They are also at 7,000 feet.
They are also at 7,000 feet.
Canefis wrote:
For this reason JS made a lot of mistake, trained me way too fast....
No I didn`t. You followed easy the paces I gave you at the treadmill, but when it came to running outside you didn`t know how to control the paces I gave you and to hold your horses of your new higher level. When the coaching started you didn`t tell me that you had an old foot injury and it eventually flared up but after some rest and stabilizing shoe inserts/ support you were ready to go again the DANCAN way but became entagled in the belief that you knew best how to move forward. But I don`t regret the coaching of you and I found it very interesting and amazing to one more time see how fast the DANCAN system improves a runners running ability.
magic@coachjs.sehow do you know he lied?
This has what to do with the conversation?
shirtboy2021 wrote:
it MAY accomplish the same or similar goal. Big IF though, because if you overdue that workout you wont know til the damage is done, and you did 8-10 over where you needed to be.
Now if you did 10 min segments, you could control the intensity throughout, and not risk blowing 50-60 minutes at the wrong intensity for no reason. One day that 8-10 sub T could be in the right spot, the next one, same pace, could be totally wrong for you. The point is dialing in your perceived effort and HR data and linking it to the day to day variations physiologically through lactate testing, that way on any given day, on any given interval, in any given session, you are operating at the purpose and intensity for that days goal, and not just blindly relying on your perception for a given day or time of day.
I completely agree with this. If you run too hard in any of these sessions you don’t accomplish the goal of the session. Definitely something that so many athletes need to learn. People are too obsessed with hitting splits and running fast times in practice. They should be more focused on doing the work at the correct pace. Using heart rate or power or perceived effort can be good. Using the lactate meter would be perfect.
AndySmith wrote:
Interesting podcast reflecting on polarised Vs pyramidal training, and mixing the two (an 8 week block of pyramidal training followed by 8 weeks of polarised produced the best results over 5k in the study they're talking about. No big surprise but interesting nonetheless)
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5TkEUVjqjwXRyN8fbEYgeT?si=NZY5s729RF2IyWdsX_1a_w&utm_source=copy-link
How would this look?
probably 8 weeks of 3 workouts per week under 90% max HR effort, followed by 8 weeks of 2 real hard workouts a week at 90% plus effort and more strides to fill in on the easy days.
Plus you'd likely be racing more in that 8 weeks of Polarized block.
Great article -- especially dovetailing with the OP. THanks for sharing!
What was really interesting in the PYR->POL group was how much the capacity to produce lactate was. Not only did their velocities at 2mmol and 4mmol improve the most, but their anaerobic capacity was far and away the highest. And good that they used trained athletes as well for the study.
PYR→POL
1st block (PYRAMIDAL)
time in zones:
zone 1 280 ± 37 ~78%
zone 2 54 ± 19 ~15%
zone 3 24 ± 3 ~6%
total 358 ± 63
2nd block (polarized)
time in zones:
zone 1 279 ± 40 ~79%
zone 2 21 ± 9 ~6%
zone 3 47 ± 8 ~13%
total 347 ± 56
shirtboy2021 wrote:
What was really interesting in the PYR->POL group was how much the capacity to produce lactate was. Not only did their velocities at 2mmol and 4mmol improve the most, but their anaerobic capacity was far and away the highest. And good that they used trained athletes as well for the study.
The opposite is true for anaerobic capacity.
Before (post) testing all 4 groups had similar Lapeaks of 9, 10, 10 and 10 +- for PYR
, POL, PYR → POL, POL → PYR respectively (table 3 of paper).
After the test the PYR → POL group had the lowest increase in LApeak which was only +1.5%. The lowest increase of all groups (Table 5).
This was undetected or not mentioned by the author.
Before (pre) was meant ....
LarsL9 wrote:
Interesting how these threads allways derails into people/Americans trying to make this system be an other system that is closer to their comfort zone(?) rather than discussing this at face value. No this isnt the same as the system with higher intencity, lower frequency and with more steady state running.
I doubt that many will actually try an adoption of this, as most seem to bastardize it with their own biases of what makes a good system. This can make it worse than either two systems.
It happens all the time. The people on here are "pigheaded".
"Therefore it is EXTREMELY important to be disciplined and run 0.3 to 0.5 below the LT in most of the session (and maybe at the LT at the last interval).
Seems like Bakken described sweet spot training years before Overton
https://fascatcoaching.com/blogs/training-tips/sweet-spot-training-with-dr-andy-cogganshirtboy2021 wrote:
Great article -- especially dovetailing with the OP. THanks for sharing!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356355835_Effects_of_16_weeks_of_pyramidal_and_polarized_training_intensity_distributions_in_well-trained_endurance_runnersWhat was really interesting in the PYR->POL group was how much the capacity to produce lactate was. Not only did their velocities at 2mmol and 4mmol improve the most, but their anaerobic capacity was far and away the highest. And good that they used trained athletes as well for the study.
Marius Bakken and the Norwegian model requires that you transition into a race prep specific period where you do harder intervals, like for 5k for ex 6x1k@5k w/longer rest. The threshold volume will then go down and the training will look more like polarized. I am not surprised that the PYR->POL got the best performance. The threshold model tries to improve the aerobic capacity through the base period and then transitions into increasing the race specific maximal lactate steady state. This is about increasing the relatively sustainable anaerobic capability.
Canova uses this concept as well, peaking runners through race specific interval workouts to get to an ability to hold a high constant lactate level for a period relevant for the race time. I found old threads in this forum around that.
Gjert Ingebrigtsen talks about a lactate dynamic range that is between the lactate threshold and the highest lactate level. I think this is to be race specific. For mile race it needs to be fairly wide.
It seems that threshold model can raise the lactate threshold pace high, but too high anaerobic capacity can lower the threshold pace. It seems the optimal is to first raise the pace in base and then increase the anaerobic part close to racing and reaching a middle ground in race peak. It seems that too much anaerobic in base can hamper the threshold pace. Not only threshold training raises the threshold pace, also easier training and slightly faster training does that. An extra point is that an underdeveloped VO2max is an unused potential that will drag also the threshold pace up, so if that is the case, harder workouts can develop the VO2 max. For runners with well developed VO2max that seems not the case.
share that thread if you have it saved please!
Im also interested in the Aerobic Threshold improvement discussion if anyone has any information. I see many people talk about doing intervals around 1.6-1.8mmol, and even remember a thread from back in the day where Marius Bakken was talking about how he was going to spend a block focusing on it and got into an argument with one of the italian athlete/coachs who was slamming him and his performances. Assuming the theory is you are trying to flatten your lactate curve and preserve more and more glycogen as the space between LT1/VT1 and LT2/VT2 becomes narrower, until you move forward and you push LT2/VT2 further to the right with higher threshold/VO2 max work.
It seems like the schedules ive seen for the Ingebristens, that first threshold of the double threshold is an AeT intervals or what ive seen them call them "basic threshold". Assuming as the race seasons starts, those get dropped necessarily as the double threshold days become less frequent and the specific support from Aerobic Threshold intervals becomes less important than anaerobic speed work.
Any information anyone has would be very appreciated!
shirtboy2021 wrote:
share that thread if you have it saved please!
Im also interested in the Aerobic Threshold improvement discussion if anyone has any information. I see many people talk about doing intervals around 1.6-1.8mmol, and even remember a thread from back in the day where Marius Bakken was talking about how he was going to spend a block focusing on it and got into an argument with one of the italian athlete/coachs who was slamming him and his performances. Assuming the theory is you are trying to flatten your lactate curve and preserve more and more glycogen as the space between LT1/VT1 and LT2/VT2 becomes narrower, until you move forward and you push LT2/VT2 further to the right with higher threshold/VO2 max work.
It seems like the schedules ive seen for the Ingebristens, that first threshold of the double threshold is an AeT intervals or what ive seen them call them "basic threshold". Assuming as the race seasons starts, those get dropped necessarily as the double threshold days become less frequent and the specific support from Aerobic Threshold intervals becomes less important than anaerobic speed work.
Any information anyone has would be very appreciated!
I remembered wrongly. It is here:
http://docplayer.net/57876570-Development-of-strength-endurance-the-key-to-improvement-in-the-middle-and-long-distance-events-renato-canova-ita.htmlAlso I found an old thread worth reading:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=458338shirtboy2021 wrote:
share that thread if you have it saved please!
Im also interested in the Aerobic Threshold improvement discussion if anyone has any information. I see many people talk about doing intervals around 1.6-1.8mmol, and even remember a thread from back in the day where Marius Bakken was talking about how he was going to spend a block focusing on it and got into an argument with one of the italian athlete/coachs who was slamming him and his performances. Assuming the theory is you are trying to flatten your lactate curve and preserve more and more glycogen as the space between LT1/VT1 and LT2/VT2 becomes narrower, until you move forward and you push LT2/VT2 further to the right with higher threshold/VO2 max work.
It seems like the schedules ive seen for the Ingebristens, that first threshold of the double threshold is an AeT intervals or what ive seen them call them "basic threshold". Assuming as the race seasons starts, those get dropped necessarily as the double threshold days become less frequent and the specific support from Aerobic Threshold intervals becomes less important than anaerobic speed work.
Any information anyone has would be very appreciated!
shirtboy2021 wrote:
share that thread if you have it saved please!
Im also interested in the Aerobic Threshold improvement discussion if anyone has any information. I see many people talk about doing intervals around 1.6-1.8mmol, and even remember a thread from back in the day where Marius Bakken was talking about how he was going to spend a block focusing on it and got into an argument with one of the italian athlete/coachs who was slamming him and his performances. Assuming the theory is you are trying to flatten your lactate curve and preserve more and more glycogen as the space between LT1/VT1 and LT2/VT2 becomes narrower, until you move forward and you push LT2/VT2 further to the right with higher threshold/VO2 max work.
It seems like the schedules ive seen for the Ingebristens, that first threshold of the double threshold is an AeT intervals or what ive seen them call them "basic threshold". Assuming as the race seasons starts, those get dropped necessarily as the double threshold days become less frequent and the specific support from Aerobic Threshold intervals becomes less important than anaerobic speed work.
Any information anyone has would be very appreciated!
Sorry, pressed too quickly previously. I just read in the document about Canova trying to exactly push the AeT as close to a high AnT as possible.
Thank you Sir! this is the same thread i was remembering!
particularly this:
"This year I did the LT (I-AT) at much more precision than ever - more of it and at a higher frequency throughout the week.
I was challenged a year ago to change some of my training to a more intensity based model ("normal distance model"), but luckily I decided to go with what I believe in and to do that even better instead.
Problem is with LT training -when you want it to be really, really potent ; it takes precision ALL THE TIME, it makes the winter training much more boring than with the faster stuff and you got to be very, very patient. The major lift comes when you manage to develop the AT base from the winter into running aerobic at a lactate level where most people run on their anaerobic system (metabolism) in the summer (keeping the triggered fat metabolism, higher concentration of enzymes 5-HAD, Citrate Synthase from the winter etc) This in a real key ; the AT training is only a component needed to develope the high end "aerobic" system. If you do not know how to make this transition when the summer comes you will burn yourself into the anaerobic modus quite fast and not get the results you could have. In that case you might as well have trained normal distance training during the winter. Therefore precision in the summer is equally important. Racing alot will for example help the anaerobic system-guys but not a whole lot those (few) with a real high end aerobic system in the bottom.
Marius
"
Assuming he started to change his thinking because he was doing 4-5 LT2 workouts a week in his prime. Might be why the Ingebristen's system has the AM Threshold's as 'slower' which i think Marius mentions as an aside in the OP "In terms of lactate say if your individual threshold value is 3.0, a range of 1.8-1.9 and 3.2 can be beneficial – at different types of sessions at different times, as mentioned above."
1.8-1.9 on a Lactate Pro 2 is probably about a 1.5-1.6 on a Lactate +, same with 3.2 probably being about 2.5-2.6 on a Lactate +, right in line with what he's recommended before and certainly in line with what the Norwegian triathletes are doing.
Arnaud Dely has an IG where he shows his aerobic work and lactate values and he's almost always under 2.0 mmol on a Lactate +, which has to be in his Aerobic Threshold range. People comment about the low value for his xK intervals and he just says '2.5 mmol would be too fast'
My frien is doing double threshold. Please clarify, what second session of the day may look by lactate: <3.0mmol? Thanks