Mr. Renato Canova: Could You Please Answer a Question About Effective Ways to Improve the Lactate Threshold?

Do you think it really switches from 80-20 at 5k to 96-4 at 10k. I think your 96-4 is probably pretty close, but I believe the 5k is more than 90% aerobic. In the USATF manuals they say 80-20 for 5k and 90-10 for 10k, but I think those are incorrect. Was it just a typo? I don't think anyone would expect percentages to change so drastically. I don't even think the anaerobic contribution would even double from 10k to 5k.

BONO - what days are optimum for hill sprints? The day after a workout or the day before?

Before. NERVOUS SYSTEM Facilitation

Please put down those manuals.

Ingrid Kristiansen seems take a different point of view from you entirely - from her website:

Even newer literature and references about the distribution of the aerobic and the anaerobic work requirement in running use wrong and misleading values. The reason is that the old test method, the Oxygen Debt method, has very large inaccuracies. Newer research have provided a more accurate method, the Accumulated Oxygen Deficit (AOD). The consequence of this is that the aerobic work content has been underrated up until now.

Energy distribution in %.

Distance AOD.new method Old. wrong method Difference %

400m 46 +/-4%aerobic 25% aerobic 21-25%

800m 69 +/-4%aerobic 50% aerobic 19-23%

1,500m 83 +/-3%aerobic 65% aerobic 18-21%

Sources: AOD data: "Energy system contribution during 400m to 1,500m running, by Matt R. Spencer, Paul B. Gastin and Warren R. Payne. New studies in Athletics, no. 4/1996.

Oxygen debt data: "Keep on running. The Science of Training and Performance". Eric Newsholme, Tony Leech, Glenda Duester, -1994 -John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The new data is quite sensational, as it emphasizes the importance of aerobic power not only for long distances, but also for middle distances like 800m and 1,500m. As you can see, the differences between the new and old percentages are large compared to the previous inaccurate data: they are approximately 20%. If you use traditional % calculations on, for example, the 800m, the difference between 69 and 50 is:

(100%/69)*50 = approx 72%, or (100%/50) * 69= approx. 138%. Depending of what number you use as reference, the methods are from 28 to 38% in difference. (i.e. about 30 to 40%)

So the message is very clear to all middle distance runners: Forget about the high risk and painful anaorobic training. As you can see, it has less importance than earlier believed. Go out in the woods and run more, mostly long runs, plus some intervals and fartleks.

From the same source of the AOD data it was also concluded that the anaerobic capacity for a runner is equal to one quantity of energy, and this quantity is the same whether you run 400m, 800m, 1,500m or 10,000m. In the tests it was shown that the anaerobic capacity was the same in all distances, 400m, 800m and 1,500m. (calculated to a oxygen "cost" of 48ml/kg)

Longer distances than 1,500m will be more and more dominated by aerobic energy. The only anaerobic training a long distance runner needs will normally be what you get in the competitions. Our strong advise is to forget all tempo training; it very often causes more damage than gain.

observer of taking up space wrote:

guess who made 437 of them and took up 86% of the space.

Who?

Racer1,

According to BTDR, the 400m is 30% aerobic, the 800m 57% aerobic, and it goes upwards from there. Even the 100m is not entirely anaerobic because of stored oxygen in the tissues.

At 30s into any event, you're already at least 50/50 aerobic anaerobic and it climbs from there.

trackhead, if 30s into a race is split 50-50, then how is the 400m 30% aerobic? and the faster you run an event, the more fast twitch fibers play into it. the 800m on the world scence is MUCH more about speed than on the high school scene. its impossible to give an accurate call on it. you seem to spit off big words sometimes but i wonder if you truely undestand the underlying concept. how much biology or physiology have you taken?

trackhead wrote:

Racer1,

According to BTDR, the 400m is 30% aerobic, the 800m 57% aerobic, and it goes upwards from there. Even the 100m is not entirely anaerobic because of stored oxygen in the tissues.

At 30s into any event, you're already at least 50/50 aerobic anaerobic and it climbs from there.

Trackhead, I am very surprised by these numbers.

The ones I gave I read from Frank Horwill and other fairly reputable sources.

I also read that lactate production at a fast enough pace to maintain or improve basic speed doubles or triples from 20-30 seconds while it is mostly under control for the first 20 seconds.

About the 100, the muscles are contracting so intensely and forcefully and the energy exertion is so alactic that any oxygen transport seems negligible; in a 10 second race, there is simply no time to use it. The heart is still pumping blood, of course, and the lungs are still contracting and expanding, but the race is taking place at an intensity far above that which relies even fractionally largely on aerobic metabolism.

because the 50/50 use is the INSTANTANEOUS usage.

The 400m is 30% aerobic because the first part is so shifted anaerobically. The same reason why the 800m (mind you these are pretty fast guys) is 57% aerobic, despite the fact that at 90s, you're instantaneous energy use is ~90% aerobic.

That's why you see so many athletes with poor endurance go backwards in the last 200m -- they have poorly developed that energy system. We've all seen it. Or in the 400m, in the last 150m.

Racer1,

As per the 100m, as far as I know, because CrePhos drops off after 6-7s, endurance starts to kick in. For example, see Jason Gardner's 60m times versus 100 and 200. He's consistently run 6.46 for 60m, but has only broken 10s once, with a 9.98, and his 200m is 20.2 or something like that.

Here are the numbers in BTDR, pg 185, with data adapted from Matthews (1996, pp 247-258); Péronnet and Thibault (1989, pp, 453-465); Léger, Mercier and Gauvin (1986, pp 113-120). I made it into a table, but it doesn't look like it's going to post. but you can figure it out. Event/Vo2Max/Description/% Phosphate/% Lactate/% Aerobic

And I should add that the bit about 30s into the race being 50/50 aerobic anaerobic, and at 90s, 90% aerobic, was information that came to me via Tinman, who read it from Péronnet and Thibault.

``TABLE WIDTH="90%" BGCOLOR="#CCFFCC" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="4" BORDER="1"%%

Event

Approx. VO2Max

Race characteristic

Phosphate

Lactate

Aerobic

100m

N/A

All-out, short speed

70%

22%

8%

200m

N/A

All-out, short speed

40%

46%

14%

400m

N/A

99% all-out, long speed

10%

60%

30%

800m

135%

98% all-out, endurance speed

5%

38%

57%

1500m

112%

95% all-out, speed endurance

2%

22%

76%

3000m

102%

90% all-out, endurance with speed

less than 1%

12%

88%

5000m

97%

85% all-out, long endurance with speed

less than 1%

7%

93%

10000m

92%

Long endurance with some speed

less than 1%

3%

97%

Marathon

82%

Paced aerobic, long endruance, possibly speed

less than 1%

less than 1%

99%

You there, Renato?

Trackhead:

Sorry to disagree, but all credible research in the last 15 years shows that the aeorbic processes contribute far more to the energetics of running shorter events that previously defined and described. Indeed, the old way of deriving the anaerobic-aerobic percentages using the oxygen debt model was ludicrous and still is. Check out Dr. Paul Gatlin's studies and see that it is true that aerobic process contribute quickly and to a great degree. Even as far back as 1953, famous researcher, Margaria, said that at the 23 second mark of an all-out sprint oxidative processes contributed 50% to the total caloric requirements (at that moment) and as time passed the percentage grew larger and larger. In 1969, researcher Dr. Hermansen showed the the oxygen debt model was both wrong and just plain stupid for us to use.

I talked to Dr. Joe Vigil about this last weekend and he told me that he was not suprised at all. I told him the numbers from studies using updated lab methods and he acknowledged the information as both interesting and relevant. The following data has been revealed by Spencer, Gatline, Payne, Medbo, Thibualt, and Perronet, to name a few:

total energetics -

200m - 29% aerobic (at :22.3 for the 200m)

400m - 46% aerobic (at :49.3 for the 400m)

800m - 66% aerobic (at 1:53 for the 800m)

1500m - 84% aerobic (at 3:55 for the 1500m)

Guy Thiubault and Francois Perronet revealed their research in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in 1989 in which they has used isotope tracers to measure moment by moment energetics within cells. Their results showed that by the 60 second mark in a 90 second maximum speed test on collegiate runners, 83% of energy was derived aerobically and by 90 seconds it was 91%. Remember, this is not the average but what it was at those moments in time.

Tinman

Dr. Atkins wrote:

observer of taking up space wrote:

guess who made 437 of them and took up 86% of the space.

Who?

same one as on this page.

Tinman,

I don't disagree with you at all -- I was simply quoting the figures from BTDR, because Racer1 had labeled the 800m as more than 2/3 anaerobic. Thanks for the data. Beleive me, you're preaching to the choir.

observer of taking up space wrote:

Dr. Atkins wrote:

Who?

same one as on this page.

This page has almost 10 or more people posting. There is no one person I see making tons of posts.

Maybe next time you can actually answer the question?

I'm sorry if cannot follow the posts very well, but here in Iten it's very difficult to use internet. Sometime we have to await one hour without connecting, some other time the connection finishes suddenly when we are reading something or writing our e-mails.

Anyway, this night (here are 11:30 p.m.) I am lucky, as internet is working.

I saw some post, and I'm surprised to see that we are at 1040 posts. I'm also proud that this record is from a post with my name, but every record is done for being beated, so.....

I read also some post regarding Brad Hudson and Ritz. Please, don't think that my connection with Brad can mean that I prepare some program for his athletes. If they run well, is because Brad is a very good coach, with the will to grow and the curiosity to experiment something new. We are in touch thru e-mail, and my contribute is to tell him my experiences and the reasons of these, also the mistakes that I did and that I don't want some other can repeat.

He asked me what I think about hills, altitude and workouts for strength endurance, and I shared with him my experiences. That's all.

About the percentage of aerobic/anaerobic in some events of athletics (like 800m or 1500m) I think that it's not possible to give numbers. An example : do you think that the percentage of aerobic and anaerobic can be the same for 1:42.88 of Steve Cram or for 1:42.something (at the moment I don't remember very well) of Patrick Konchellah or 1:43.11 of Gregory Konchellah ? Or do you think that the 1:43.88 of Said Aouita and Donato Sabia are the same ?

You can use very different percentage (from 30 to 70) of both aerobic and anaerobic energy, depending on the type of fibres and your training. Also in Marathon we know, today, that the best runners can use a percentage of ANAEROBIC energy that some year ago was supposed to be useless, if not damageous, working like a "turbo", depoending on the ability in using a part of the lactate for new energy. So, I think that to talk too much about numbers is an exercise of phylosophy, nothing to do with the ability to coach different athletes.

If you allow me to do some comment, I think that American coaches are too much scientific, and sometime lose the ability to watch inside the reality. Personally, I never met a scientist that was also good coach, because they want to use the athlete in function of training, not training in function of the athletes. Don't forget that the most important problem to solve is to make easy what is difficult, and for this goal we need to be very simple, natural in our approach, bringing our athletes to train more without too much pressure. That's the reason because too much hard training is a mistake : because athletics become a continuous examination, no more a pleasure. You can train hard preserving the ability of enjoying your training, instead too many times athletes think that training is a "must", and lose their nervous energies in fighting in training.

Under this point of view, we have very much to learn from African runners. When we are able to learn from them, we can teach them something that they don't know. From this type of mixture we can build top results : scientific knowledge applied to natural attitude and capacity of preserving nervous energies.

Welcome back, Renato,

Your messages are encouraging to the spirit and pricelessly empowering to our inner capabilities.

bump