Isn't "Event Specificity" More Important Than "VO2max" And "LT" Zones And All That?

anEconomist wrote:

you have to try and be a little clearer with some of your writing, it get hard to understand but

you claims that mottram, kennedy et. al. really focused on race specific stuff rather than zones... just because you state this, doesn't mean it was so

I try to make myself clear.

Here you have a resume of some key workouts that Paula Radcliffe does. As you may read she does tons of specific workouts and consequently she doesnt based her training on LT runs almost exclusively. Who says that she doesnt specifc workouts ? How can someone state that her improvement in mainly done at the coasts of LT runs? May we deny the effect of the specific workouts she does in a twice a week basis in his lacatic improvement as well as in her performances ?

This was taked from an article about Paula's Training taken from BMC News 1999 (the complete article is available on

):

(...)

she describes a typical hard week as she prepared for Seville:

(...)

Tuesday

Track session - in the morning if she's at

altitude, at night if she's at her Loughborough base or anywhere else at sea level. If she's at home...

(...)

Night: 15-minute warm-up, warm-down.

Something like 2km-800-400-1600-800-200-1km-800-400-1km - combinations that add up to 10km. "It got so much in the end, Alex had to keep check on where I was. I'd have a two-minute

jog at altitude; 1:15 to 1:30 at sea level. The idea was to try and vary the pace a little bit - obviously

the 2km would be steadier than the rest - but the overall aim was to try and run at around 10km pace ... the last 400m was 67-69 seconds. This

year it was quite nice. We did this kind of session three times and each time we got faster. Next year I'll set targets." Another variant would be a 3x900 - running the first 600 in 1:46 and the last 300 "as hard as I could" (47-48 seconds) with two and a half to

three minutes jog at altitude then five minutes rest then 3x600, going through 400 in 72 seconds and trying to run the last 200 in 30 seconds; another five minutes rest, then 3x300, going through 200 in 32 seconds and picking up for the last 100 to finish in around 47 seconds.

(...)

Saturday

Morning: Fartlek. 15 minutes warm-up, three by six and a half minutes with two-minute jog, 15 minutes warm-down. "I built up from three by six

and a half minutes to get as close as possible to 10km."

(...)

On another post.

Heres a session she did about 2 weeks ago here in Limerick after having to take a few days off dure to banging her shin...

400 in 66s, 400 in 80sec,300 in 48 sec, 300 in 60sec, 200 in 32s, 200 in

40sec, 100in 15 sec, 100 in 20 sec

400 in 66s, 400 in 80sec,300 in 48 sec, 300 in 60sec, 200 in 32s, 200 in

40sec, 100in 15 sec, 100 in 20 sec

400 in 66s, 400 in 80sec,300 in 48 sec, 300 in 60sec, 200 in 32s, 200 in

40sec, 100in 15 sec, 100 in 20 sec

5min jog recovery

400 in 66s, 400 in 80sec,300 in 48 sec, 300 in 60sec, 200 in 32s, 200 in

40sec, 100in 15 sec, 100 in 20 sec

400 in 66s, 400 in 80sec,300 in 48 sec, 300 in 60sec, 200 in 32s, 200 in

40sec, 100in 15 sec, 100 in 20 sec

5min jog recovery

400 in 66s, 400 in 80sec,300 in 48 sec, 300 in 60sec, 200 in 32s, 200 in

40sec, 100in 15 sec, 100 in 20 sec

That is 12km of running including recoveries faster than the irish 12km

record I'm told. !!!!!

AnEconomist, If all that training stuffare isnt specifics then what is?

:)

MarathonMind wrote:

Peters is definitely worth looking at since he accomplished the largest modern progression of the record- breaking 2:25:39 with 2:20:43, and then 2:18:41, 2:18:35, and finally 2:17:40. Lot of fast volume.

Amazing stuff. Who coached him? Were others training this way at that time?

I recall Geb and Co having 15-25x400m with 1min rest as a staple of their heavy training period. Usually at sub60 pace? Is this correct? Is this classified as a "VO2max" workout for those guys? (3k pace!) Or was it simply a way to simulate the 10000m or 5000m?

Thank you for that last post, jtupper. I'm still digesting this all....slowly.... :)

S. Canaday wrote:

Depends on what event you are training for, and what your natural talents are.

Sage advice, there. Different things work for different people--even people who specialize in the same event(s) and have similar marks in them.

Absolutely. Coe and Ovett, same era, same country, swapping 1500m/Mile records, very different animals.

Another great debate: Work mostly on your strengths but don't ignore weaknesses.

I've often heard it said that "FT" people should do a lot of miles, and "ST" people should do more "speed". I would think that you should give the body what it really wants.

ha, thanks "lease."

I'd say that 16-20 by 400m at what be around current 3k race pace w/1min rest is more like JD's "Rep" work. Its about stimulating those FT fibers and in turn should help that your economy at all slower paces. This means that perhaps your velocity at V02max increases because your legs get that muscle memory to eliminate wasted energy movements. For sure 5k pace feels "slower." While it is a what I consider a " pre- V02 max type of workout" you aren't spending probably more than the last 50m of each rep at around V02max intensity....unless you drop the rest to 30 seconds. The goal is to train the legs...not just the heart.

Those traditional Vo2max workouts are almost always 2-6min in duration (for each repeat) and are closer to 5k race pace. Those give you the most bang for your buck and simulate the demands of racing 5k-10k.

Now since I mentioned economy, I'd think that just increasing yearly total mileage volume is going to of course play a role (and add an extra variable) to your improvements and getting PRs.

Someone mentioned earlier that about their son improving in the mile without having to workout below race pace. Of course that is going to happen because most young runners (and those that haven't run 100mpw+ for years on end) are lacking in an aerobic base of endurance. Given their 400m speed they could run way faster in the mile and 5k if they just had a bigger aerobic engine. Just increasing your mileage, even if it is all at 7:00min/mile (or whatever your easy pace is) is going to pay huge dividends initially.

In the past -- Actually both groups did the same amount of running, but 1 did only about 15% of their training (say 15 miles of a weekly 100) at threshold pace or faster, whereas the other group did about 30% of their week (say 30 miles)at threshold or faster, which is a lot of faster running and why I wonder if it may have been too much faster training rather than less easy training that made the difference.

Skuj,

I do agree with you 100% on your point above that you should give the body what it wants....Slow "born marathoners" should not be hammering 200s and 400s all the time at 800m race pace, and "Speedy runners" or the 800m types don't need to hammer a bunch of long runs and run high mileage at a steady pace.

One training concept is that you train your weaknesses early in the season and then focus on your strengths during the more important part of the season.

In terms of your FT:ST muscle fiber distribution, I think its noted that those who are mainly ST have better economy (especially around MP to LT pace) and are less likely to get injured from higher mileage. However, when doing "anaerobic workouts" on the track their few FT fibers will quickly tire and they are consumed quickly by lactic acid.

On the other end of the spectrum, the FT runners are generally 800m guys who are probably more likely to get injured from running really high mileage....esp fast all the time. Threshold training gives them a lot of endurance initially and can really help them run PRs in the 800m and 1500m...however the fewer number of ST fibers they have can quickly tire and render them useless or "over-trained."

So of course their is a balance....I still think ST guys should do pure speed workouts invovling 30m-100m all-out sprints as well as lots of 400s at 3k pace. And I still think the 800m types should to long runs and try to increase their total weekly mileage.

For the slow twitch runner who does do 30m-100m all out sprints and 400m at 3,000m race pace, would you recommend a short or longer recovery? I am assuming that recovery time is less critical for sprints and even for the 400m reps. I would imagine that the goal is rapid turnover w/o stressing the fibers too much. So a slightly longer recovery period might be appropriate?

For a fast twitch runner do you guys think it would be better to build aerobic endurance on easier days by doing longer, slower runs or shorter runs closer to LT? Same for slow twitch?

Jtupper,

I seem to recall you saying that you found highly trained runners tend to have very little variation in the VDOT level of their performances across a wide range of distances. My question is whether or not these runners are capable of producing equivalent performances at roughly the same time or whether these equivalent performances are PRs that are produced at different times when the runner is trained specifically for each specific event?

Skuj wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Skuj, this talk about the contributions of so called anaerobic/aerobic energy is the biggest load of pseudo-scientific bullshit in physiology.

At vo2max most of the energy comes from oxidation of lactate. So how would you quantify that in terms of the old defintions?

You can't because the old definitions are wrong.

That's cool! I'm here to be enlightened.

Skuj, to answer your question, I would have to give definitions of Aerobic and Anaerobic energy supplies.

Describing Anaerobic energy supplies is something that has never been done properly on this message board.

I don't think substrate level phosphorylation has ever been mentioned here....... anyone?

What we have termed "equal" is what is best described as phyiologically equal. No doubt being able to run a particular 1500 time, when training specifically for the 1500, will not suggest you can also run the equivalent marathon time. Also, the marathon times, for example, are based on equivalent conditions -- a smooth all-weather track and any other condtions that would typically apply to your shorter-race PR. So usually a person's Along these lines, however, it is interesting to note that the women's top performance is the marathon (relative to other event records), but the men's marathon is a fair bit down on the list of bests. I have coached two sub-2:10 marathoners and neither ran a 10k as fast as their marathon predicted, but it would be easy to say they just never ran their best 10k. When you realize there are a number of 27:00 10k people, you have to wonder why sub-2:04 hasn't been achieved yet.

Peters training is in Tim Noakes book. Rarely did anything longer than 15-16 miles. Most of his training was about an hour at 3:00-3:30 per kilometer. That's not slow. 2:18 marathon is 3:16 per kilo. Peters dropped the WR from 2:25 to 2:17 or 18. He had the misfortune of running a marathon a couple weeks prior to the Olympics at WR pace for 20 odd miles. His was soundly beat by Zatopek in the Olympic race. No speedwork, no strides, nothing but hard steady mileage every single day. His theory was that if he wanted to race at 5:00 pace then he had to run as close to that in training as often as he could. Running 6:00 per mile would be pointless.

Alan

Well despite the fact that Peters probably could beat Zatopek in a time trial race- he still didn't. And Zatopek was interval trained. A lot of volume....at a faster pace- so more intensity. Zatopek could probably shift gears better and anyway he was probably also tired from his other races.

Now Bill Rogers comes to mind in terms of running mainly just a ton of volume and not a whole lot of speed work. He ran fairly fast while putting in some big mileage...pretty specific to the marathon. I think Deek also trained something like that...and his 10k PR was way off of Rogers.

As far as "equal" performances go from the mile to the marathon I think you'd have to treat the marathon on a totally different "scale." Your use of glycogen, your economy, and your LT are the main predictors of marathon performance- but since its so much longer than a 10k or 5k those systems become rougher and rougher estimates. Not to mention the "mental aspect" of learning to pace yourself well and knowing how to suffer in the last 10k. 5k and 10k can easily be predicted off of LT and V02max whereas the marathon is a totally different animal.

Didn't Deek run 27:40-something? He of non-periodization, "complex training" fame.

S. Canaday wrote:

5k and 10k can easily be predicted off of LT and V02max whereas the marathon is a totally different animal.

Can you predict your Marathon off "Marathon Specific Sessions"? :)) Such as WU + 6x5km MP + CD with 1km jog in between.

Or 150min like this:

30min easy + 30min MP + 30min easy + 30min MP + 30min easy.

?????

:)

(I'm in Penticton this week to hang out with Triathletes. Immense fun.)