If a 5K is so aerobic, then why do so much speedwork?

The aerobic system is not the only thing involved in running.

Alan

Lydiard said the opposite. He said that intervals with short lenght recovery is anaerobic and to turn it aerobic it may be done with long recovery.

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

Alan is right, Lydiard was wrong.

Lydiard was a great coach and his methods are effective but don't look at him for physiology. His explanations are all screwed up.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

The aerobic system is not the only thing involved in running.

Really? How very profound.

The top 5000m runners, have 49 sec 400 meter speed and faster.

What can the top USA 5000m runners run the 400 in?

wellnow wrote:Then why would you put him at 1.48 for 800? If he can close a 10000 with a 53 lap, he could surely have put two 53's together?

because he's doing that in ~ 27'00 (+) pace races at bell

the preceding 24 laps has taken so little out of him due to his incomparable endurance that he can come close to running his open 400 in the last lap

( remember, it is flying 53+ -> ~ 54+ open with 1s for flying lap advantage )

so in effect he is running 3s off his open 400, which is not disimilar to a "proper" 800 guy with a 46s pb running 49s for opener in a 800

at best, you get an ~ 2s differential for 2nd lap, which for 46s guy ->

49/51 -> 1'40.0

more realistically you better look for 3s differential, as we don't have a 1'40.0 in the books ( & no one is going to argue kennster is a greater "talent" than kip )

taking into account his endurance, he maybe coud go 2s slower than 400pb + maybe, maybe 2s slower 2nd lap ->

51+ (+2) +

51+ (+2) + 2 =

1'48+

seeing as it quotes answers to hundredths, i'd go by

0.01s

if it doesn't claim to be a "regression" site, it doesn't claim any error other than number of decimal places in output

kennster's 3kpb is 7'25 ( albeit probably nearer 7'20 with perfect wabbiting - that 7'25 was very shittily wabbited )

for historicity, anyone who bandies about 7'18 for any guy who ever ran is asking for trouble

decades of watching tells me :

HE ISN'T A 7'18 GUY

caveats

he set current 10k wr of 26'17 in '05 when he also tried the 5k & got screwed by shitty wabbits for a 12'40

so, lets try '04 with

12'37.35 / 26'20.31 ->

51.03

1'47.30

3'30.11

7'19.90

but experienced observervation tells us he was much closer to 5k potential ( he loses 5ks ) than 10k ( never lost ), so those are prelim estimates

for his peak in absolutely perfect wabbited races, experienced eye tells us the variations to use are ~

12'34 - 12'36 / 26'10 - 26'12.5

& work out the estimates for the 4 lists based on those extremes

you'll have to subscribe to find out as i've done enough & not doing anymore grunt work...

Sorry I mixed up your "waaay too fast" comment with the wrong times (looking at 1500m instead of 3000m).

I don't know why you key on the word regression. I don't care if a website is a regression website. Your site claims that your predictor accurately predicts best times from other best times. Do you claim that it accurately predicts best times to within 0.01s? Forgive me if I'm skeptical, but I was asking for an order of magnitude of what you consider accurate?

I don't have any interest in subscribing, as predictors like McMillan, Purdy, and VDOT and others are more than suitable for my personal purposes, even with their known shortcomings. With Purdy, and VDOT, I have a very good idea of the source and magnitude of errors, as there are detailed analytical papers written about their development. They are also available to me without a subscription.

Thanks though for the last iteration. Based on this whole discussion, 51s and 1:47s look reasonable, if not defendable, given that we lack real data.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't believe Lydiard ever said that. You have a quote or a reference?

Lydiard never paid much attention to the details of interval training, but often claimed the details didn't matter, just calling it "eyewash". In any case, I never saw any distinction from Lydiard about reps with partial versus full recoveries.

sound of silence wrote:

Alan

Lydiard said the opposite. He said that intervals with short lenght recovery is anaerobic and to turn it aerobic it may be done with long recovery.

From New England Runner. March/April 2000 edition, page 30-31

The World According to Lydiard

(…) You (Americans) use a lot of anaerobic training without understanding anaerobic training and this is your problem, You think that by putting a kid on the track and running 20 400-meters fast that you are going to make a champion. (…)

(…) I have heard that the Moroccans are using my system but they have lengthened it, taking even long recovery between repetitions. They take up to eight minute recoveries between long repetitions. You people shorten it. You keep the pressure and you don’t get the arterial ph level you can get taking longer intervals of recovery and doing longer repetitions. That’s the way I do it. (…)

As you may read Lydiard thinks that short intervals done with short recovery is more anaerobic that long intervals with long length recovery.

In all the information about what he said or wrote he tries to pass the wrong idea that interval training it’s anaerobic mainly when it is not.

Form Lydiard i get lots of lessons. The interesting one lesson is that if he could make champions with wrong training and passing wrong training concepts then everyone else can do.

++++++++++++++++++

Form Lydiard i get lots of lessons. The interesting one lesson is that if he could make champions with wrong training and passing wrong training concepts then everyone else can do.

++++++++++++++++++++

This is an important lesson I've learned from LRC - human beings are incredibly flexible and malleable - there will never be a single best traning schedule. People will eat an 80% protein diet and run 3:32, and a vegetarian will also run 3:32. A guy will run 120 mpw and run 3:32, a guy will run 40 mpw and run 3:32.

I'm exaggerating, but there are so many ways to train and most of them seem to work - astonishing, really. Seems to me you need to pick on that seems repeatable and enjoyable at some level and just do it.

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

Yes the words aerobic and anaerobic are abused, the concepts are not really scientific. The training itself is what counts.

I think that bot long and short recoveries are equally important.

But what about my question: is the push off phase of running mostly anaerobic, and the leg swing mostly aerobic?

I hope that is not too revolutionary a concept for letrunners? It really is quite a simple idea.

If you did only 2 workouts a week, 1 40:00 tempo at 10 mile+ rrrace effort and one interval workout of 6k-4miles of intervals at 2 mile race pace with lean recovery, you would do quite well.

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

So 8 X 800 with :60 recovery @ 2:20 pace for a 9:20

2 miler, would be an ideal workout for the 5K?

How often and what part of the season?

But what about my question: is the push off phase of running mostly anaerobic, and the leg swing mostly aerobic?

I hope that is not too revolutionary a concept for letrunners? It really is quite a simple idea.[/quote]

OK, so what are the details of this not so revolutionary concept?

You picked two different comments with two different contexts.Regarding the first comment, he's speaking of American kids in school: American kids do too much "anaerobic work" (i.e. 20x400m fast). He doesn't say here to lengthen the recovery to make it aerobic. The context here is that American kids should train more like African kids, and save the "anaerobic training" for later when they grow up.The second comment about Moroccans: I think you are reading that backwards. For Lydiard, one objective of "anaerobic training" is to lower your blood ph (making it more acidic), so that your body adapts to running faster, longer, with higher levels of acid. He talks about the longer recoveries, and the longer reps, allowing the Moroccans to get an even "lower" blood ph level, i.e. "higher" acid concentration, i.e. "more anaerobic", than Americans, who shorten the recoveries, making the "anaerobic work" less effective.Lydiard may have some "relaxed" ideas about interval training, and may misuse the term "anaerobic", but it looks to me like Lydiard actually got that right, and you got Lydiard backwards.Maybe it's time to re-read Lydiard, and attribute the lessons to Lydiard that he actually gives.

I've been thinking about that question, and maybe I just can't quite get my head around it.My gut reaction is to say that in general, aerobic or anaerobic effort is highly related to intensity (even if you may argue it's not about a lack of oxygen supply). So push-off for a short recovery run may still be highly aerobic, while for 800m race, it is mostly anaerobic.The push off phase is what's doing most of the work, and it's concentrated in a short time period, so it would seem that since the other phases aren't that physically demanding, and occur over a longer time period, it's more likely that anaerobic demands occurs during push off. But push off may involve more muscle fibers, and is aided by passive factors like muscle and tendon elasticity.Maybe one sign of "anaerobic" running is realizing where do you first feel the burn, and when are those muscles used? Your quad muscles are involved in the push off phase.I'm also wondering if looking at breaking up the phases of the running gait matters much. With "anaerobic" running, what matters most is the net cumulative effect, before you have to slow down or stop running.Sound logical? Do you have other thoughts?

wellnow wrote:

But what about my question: is the push off phase of running mostly anaerobic, and the leg swing mostly aerobic?

I hope that is not too revolutionary a concept for letrunners? It really is quite a simple idea.

I am sorry for you. You can not accept what is an evidence.

First you doubt that he said what he said. I simply ask about the source of your doubt. Now you want to teach me what he said with your own interpretation and with the usual kind of attorney to defend Lydiard.

Excuse me. I didnt ask you no question.

Sorry. I know very well what he wants to say. I know best than you what he said. He is wrong again.

Resuming. It doesnt matter in what different contexts he says. The conclusioon of both different contexts is that he misunderstands what is aerobic and anaerobic. He thinks that short intervals are more anaeobic than long intrevals with long recovery. He made some champions, but he was one ignorant coach.

rekrunner wrote:

For Lydiard, one objective of "anaerobic training" is to lower your blood ph (making it more acidic), so that your body adapts to running faster, longer, with higher levels of acid. He talks about the longer recoveries, and the longer reps, allowing the Moroccans to get an even "lower" blood ph level, i.e. "higher" acid concentration, i.e. "more anaerobic", than Americans, who shorten the recoveries, making the "anaerobic work" less effective.

I talked with Lydiard a few times and have several of his books. I didn't really care for him and thought he was rather close minded, i.e. obtuse, but don't recall him ever saying anything like what you have said.

I don't disagree with your concept, but it doesn't sound like something that came from Lydiard.

Sorry for you too, but simply put, your evidence doesn't support your statement.I didn't doubt what he said, but what you claim he said.The source of my doubt is that it doesn't sound like anything I've ever read about Lydiard and his views on interval training. Therefore I asked you a reference, so I can read something more, which sends a different message than I have ever read before, to expand my knowledge.Sorry if I dared to subject you to my interpretation, but the words are not ambiguous. They say what they say, and not what you say. I don't attempt to answer any questions. I did have to add one bit of chemistry, to clearly demonstrate that you got Lydiard all backwards. I thought you would want to know that.Let's re-analyze the facts, step by step. Perhaps that will make it easier for you to tell me what's wrong with my facts and logic.You claim quite simply:"Lydiard said the opposite. He said that intervals with short lenght recovery is anaerobic and to turn it aerobic it may be done with long recovery."Now let's see how well your "evidence" supports what you say Lydiard said, without any context, and minimizing my subjective interpretation.Quote #1:"(…) You (Americans) use a lot of anaerobic training without understanding anaerobic training and this is your problem, You think that by putting a kid on the track and running 20 400-meters fast that you are going to make a champion. (…)"This quote says nothing about recovery intervals, neither short, nor medium, nor long. Nor does it suggest how to turn the anaerobic training into aerobic training. It's not clear to me why you even provided it.Quote #2:"(…) I have heard that the Moroccans are using my system but they have lengthened it, taking even long(er) recovery between repetitions. They take up to eight minute recoveries between long repetitions. You people shorten it. You keep the pressure and you don’t get the (low) arterial ph level you can get (with) taking longer intervals of recovery and doing longer repetitions. That’s the way (to) do it. (…)"(Note -- you made several mistakes copying it, so I corrected some of it to its original text, to more accurately reflect the original meaning.)So here, Lydiard says that longer recoveries (and longer reps) allow the Moroccans to get a low arterial ph level -- lower than the Americans who shorten recovery intervals. This is not my subjective interpretation, but comes directly from the quote. (I had to add the key word "low", which appears in the original article, but not in your quote.)Now this quote talks about ph levels, not making workouts more aerobic or anaerobic. There must be a relation between low ph, and aerobic/anaerobic, or else this quote is also "neutral" with respect to your claim.Since you don't bridge the gap yourself, I have to subject the quote you provided, with my own knowledge of basic chemistry, and basic physiology. Presumably you expected all readers to apply this basic knowledge, or you would have removed the ambiguity yourself.Low ph level means more acid, which comes from anaerobic training. No? So achieving lower ph levels must mean the Moroccan workouts with longer recoveries, and longer reps, are more anaerobic.Rather than supporting your claim, this quote appears to directly contradict what you claim Lydiard says.Are these the best quotes you have?

sound of silence wrote:

I am sorry for you. You can not accept what is an evidence.

First you doubt that he said what he said. I simply ask about the source of your doubt. Now you want to teach me what he said with your own interpretation and with the usual kind of attorney to defend Lydiard.

Excuse me. I didnt ask you no question.

Sorry. I know very well what he wants to say. I know best than you what he said. He is wrong again.

Resuming. It doesnt matter in what different contexts he says. The conclusioon of both different contexts is that he misunderstands what is aerobic and anaerobic. He thinks that short intervals are more anaeobic than long intrevals with long recovery. He made some champions, but he was one ignorant coach.

I never talked to Lydiard, nor did I ever meet him, and don't have any opinion about his mentality or personality. I sometimes wonder if he was close with his children, and why he divorced his first wife.At the Lydiard Foundation website, there is a training page with a document called "Training the Lydiard Way: Training Summary". Directly from the article:"With anaerobic training, your objective is to create a big oxygen debt and lower your blood pH level so that your metabolism is stimulated to build buffers against fatigue. This is done with interval or repetition training. Once you have built those buffers, your anaerobic training is complete; to continue this type of training is to invite injury."

close minded authoritarian wrote:

I talked with Lydiard a few times and have several of his books. I didn't really care for him and thought he was rather close minded, i.e. obtuse, but don't recall him ever saying anything like what you have said.

I don't disagree with your concept, but it doesn't sound like something that came from Lydiard.