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

Gap? What gap? He never said stop training and just jog around. Lydiard periodization can take several forms, but after "Anaerobic Training", comes phases like "Coordination" (which can include sprint training, repetitions, time trials, strides, fartleks, and races), "Freshening" (tapering before the "target" race), and "Racing". The "Racing" period can be extended by alternating "Race Week" and "Non-Race Week" schedules.The "Race Week, Non-Race Week" is the Lydiard implementation of your modern concept. And during base-building does anyone really get too far away from their speed, never able to regain it? Does that really ever happen? Maybe after a long stop due to injury, but otherwise, does that really happen with summer or winter conditioning?That's an honest question, but I don't believe that athletes "permanently, never able to regain it again" lose their speed after a period of regular base building. I can see why elite athletes don't want to take 3 months off, if they miss a racing season, but I don't know why athletes fear losing their speed.

your concept wrote:

Good point. I give you credit for deciphering that in the way that you did.

I think there's a gap in his philosphy, for example what happens after the "buffers are built." Does all training stop? He says to just jog around at that point, then start over, with winter training. The modern concept is to stay close to that level, rather than having to start all over again. I like the modern concept better, because otherwise people get to far away from their speed (aerobic power) for too long and are never able to regain it.

rekrunner,

The modern concept that the above poster "your concept" is referring to is interval training. Interval training in the form of short repetitions with a short active rest/recovery interval. Interval training makes your muscle fibers more elastic because it provokes a high level of lactate only for a short time (30-90 seconds) without fatiguing your muscle fibers too much. Why? because a significant amount of lactate is quickly removed from the muscle fibers during this short active recovery/rest interval.

Additionally, your cortisol levels stay low and this allows the runner to recover faster from the work out. A runner who runs 12X400 at 63 seconds per 400 meter taking a short active recovery/rest interval of 50-55 seconds will produce less lactate than a runner who runs 4X1200 at 66 seconds per 400 meters taking a longer rest/recovery interval of around 3:00-4:00 minutes although the runner who ran the 12X400 work out ran a faster overall pace than the runner who ran the 4X1200 work out.

I use this type of interval training with my athletes year round without any problems.

rekrunner wrote:

Gap? What gap? He never said stop training and just jog around.

You must not be familiar with Lydiard. Have you ever worked through his schedules? I have, several times long ago.

I can see why elite athletes don't want to take 3 months off, if they miss a racing season, but I don't know why athletes fear losing their speed.

I don't know about it being a fear, rather than something that just happens, from slogging around all the time. Lydiard was helpful in getting the jogging ferver going, resulting in marathons now being full of people running 5 to 12 hour marathons, but he didn't contribute anything at all to the racing of 5k's through the marathon.

I would say that his basic contribution to racing was that he got shorter distance (800-1500 meter) people running more miles. But even now, most of the top 800-1500 runners have not ever run any marathon, and I doubt that most of them do any 20 mile runs every Sunday.

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.

Mostly I'm interested in where you got the above from, or is that just your interpretation of the other things he had said?

Do you have a link or source to where he said an objective of anaerobic training is to lower the blood ph?

Also, do you have a link or source where he talks about longer recoveries, longer reps, the Moroccans getting a (beneficial) lower ph this way, and training where the Moroccans take long recoveries? I have seen Moroccan training and did not notice any particularly long recoveries.

I'm interested in finding out more of what you have said, not attacking you.

Years of Coaching wrote:

The modern concept that the above poster "your concept" is referring to is interval training.

I'm not referencing interval training, but rather the concept of limiting certain phases of training to only very small portions of the year, along with jogging at least half of the year, i.e. two 3 month periods of jogging, or "as long as possible", according to Lydiard.

I'm referencing the structure of the training, week by week, month by month through the year, for example the training of runners like Sammy Wanjiru, Duncan Kibet, James Kwambai, etc.

Observation? wrote:

So, if a 5K race is between 88-93% aerobic (Sports Medicine 2001), then why are we doing so much anaerobic work? Shouldn’t we work more TEMPO & less, say, 400’s?

Sure, I see the other 7-12% in the above numbers, but it seems like we might—just might—be getting wrapped-up in too much speed work.

Let's just run!

The simple answer to your question is that because the vast majority of the speed work we are doing is a aerobic as well. Speed work does not equal anaerobic work in near the degree I think that you are assuming.

I've seen quite a few of his schedules, and read a handful of his books, and a handful of other books about Lydiard's training. None of them ever say "stop training" or "just jog around", or "slog around all the time". Even the highly aerobic base phase includes lots of fast "tempo" runs.After the "Anaerobic Training" is finished, there are still a few more training phases and then racing. There is no time he ever recommended "stop training and jog around".Granted, the base building phase is something that bothers a lot of people, since doing any kind of speedwork goes against alternating your focus on "aerobic" development, and "anaerobic development". I guess you could add the "aerobic" intervals just previously mentioned to the base phase, but at some point, it stops being Lydiard. I've seen some Lydiard schedules which still include Time Trials (3K and 5K) and relaxed strides (4-8x 200m).And to say he didn't contribute to racing of 5K's through the marathon leaves me speechless. Well, actually nothing leaves me speechless. Granted he developed and perfected his techniques 60 years ago, and a lot has changed since then, with techniques, athletes and racing schedules. But Lydiard came along when everyone was doing mostly high intensity interval training. Lydiard said "aerobic development" is important, and can't be ignored. Lydiard said periodicity is important. Lydiard developed a scheme to time your peaks for important races. This is how his club runners beat interval trained, or burnt-out athletes at the Olympics.His impact on jogging was something separate from his contributions to racing, so to dismiss his contribution to racing with his efforts to get the public jogging, is to do a great disservice.

your concept wrote:

You must not be familiar with Lydiard. Have you ever worked through his schedules?

...

I don't know about it being a fear, rather than something that just happens, from slogging around all the time. Lydiard was helpful in getting the jogging ferver going, resulting in marathons now being full of people running 5 to 12 hour marathons, but he didn't contribute anything at all to the racing of 5k's through the marathon.

I would say that his basic contribution to racing was that he got shorter distance (800-1500 meter) people running more miles. But even now, most of the top 800-1500 runners have not ever run any marathon, and I doubt that most of them do any 20 mile runs every Sunday.

Here is a sample of the base building phase. Note that "jogging" is only one day a week, and that it includes time trials (3K to 5K) as well as strides. The aerobic running is supposed to faster than jogging, up to marathon race pace and tempo pace. It's not just 3 months of jogging:I. Conditioning (As long as possible) 2 week cycles. Monday Aerobic running 3/4 to 1 hour.Tuesday Aerobic running 1 to 1.5 hours.Wednesday Run hilly course 1/2 to 1 hour.Thursday Aerobic running 1 to 1.5 hours.Friday Jog 1/2 to 1 hour.Saturday Run hilly course 1/2 to 1 hour.Sunday Aerobic running 1.5 to 2 hours.Monday Run hilly course 1/2 to 1 hour.Tuesday Aerobic running 1 to 1.5 hours.Wednesday Time trial 3000 or 5000 meters.Thursday Aerobic running 1 to 1.5 hours.Friday Jog 1/2 to 1 hour.Saturday Relaxed striding of 4 to 8 times 200 meters.Sunday Aerobic running 2 hours or more.

your concept wrote:

... along with jogging at least half of the year, i.e. two 3 month periods of jogging, or "as long as possible", according to Lydiard.

I'm referencing the structure of the training, week by week, month by month through the year, for example the training of runners like Sammy Wanjiru, Duncan Kibet, James Kwambai, etc.

OK, I'll tone it down.I did answer the question above, giving the exact paragraph I paraphrased. But here are the links. Don't believe anything in this forum. The only trusted source today for Lydiard is the Lydiard website:http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/The quote about "anaerobic training" was paraphrased (my interpretation) from material found here:http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training_eng.pdfThe New England Runner article previously mentioned, can be found in its entirety here:http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/WATL.pdf(Then everyone can read for themselves how much of a stretch it is to say that Lydiard believes making recovery longer turns "anaerobic training" aerobic. Good luck finding the two referenced quotes -- it takes some hunting and they are not anywhere near together.)

Rekrunner

Does the earth moves around the sun or does the sun moves around the earth ?

Despite someone might claim it’s the sun that goes around the earth in fact is the earth that moves around the sun.

The Red Panda 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.

OK, so what are the details of this not so revolutionary concept?[/quote]

I don't have any details, I'm just surmising, based on the fact that different phases of the gait cycle require different muscle groups used in different ways with very different power outputs.

In my experience all aspects of the gait cycle become very difficult towards the end of a race or hard training session.

On a very slight tangent, can I bring you back to my earlier point from previous posts that we can improve both stride length and stride rate by increasing the plyometric force of the push off phase, and that this may help to explain why some days we are much more economical and efficient than others?

wellnow wrote:

my earlier point from previous posts that we can improve both stride length and stride rate by increasing the plyometric force of the push off phase

and that this may help to explain why some days we are much more economical and efficient than others?

I think it is not that simple. Improving the force only increases the length, which is not necessarily an improvement unless coordinated with an optimal rate.

However improving the force does not improve the coordination with rate, and in fact can lesson the coordination with rate. For example if the length increases for a given speed, then the rating must decrease.

J.R. wrote:

wellnow wrote:

my earlier point from previous posts that we can improve both stride length and stride rate by increasing the plyometric force of the push off phase

and that this may help to explain why some days we are much more economical and efficient than others?

I think it is not that simple. Improving the force only increases the length, which is not necessarily an improvement unless coordinated with an optimal rate.

However improving the force does not improve the coordination with rate, and in fact can lesson the coordination with rate. For example if the length increases for a given speed, then the rating must decrease.

Those is the usual traps we must avoid. But you can use an increased plyometric force to increas both stride length and stride rate by virtue of the facts that you can reduce the length of time your foot is on the ground and the foot comes up more quickly from the ground.

So now you are asking me a question. Lucky for you, I work with satellites, and I know a thing or two about celestial mechanics.Actually there are four answers: one, or the other, or both, or none. The real answer depends on your frame of reference.Since the earth has mass and some gravitational effect on the sun, we could think of the two bodies as a pair, circling around a fixed point between them, like a pair of figure skaters caught in a spin.Contrary to common belief, the heliocentric model does not disprove the geocentric model, and neither is more fact than the other. They are simply models which define a frame of reference.It is a simple mathematical exercise to switch from one frame of reference to the other.For astronomical purposes, the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric model, as the math is easier, and man is basically lazy at heart, constantly looking for the easiest path.

sound of silence wrote:

Rekrunner

Does the earth moves around the sun or does the sun moves around the earth ?

Despite someone might claim it’s the sun that goes around the earth in fact is the earth that moves around the sun.

Now some return questions for you.It doesn't feel right that I had to subject your evidence with my own personal outside knowledge, to fill in the missing pieces. I should have come to you first for further clarification. It's your statement -- you should do the work.My source of confusion is this: If I search your evidence for the word "aerobic". I don't find it. But you claim this evidence supports Lydiard's belief about intervals that "to turn it aerobic it may be done with long recovery".He does mention that making recoveries longer lets you get a "low arterial pH level". Tell me, what does Lydiard mean by "low arterial pH level"?And how do your quotes relate to a claim how Lydiard believes different recoveries can make interval training more anaerobic or more aerobic?Since you know Lydiard better than I do, how did Lydiard recommend doing interval training?

sound of silence wrote:

Rekrunner

Does the earth moves around the sun or does the sun moves around the earth ?

Despite someone might claim it’s the sun that goes around the earth in fact is the earth that moves around the sun.

Well OK, I'm all ears -- we're just brainstorming, right?My thinking is that where you feel the burn first is where it is more anaerobic.To the extent that plyometrics improves elasticity in the muscles, or tendons, it's like gaining free energy, so should at least allow a bigger stride length. I see you're reasoning, but I'm not convinced that the optimal stride rate will ever change significantly. (Maybe that kind of thinking limits everyone).To the extent the extra force simply comes from pushing harder, if the push-off is highly anaerobic, it generates our favorite intermediate product, lactate. We should all know by now its role as an aerobic fuel, but I can't help thinking that the rate lactate is consumed as a fuel, by other muscles or organs, remains fairly constant, or at best changes slowly over time with long-term training. I say this, because this seems like this would limit the stride rate, by limiting how frequently you can push-off, creating quantities of lactate. Harder push-offs (without elastic gains) would create more lactate, which would take longer to be consumed, thereby forcing a slower stride rate to maintain equilibrium.I always felt like the daily variations were due to previous training/racing workloads, and simply just not being 100% recovered on the day, or finally getting a new benefit of some long term adaptation from previous training/racing (like a new shipment and installation of capillaries and mitochondria :-).

wellnow wrote:

In my experience all aspects of the gait cycle become very difficult towards the end of a race or hard training session.

On a very slight tangent, can I bring you back to my earlier point from previous posts that we can improve both stride length and stride rate by increasing the plyometric force of the push off phase, and that this may help to explain why some days we are much more economical and efficient than others?

ventolin^3 wrote:

...

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

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've thought of another possibility -- which is a win-win for both of us.

While I'm a big fan of metrics like Purdy Points, and VDOT scores, I see now that they just give me a single score, from a single race, to characterize my current fitness, which is pretty much applicable to around that race distance. I know how to interpret a set of different scores over different distances, but giving your predictor some more thought, and what separates it from others, I was thinking that it might be useful to be able to characterize long term changes in my fitness with two metrics: basic speed (e.g. 400m), and endurance ability (e.g. in additional seconds required per 400m).

But rather than paying an annual subscription, for something that is a "black box", I thought to myself, hey -- my parents already spent a fortune on my mathematical education; why not put that to some good use? So I made some of my own assumptions, and developed my own formulas to come up with some personal speed and endurance metrics. Maybe I'll call it a "Mundo Predictor" (I think that's hilarious, as a kind of triple entendre).

Plugging in some numbers numbers from high school, and from now, I can see I seem to have lost about 10 seconds in my 400m speed, but I've gained a couple seconds per 400m in endurance, or speed retention.

Of course, I lack data points, and haven't extensively tested it on hundreds of other athletes, but just the same, I found that interesting. Thanks "ventolin", for triggering that inspiration. Now you don't have to do anymore grunt work for me. I'll do it myself.

Anaerobic burn? How does that differ from Jane Fonda's aerobic burn?

What you are feeling, which has been wrongly labeled 'lactic acid' for 200 years, is what is left over from the biggest sources of anaerobic work, so it's not true to say that that burning sensation is where it (those muscle fibers) is more anaerobic, but where most of the anaerobic work has been done, and not when the anaerobic workload is at its highest.

Yes you are right that there is a limit to how much we can increase our stride rate whilst also increasing stride length, but really this is nothing for anyone to worry about because the increased plyometric force that we can develop can also be trained to be endured for very long periods of time. So you can have a long fast stride for much longer time periods, if you want it, if you dare to be better than other people think you have the right to be. All you gotta do is run right baby.

But yes you are also right to question whether pushing off harder also requires more lactate production to provide both anaerobic and aerobic sources, and this supply of lactate is limited by glycogen availability. However by improving our push off technique we can get more from our fuel supplies, we become more economical.

So how do we improve this push off? I think the best way is to practice doing lots of vertical jumps with both feet and just a slight knee bend. I don't believe in the usual plyometric bounding/overstriding exercises. I think they are potentially dangerous and not really specific to running, but more to long jumping and triple jumping. You want a slightly longer, slightly faster stride held for a much longer time, which is a simple concept, which only requires simple technique adjustments.

After doing the vertical jumps, go for a run and concentrate on flicking the foot down as it lands to get extra leverage, and then bringing to foot up more rapidly, whilst at the same time, being aware that this extra leverage does not cause your breathing rate to increase rapidly. In ideal weather conditions with a bit of practice you should be able to keep this up for 2-3 miles, either without stopping or with very short recoveries, because if you do it right that's all you will need.