow", who alleged that 99.9% of runners train too hard, because they misunderstand "aerobic benefit".Although I suspect that 99.9% may be a slight over-estimation of the true value, many of those hard training runners would slow down parts of their training, if they read and trained by the two links I gave, thereby addressing and helping solve "wellnow"'s concern, which seemingly afflicts 99.9% of runners. Since such a large population is affected, looked like some guidance in the right direction is needed, and for "wellnow's" 99.9% of runners, falling back to 4 zone training would be a big improvement.

more sincere advise wrote:

rekrunner

Don’t you see that McMillan is one man with an agenda and one business goal and no science or independence criteria?

As some on this board he isn’t free to judge training by the scientific logic whatever because he wants to spread their own coach pamphlet.

ex-rgs

If you think that my opinion theory and bluster then you are wrong. Everything that can be done it’s practical not theory. To run away from the coach with one training agenda method it’s practical advice.

My sincerely and practical advice is this one. Before to trust in someone else find if he does an agenda to spell his training paradigm and consequently he is not a independent coach or an independent scientist or if he is an independent coach that thinks by his own mind and does free of mind.

rekrunner

Relate to my own contribute about the “physiological zones” I did it on this thread but some posts ago. If i remember quite well rekrunner is the one that brought MacMillan training early to the discuss. It´s you and not me and wellnow did comment “You are very keen to promote McMillan, aren't you. Hmmm...” But when it´s inconvenient you try to change the focus of the discuss out of what you post. The same old discuss strategy.

ex-rgs wrote:

Ok guys, then it is your turn to offer some practical advice. All I see so far is theory and bluster, but I can go to the Mcmillan page and for free get enough information to apply his theories in practice. How do I apply your theory?

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for wellnow to offer actual practical advice on his "neuromuscular coordination" training plan. His skills lie mostly in telling established experts with actual credentials (e.g. Jack Daniels) how foolish and wrong they are. He cannot be bothered to back up these assertions with anything useful.

I was asking the same question the other day about Your Erroneous Zones by Wayne Dyer.

littlekiddo wrote:

hey wellnow, what would you recommend doing during a base phase? Would you recommend doing the 16 x 100 every other week?

I reccomend doing lots of running at every pace during base phase. There should be no particular emphasis on one pace more than another, since every pace contributes equally to general development.

To get into this routine may take a few days of gradually raised intensity and volume. But one a runner gets used to this, then the routine is set, and recovery should happen quickly and regular hard training can be managed almost every day. This quick recovery strengthens the immune system. For many runners, their may be a gradual fat loss, towards ideal racing weight, but this is a very difficult area to discuss.

Where did the 16 x 100 come from? I reccomend regular fartlek sessions on undulating trails, with lots of fast running, from a few seconds to a few minutes without straining.

u r wrong wrote:

wellnow wrote:

I didn't have any mentors, I just read the usual garbage about energy systems that has been so popular for decades.

Show me one coach or writer who can give accurate explanations of the CNS with regard to middle and long distance running?

I am sorry that you did not have any mentors. Perhaps that is why you never read/heard of a CNS connection to energy systems training. May I recommend Martin & Coe to you? They do a great job of working through the energy systems with a constant eye on the CNS component. Good stuff!

*****************************************************

Thanks for the recommendation. I got the book from the library the day after you posted this. I have looked through it a few times over the years, but now I am giving it a very thorough study.

Yes at the very beginning it looks promising, with a very good explanation of neuromuscular coordination in running. However, the book is full of the usual dogma, contradiction, confusion and general misunderstanding which I have come to expect. There is a very serious lack of good editing, which really lets the book down.

wellnow,

I appreciate your posts, and I also think that rekurunner's recent posts are a model of clarity and helpfulness.

The problem that this thread is dealing with is that the physiological concepts are equivocal because they are made to work in two ways. They have to work in the lab for the interests and purposes of science, and they have to work in the field where they are beholden to the interests and purposes of training.

This is the reason for the "contradiction, confusion, and general misunderstanding" that wellnow diagnoses. You might think of this contradiction and confusion as a bad thing--as something to be eliminated, but I actually see it as a positive. The contradictions and confusions point us to the problem of the relation between theory and practice. They speak to the real and ineliminable differences between the laboratory context and the training contexts. They keep us talking, learning, and revising, both in the field and in the lab.

Wellnow, you seem to think that the equivocal nature of these concepts can be eliminated and our language purified. However, so long as there is a difference between the context of the lab and the context of training, concepts will continue to be contradictory and double-edged. May I politely suggest that the contradictions are merely avenues for future concrete explorations in the lab and out in the world, rather than reasons to disparage or discard the theory or the practice derived from it? Wouldn't it be more useful to actually work through the contradictions rather than suggest that they are the result of bad or illogical thinking? Every scientist knows that science makes progress through the precise articulation of contradiction and confusion--not by going around it!

deleuze, a typical example of the contradictions can be seen in the book that Skuj recommends, Better training for distance runners By Coe and Martin. In that book they state that when we run fast we go from anaerobic to aerobic, but on another page they state the exact opposite, saying that in an 800m race we go from aerobic to anaerobic.

They also continually confuse what is aerobic and anaerobic. Continully confusion lactic acid and lactate metabolism etc etc

This is just not accepatble. It's just bad science, plain and simple.

We have to address these issues or ignore them completely, the middle ground is a mire of confusion.

wellnow wrote:

deleuze, a typical example of the contradictions can be seen in the book that Skuj recommends, Better training for distance runners By Coe and Martin. In that book they state that when we run fast we go from anaerobic to aerobic, but on another page they state the exact opposite, saying that in an 800m race we go from aerobic to anaerobic.

They also continually confuse what is aerobic and anaerobic. Continully confusion lactic acid and lactate metabolism etc etc.

Why do you think this confusion occurs? (I don't own the book.) Is it just sloppiness or does it stem from an application in training?

The confusion stems from the lack of understanding about lactate metabolism and the contradictions written on that subject.

An example of that contradiction in the Coe and Martin book is typical, where they constantly refer to 'anaerobic' metabolism when they actually mean carbohydrate metabolism.

The big problem here is that fizzyologists refuse to recognize that lactate metabolism is carbohydrate metabolism, both anaerobic and aerobic. They do condede that point elsewhere in the book, so why the continual confusion? It's just plain bad science, bad writing and bad editing, and unfortunately it is the norm.