Lactic Acid Update

Richard,Answer the original question:Define "Recovery."

Richard_ wrote:

And the person who makes the claim that it isn't applicable needs to provide the data/research to support their view.

No sir! Not how science works. You are the hypothesizer and the extrapolater here. The burden of proof falls on you! You are the one extrapolating the applicability of this study (which had only 6 subjects--have you even read the paper?) with its unique methods (methods so intense they are sure to lead to overtraining with time--ie 3 VO2max tests per week and an additional 3-5 30 minute training bouts at 85% VO2max) to training in general. You must defend your position. You have again misinterpreted and overextended the results of a study. This bad logic and bad science.

Again, define recovery.

Thanks for the heads up, Avg. Joe, but I figured as much.

Hey Richard underscore, if you're not back under your rock for good yet, answer me this as well. Have you ever even tried to apply your supposed findings to flesh and blood runners, or watched anyone try this? Because based on your website and your steady stream of article-abusing bullshit (selective interpretations, misapplications, other bad science) you seem like a guy who decides in advance what is true about running based on wishful thinking or something very much like it, digs up papers that appear to support your made-in-advance conclusions, and barks like a seal in the hope that people are dumb enough to believe you.

Ever coached anyone besides military recruits and joggers, Richard underscore? What's the driving force behind all of your bullshitting and nattering? What do you want out of this sport?

But first, kindly answer my earlier question about "exceptional" runners. (If you take your favorite "out,", that is, if you refuse to answer on the grounds that you don't exchange words with "abusive" posters, you'll only be a greater laughingstock.)

balance,

If we analyze this, you said that "Brooks has had relatively good success coaching middle distance runners. He has not had much success with distance runners though."

Well if we look at the cellualr and biochemical makeup of mid distance runners. Training this way would only benefit this group.

As we all know that there are several types of muscle fibers. Fast twitch (a&b) and slow twitch.

The characteristics of a mid-distance runner would have a higher percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers.

FT -A have a moderate resistence to fatigue, structually they have large motor neurons and fiber diameter, and a high mitochondria density, medium capillary density and medium myogloblin content. Have a high creatine phosphate and medium in triglycerides stores. Have both high glycolytic and oxidative enzymes.

FT-B sensitive to fatigue , large motor neuron and fiber diameter, but low mitochondria and myoglobin content. These also contain glycolytic enzymes but few oxidative enxymes.

According to Dr. Vigil the events of an 800m would be 45% aerobic/ 55% anaerobic and 1500 35% aerobic / 65 % anaerobic.

Thus, most good middle distance runners are capable of running sub 11.0 in the 100meters. These athletes must have a well adapted neuromuscular system and can tolerate anerobic work much easier, but because of their inefficient aerobic metabolism, react in a negative way to large training.

This would rely mainly training the glycolyic system. Which makes sense why he had a better mid-distance group.

Isnt this similar to how el. g. trains. correct me if im wrong.

Yo Rivas, you wanna (slowly) re-read what you posted and correct yourself?

"According to Dr. Vigil the events of an 800m would be 45% aerobic/ 55% anaerobic and 1500 35% aerobic / 65 % anaerobic."

balance wrote:

Antonio,

Your mentioning of the term interval to describe the recovery period peaked my interest in your discussion about incomplete rest periods in between repetitions. It is my understanding that Greshler did not necessarily desire very short recovery periods, nor did he necessarily desire the recovery intervals to be jogged. Many are aware that Gresheler and Reidell had their athletes lie down in between each fast run so that they could get the heart rate down as fast as possible.

Balance. I think you are wrong. Thisis one more historical mistake, as many in our sport, that turn on to a wrong interpretation of the interval training from the Freiburg school.

Since long ago that i discuss your this arguments, the use of the intervals in the called "interval training". I know that most of the literature says exactly what you says, But they are wrong.

I think that to give you a satisfactory and complete answer to your question i would need a new thread or at least a couple of long posts. That´s impossible for me to justify that in some sentences – and we will need to read and discuss Gresheler and Reindell original articles. We need to go back to Gresheler articles, and see the reasons why those after Gresheler they misunderstood and they did transform what´s interval training – that´s with no doubt based in uncompleted pauses to reps training (merely repetitions, not dealing with the incomplete pause effect).

You see, most of the people, simply reads once or twice – they have no time or interst to investigate every issue, they copy from one each other what they read in the books and they take for granted wrong ideas – but they claim to have a scientific method . if ther´s a wrong idea out there in what they read, this passes from one to another and from generation to generation, and in the final this changes to be the “true” and “factual” but that´s “untrue” and “not factual”. But in the case of Gresheler that´s not true that he did uses quite complete interval pauses and that´s not true that he did uses passive pauses. Not at all. Ther´s a portuguese runner named Manuel Faria that did win Zatopec in a few occasions. He tooks teaching and coaching directly from Gresheler in Germany.

One thing that you need to understand is that in my opinion - for the sake of the true - what´s actually people thinks (most of the people) that´s Greshler interval training method need to be revised and re-write. Definitively, the interval training from the Freiburg school did worked only with incomplete pauses in his origin - shorter as possible and also with active intervals.

The fact that all over the world this system is known as to have complete pauses and passive intervals have to do with a misunderstanding of that facts and of the articles of the Freiburg school.:

1/Imagine that ther´s a group of runner´s that do an interval training session in a track under the supervision of a coach. the start the first repetition all in the same time - that´s what usually happens in this kind of situation.

When that´s the case that they did interval workouts - in a group - most of the times that´s in a group - in the 50´s or 60´s - usually ther´s no one chrono for everybody. And you see if you have 5 athletes doing intervals you would need 10 chrono watches, Remember that they are living in the 40s-50s. Ther´s no pulse chronos watches as today, ther´s also not too much split chronos as actually we do. This is a 80s-90s invention, if not invented at least spread by commercial bland as a product that everybody can buy today ! A chrono cost in the 40s/50s it´s almost a half-month salary.

Example. Then the runners they start all together for the first rep - they do so, because they need to use 3-4 chronos maximum (sometimes 1 coach have just 1 chrono, those who have 2 or more that´s a luxury) and also because if you are a coach that have to train 10 athletes and you want to do that workout in that determined day - then they would have - 1 chrono for the interval of each one runner (different paces), another for the intervals (different recover) of each one runner. But if you essay 1 runner each time running the workout as a single runner, not in a group - you would need all evening to that the 10 runners they complete the 10 workouts.. Then, imagine in that same day, ther´s another group of sprinters in that same track - 10 sprinters. they would need more another more than 10 chronos. Yes, sometimes we forget how it was in the past. In the 50´s people use to train workouts in groups also because the coach did just 2 or 3 chronos.

2/Then to solve that solution, they wrongly decide - the coaches, not Gresheler - that the pace intensity that´s what is most relevant in the interval training - the faster the better - and not the shorter recover as Gresheler did prescribes - then they start to use a method that´s a quite long pause duration - and that in reality isn´t no more interval training as it was it´s origin or essence permiss as Gresheler and Reindell did define that- the interval training took his name “interval” because that´s mainly based in the incomplete intervals system.

They decide to use such a long interval as a solution - that almost everybody in a group may be able to recover in that standard period - let´s say 1:30. But i will show you some quotes from Gresheler articles and he says that clear - you may use the shorter interval as possible, the way you have a quite incomplete recover, and with that so - each new rep/set, that´s harder than the past one in terms of cardio-vascular effort and also in terms of lactic acid concentration.

Just a simple example:

Ex: 1st rep – 3mmol/168pulse; (35sec interval-145HRb); 2rd rep/3.1mmol/172pulse; (35sec interval-145HRb) 3rd rep – 3.4mmol/172pulse; (35sec interval-145HRb); 4rd rep – 3.8mmol/175pulse; (35sec interval-145HRb); …(etc)…10th rep – 6,8mmol/182HRb

The pause that´s defined by the time to get down to 2/3 of the max. HRb – then that runner max is 190HRb, and the pace it depends, but to give you an idea that´s in percents of the PB for that rep distance.

The idea of use a pause to get back to 120pulse beats that´s wrong. Tomorrow, i will show you the Gresheler&Reindell ideas. I also have copies original letters and the training book from Gresheler to this portuguese runner. Ex: Gresheler precribes for Manuel Faria 14:09 PB, 15X400m/66sec rec=40sec, or 8X600m/88sec rec=45sec.

3/By the spread (mis)use of the long pauses than what should be, the coaches they were able to take and control the "interval training workout" but that´s no more interval training based - as that would be with short and incomplete recover and with individualized recover durationfor each single athlete, since each one runner covers the rep distance for different time results, and eventually each one needs also different interval pauses duration.

4/Now thinks that they want to use, as Gresheler prescribes really - active pauses. What a mess with that limited chronos. The coach can´t control all ten runners. Then soon they give up to use active pauses. But Gresheler, that in his genuine idea improvement get a decisive influence from the Zatopec success – and we know that Zatec did use active pauses.

5/Now thinks that you need individualized interval pauses based on the heart pulse beats. Ther´s no need to remember you that at that time the HRM that didn´t exists ! Why with limited chronos if you go ahead on the track ? Then they decide that the solution is to recover standing in the track instead of jogging !

I agree with Richard, that we have no more data and info from the past, we lost the understanding how and why they did.

If ther´s anything that characterizes the Freiburg method from others methods - the tempos from the early English training - or the Sweed fartlek or any other training method- we use to mention Paavo Nurmi - that´s the use of the incomplete intervals as the main goal of the Gresheler interval training method.

Now, you open a book and what you read ? That Gresheler did use quite complete interval recover. What can i say, simply that´s wrong !

Tomorrow i will quote you some Gresheler articles with scientific arguments and also some workout examples why he uses incomplete pauses and you will see that i´m right, may be you will end with a different concept what´s the Gresheler interval training.

I also will comment the lasy part of this your post further up.

I will reply

Richard

I may admit that I did a kind of trick, but I try to explain your own logic method.

Anyhow I did use your answer positively. You see I also use quite a lot hill training workouts in all-out max.pace, so thanks for your opinion.

Some people ask me what I want to say by – If the Central Governator that´s true the training consequences, would be:

1/the “threshold theories”based will be consider garbage.

2/we need to enter quickly in the specifics.

This point 2. means that the typical/classic Lydiard training with a long bulld-up base period with mainky aerobic training, or the Matveiev cycles of periodisation will be replaced for an based period as short as possible and a longer period that includes specific training as close as possible to the most specific workouts.

Ex: you define that according your training needs the best workout that´s 10X1000m/3:10 rec=2min

Then quickly as your shape condition permits (early in the season) you may start to use this workout instead of introductory workouts in slower paces than this one.

But if eventually you aren´t no able to run that 10X1000m/3:10 rec=2min, because to be according the Central Governator theory what´s prevalent in the workout that´s the intensity.

Then, if you aren´t able to compete that workout as designed, you may use parts of the workout (in distance/duration or with a long recover) but follow the same pace intensity. Ex:

USES THE SAME PACE GOAL INTENSITY

5X1000m/3:10 rec=2min (reduces the number of reps), or

10X1000m/3:10 rec=4min (long recover), or

10X800m/3:10 rec=2min (short rep sets), or

8X800m/3:10 rec=4min (reduces the number of reps, short reps sets, and also long recover)

INSTEAD OF

10X1000m/3:20 rec=2min, or

10X1000m/3:20 rec=4min, or

15X1000m/3:20 rec=1min, or

15X800m/3:20 rec=1m30

More than I can say, this Rushall article that a friend send me, contains most of my concepts in this item.

INSTITUTIONALIZED OVERTRAINING

Rushall Thoughts, (1994).

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol13/rushall7.htm

I also advises you all - to read (those who haven´t done yet) this good articles for the same author. This fits very good as an answer to Speed Kills posts.

COACHING DEVELOPMENT AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS [OR BELIEF-BASED VERSUS EVIDENCE-BASED COACHING DEVELOPMENT]

Brent S. Rushall

October, 2003

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm

balance,

I've enjoyed our discussion too. Echoing rivas, I will never know everything there is to know about physiology either so these discussion are beneficial for me also.

Now that we have solved the "riddle of lactate" ( :) ) and are in general agreement that it isn't the cause of fatigue we can turn our attention to other, equally fascinating topics.

As for training methods, I've been working diligently on my next paper, reviewing the research on the training variables. I hope to have it done in the next month or so. Hopefully it will prove to be thought provoking.

My best regards to you, sir.

rivas,

I will repost what I used to reply to your question about the lactate shuttle earlier. Perhaps I misunderstand your question. I believe the answer is quite clear though.

2. After pyruvate is converted to lactate, the lactate can slip quickly and quietly out of cells and into surrounding tissues and the blood. This 'lactate escape' in effect prevents glycolysis (the conversion of glucose into pyruvate) from shutting down (if pyruvate built up to overly generous levels, glycolysis might 'back up', thwarting energy production). As lactate leaves hard-working muscle cells, it can be 'picked up' by other muscle cells and tissues. This departure of lactate from cells engaged in strenuous activity is sometimes called the 'spilling' of excess lactic acid into the blood.

Pyruvate is used as fuel by the muscles yes, but too much of it inhibits glycolysis. Pyruvates conversion to lactate allows glycolosis to continue longer than would be possible without lactate formation. As you can see from above lactate can move in and out of cells very easily. This prevents glycolysis from shutting down initially. Even though this is initially beneficial, too much lactate accumulation in and around the cells will also eventually cause glycolysis to shut down also. This is due to the mitochondria not being able to do their job in highly acid environments.

Richard_ wrote:

The issue isn't "training response" it's applicability of the results of data gathered from one group to another, different group. You have made the claim that physiological data (not training response) from untrained subjects is not applicable to trained subjects. I ask you to support your statement.

Well, if the two groups are physiologically distinct then the data does not transfer. (Thus the distinction.) Would you then insist that the trained and untrained have no physiological distinctions? (This is the rhetorical argument you make when using physiological data from untrained subjects and make application to the trained.)

If you need more information about training, physiology, and the odd relationship between the two I suggest again that you pick up a copy of Lore of Running by Noakes and read pages 1-921.

You know what, after I read that, I kinda questioned it. So I looked it up, In Dr. Vigil's book Road to the Top, (p.67)his chart has it at 800m 45% aerobic/55% anaerobic 1500 35% aerobic/65% anaerobic. (It may be a typo)

In the USATF level I coaching manual, 800m is 40% aerobic/ 55% anaerobic/ 5% anerobic alactic, 1500m 50% aerobic/ 48% anaerobic/ and 2% anaerobic alactic

thanks for the heads up.

rivas,

If you saw Brooks Johnson's training schedules and compared them to El. G's you would not see many similarities. The Moroccans are knows for running very hard on their distance runs, and don't work out on the track very much on the track compared to other countries. They also run relatively high mileage. Johnson only recomends about 45 miles per week for a 1500m runner, and most of the runs are either short 45 minute easy runs or hard track workouts. He does not believe off season base is always necessary. His schedules are based on 12 weeks to the race of the year. I questioned him on base building and he said "listen my man, my athletes don't ever need to run in the off season unless they feel they have to burn off some excess energy." Needless to say I didn't follow this advice. Any so called base training that he does suggest you do only consists of running five days per week, with a 2 on 1 off and 3 on and 1 off pattern. It is all short easy running, of about 40-60 minutes.

It is interesting to note that Vigil wrote the USATF level I coaching manual.

Mr. Cabral

As I have discussed earier, the anaerobic threshold (AT) is also defined has many different definitions lactate threshold, lactic acid threshold, gas exchange threshold, or ventilatory threshold, the predictor of the onset of metabolic acidosis caused by the increase in arterial lactate during exercise.

Lets say you have a new athlete that you have never worked with or it is early season and you want to gather data and estabilsh the AT. Is there an reliable test that you use to estabilsh AT?

I know Dr. Vigil uses as a guide 1/2 marathon speed as an estabilshing point of anerobic thrshold. It should last for 4 miles, ie. 3x4miles at 1/2 marathon pace. This effort would be right below anaerobic threshold pace.

What method do you use for estabishing anaerobic threshold?

Equivocation meter,You are really a piece of work. So you think Richard does not know what he is talking about, great, we get the point. But in order to make that point, do you really need to make post after post after post BASHING him with what you think are clever insults, though which are really just highfalutin histrionics, and grandiloquent posturing on your part, and which are obviously mainly meant to impress yourself and the anti-Richard crowd?? I will answer that for you: NO. (and I threw in all those "big words" for you since you seem to fancy yourself a master of English vocabulary, though you like to pepper your neatly formulated sentences with swear words to spice them up a bit)Look, GET OVER RICHARD, AND GET OVER YOURSELF (that might be a long-term assignment for you). It seems like you FAR PREFER hurling insults at Richard rather than doing what several others on this board with a level of maturity miles above yours are doing: either engaging him and showing him the error of his ways, or ignoring him. Concerning that preference, I think you need to ask yourself: ‘why do I have it?’(and if you accuse me of the "pot calling the kettle black" syndrome because I am attacking/insulting you, my response to that charge is: A) I am doing this ONCE to you[as opposed to your multitude of attacks on Richard], and doing it in far less aggressive manner than you have done to Richard, and B) bullying the bully is an acceptable course of action in my opinion)Now let me ask YOU some questions. You wrote the below, concerning Richard’s contention that recovery is not "significantly modifiable"-

Equivocation meter wrote:

Try this, fuzzball. An athlete may typically progress from being able to manage 40 miles a week with one or two directed workouts (including races) at age 18 to 90 miles a week with two or three directed workouts at age 30, with the average daily burden of fatigue magically the same in both cases. This implies a significantly improved ability to recover from the work of training. Are you going to argue that experienced runners don't enjoy such a progression?

A)

"may typically" ????? And YOU are accusing Richard of "bad science" ??? Do you know that "an athlete" ALSO "may typically" attempt to increase his mileage in the manner that you speak of and end up injured, burnt out, and out of the sport before he reaches 30???? OR…..(reversing your scenario) an athlete "may typically" run 80-90 miles a week at age 18 and then find he can only manage 40 a week in his 30’s because he can’t recover from running like he used to as a kid? Oh, believe me, both scenarios have happened countless times. Of course it has not happened to "the elites" BECAUSE they survived the volume and intensity increases and go on to becoming just that: elites. One rarely reads about the people that fail your little experiment because there is nothing much of interest to read about them. Their story is simple: they are runners who failed because they could not handle hard training (i.e., successfully RECOVER from their training), got injured or failed to improve, and gave up. When Richard writes, is he ONLY discussing elite runners? No, he appears to me to be MAINLY discussing recreational runners. I do think that Richard’s mistake is that he does try to include elite runners somewhat in his equations(though at most times he CLEARLY differentiates between them and recreational runners), or at the very least he underestimates the physiological differences between elites and also-rans. That last part is actually same mistake you are making, but in the opposite direction: you seem to think that everything that applies to a very good runner can apply to a recreational runner.

B) Do you really believe that EVERY top runner who increases volume and/or intensity improves compared to being on a program with either less volume or intensity??? I sure hope not, because there are many elites that have changed training programs, cutting out either volume and/or intensity and found that they improved after the switch to the "less is more" program. Therefore, Richard’s contention that one’s ability to RECOVER from training is essentially tied to one’s ability to perform better, and that one needs to pay CLOSE ATTENTION to how one is recovering from day to day, and week to week, is clearly accurate. And while the "recovery study" on his site is concerning "untrained people" only, it DOES seem to show that individuals seem to have varying natural rates of recoverability (which yes, could change, to varying degrees, after a period of training). Yes, defining EXACTLY the concept of "being recovered", as Phoenix pointed out, is difficult and inexact, but so too are many other concepts being discussed here (yet there are many ways to measure the concept of "being recovered", through perceived fatigue, resting/morning HR’s, lactate measures, etc). When it comes to improved performances, recovering from one’s workouts is as important as just piling up miles or piling up hard efforts. Although Richard does not really shed much new light on this concept, his writing about it is useful in my opinion, especially for recreational runners.

Antonio,

I have read one of Gresheler's early articles. It was translated to English from German, but I believe the translation was correct. In the article Gresheler clearly states that the athlete should be fully recovered before the next run, even though the recovery period is only 90 seconds. Because of this, he apparently advised runners to utilize 100m repeat runs, so that they could recover in the required time. He did not care so much about the distances of runs, since he cared more about increasing the amount of recovery intervals, not the run distances. The run distances would increase as the athletes became fitter.

The same information was presented in a short training manual written by Gordon Pirie. Mr. Pirie was trained by Gresheler, and he also clearly states the same information that I read in the Gresheler article.

Perie also mentions how the speeds and the distances of the runs were always very controlled. He tells a story about how Gresheler used to tell Perie to slow down and take it easy, because he had a tendency to run the workouts too fast. Perie mentions how the workouts were not supposed to be that tough. He mentions how "the workouts were very enjoyable, but they required a lot of sweat."

Unless the article I read was misquoting Gersheler, and unless Mr. Perie is lying about the training Gersheler asked him to do, I believe I have a strong reason to believe I understand the training methods.

I have tried to run the workouts this way using a heart rate monitor. I initially started running 100's, and I worked my way up to 400's. The runs were fast, but controlled. I was surprised how fast my heart rate would come down to 120, and if it didn't I stopped the workout. My personal experience tells me that this is a very effective way to gain fitness. I personally do not like to train this way however, because I found running this way often left me a bit jaded. I do not like to run on the track that often, and the workouts can become quite long if you continue to recover in the required time.

Richard, how having your PR's progressed using this approach??

Are you still improving??

balance wrote:My personal experience tells me that this is a very effective way to gain fitness. I personally do not like to train this way however, because I found running this way often left me a bit jaded. I do not like to run on the track that often, and the workouts can become quite long if you continue to recover in the required time.

I agree that it is very effective. This is essentially the Igloi/Schul method: lots and lots and lots of SHORT(mostly 100-200m), FAIRLY FAST (often run just around 5k race pace from what I understand, but the paces/efforts would vary from workout to workout, or even within a workout), but CONTROLED (often run feeling the "fresh") repeats done with short rest intervals (usually 50m walk).

Why did these runs make you feel "jaded" ??

"I do not like to run on the track that often..." Is that why, because you didn't like being on the track for long times? No one ever said such workouts NEED to be on a track. In fact, Schul ran most of his workouts prior to the Olympics (when he trained by himself) NOT on a track. Such workouts can be run ANYWHERE (roads, fields, tracks, wherever). Just run fairly quick (but "relaxed") for about 20-35 seconds (or thereabouts), take a short, very easy recovery interval (walk, or jog SLOWLY), then repeat. One can use a HR monitor to make sure HR's don't approach Anerobic HR's, and ensure that during recovery interval HR's drop to "easy" levels, but not to "fully recovered" levels. Thus , the entire workout can be a nearly fully aerobic one, not very taxing (because of all the rest intervals, and the short length of the repeats), but run at near race-pace paces.

What's a better aerobic workout for an imaginary runner whose 5k pr is 16:15, with a max HR of 200 (AT HR is around 175):

A) 60 minutes STEADY running, done at let's say 7:00 pace per mile for the average, run feeling moderately fatigued. HR starts in low 150's, finishes near 165 (picks up pace a little last few miles, and fatigues a little), for an avg HR of 157 for run. Or......

B) 60 minute run broken into 150m "pretty fast" repeats, followed by very slow-jog/walk 50m interval. These repeats could be near 5k race-pace, which is about 5:15 per mile for this runner. For 150 m, this would be about 30 seconds for the repeat. (This is CLEARLY not all-out sprinting. A runner such as this might be capable of a 27.0 all-out 200m, thus, capable of running 20 seconds for 150m, a full 10 seconds faster than he is actually running here. But the pace IS 5:15 per mile pace, a lot quicker than the 7:00 pace in example "A." ). During each repeat, his HR would hit about 160-165 at the end of the 30 seconds, and would remain in that range for beginning of rest interval. Near end of rest interval, HR would quickly drop into the 130's. Next repeat would begin. If HR's later were not dropping low enough during interval, or were getting a bit higher than desired range at end of repeat, repeat speed could be lowered slightly and/or recovery interval extended slightly.

Avg HR for entire workout 157, always within range of 135-165.

What is better??? Both are "aerobic" workouts, where runner does not go above anerorbic threshold, and both maintain similar avg HR's for the workout (but 2nd workout has more spikes, yet even highest ranges do go into AT range, and lowest ranges only go barely below 70% max Hr).

Both workouts achieve decent volume of aerobic conditioning. But in order to do so, each workout "sacrifices" something in the name of keeping the workout from being too hard/taxing:

**workout A "sacrifices" pace/speed, for STEADINESS/CONSISTENCY of pace (non-stop effort, ie, no breaks or really easy/slow parts)

** workout B "sacrifices" steadiness/consistency of pace for QUALITY/FASTER SPEEDS during repeat parts.

90% of runners choose workout "A" for their moderately hard aerobic effort run. WHY?

I think workout "B" is better(though both should be used). It still has 60 minutes of aeorbic running (hr's are always aerobic), but LOTS of race-pace running which develops neuromuscular efficiencies better for racing. It is NOT all-out sprinting, thus is not particularly taxing or an injury risk, and is NOT lactic-acid inducing, so it is an anerobic workout. There are many easy rest intervals which make it quite doable.

Most people think of "short repeats" as having to be FAST, FAST, FAST.....just about all-out. This is not the case. And most people think of aerobic runs for volume of HAVING to be run STEADILY/CONSISTENTLY without breaks. Again, this is not the case.

I believe these short repeat/interval types of workouts that I describe were the "secret" to the many succeses of Igloi's athletes. Bob Schul almost NEVER RAN LONG STEADY, "SLOW" RUNS. Sometimes he probably pushed his short interval runs too hard (and thus had injuries), but often he was running every repeat feeling "fresh." When run that way, these workouts are no more taxing than 60 minutes run at a non-stop/consistent pace that is much slower than race pace.

Again, to make a workout very repeatable, aerobic, and to allow it to contain a good volume of running, one has a choice:

run "slowly"(quite a bit slower than race-pace) NON-STOP, or......

"quickly" (closer to race pace), but for only brief spurts and with lots of short, easy rest INTERVALS in between these "fast" repeats

More people should choose/try option "B."

Richard_ wrote:

slomo,

If I understand your point you are suggesting that untrained subjects are so completely different phsyiolgocally than trained subjects that the results of a study using untrained subjects has no applicability to trained subjects. Is that correct? If so, would you please provide the fdata/research supporting this claim?

Does this then mean that no data gathered from one group is ever applicable to members of any other group?

1. Untrained people have less mitochondria, less capillary density, fewer of a wide variety of enzymes, etc. Check any ex phys book or your beloved Noakes for this information.

2. It is not appropriate to use data from one population to another. It is not proper to use information from diabetics when discussing nutrition for an otherwise healthy person. Apples and organges. In research it is often desirable to look for the "Big effect" so one uses untrained subjects. The thought process being that if it will not work on them there is little hope in a training paradigm to work on well trained folks. This is good science!

3. The data from one group has to be tempered when trying to apply to another group. The same can be said when using animal models.

rivas wrote:

You know what, after I read that, I kinda questioned it. So I looked it up, In Dr. Vigil's book Road to the Top, (p.67)his chart has it at 800m 45% aerobic/55% anaerobic 1500 35% aerobic/65% anaerobic. (It may be a typo)

In the USATF level I coaching manual, 800m is 40% aerobic/ 55% anaerobic/ 5% anerobic alactic, 1500m 50% aerobic/ 48% anaerobic/ and 2% anaerobic alactic

thanks for the heads up.

You might want to get some more up to date information. Gastin did a review of the literature. IIRC, a 100 sec all out effort (1:40) is about 60% aerobic energy contribution. Since 1:40 is faster than WR for the men's 800m, I would argue that the aerobic component is even higher for most men and all women.

Energy system interaction and relative contribution during maximal exercise.

Gastin PB.

Victorian Institute of Sport, Melbourne, Australia.

There are 3 distinct yet closely integrated processes that operate together to satisfy the energy requirements of muscle. The anaerobic energy system is divided into alactic and lactic components, referring to the processes involved in the splitting of the stored phosphagens, ATP and phosphocreatine (PCr), and the nonaerobic breakdown of carbohydrate to lactic acid through glycolysis. The aerobic energy system refers to the combustion of carbohydrates and fats in the presence of oxygen. The anaerobic pathways are capable of regenerating ATP at high rates yet are limited by the amount of energy that can be released in a single bout of intense exercise. In contrast, the aerobic system has an enormous capacity yet is somewhat hampered in its ability to delivery energy quickly. The focus of this review is on the interaction and relative contribution of the energy systems during single bouts of maximal exercise. A particular emphasis has been placed on the role of the aerobic energy system during high intensity exercise. Attempts to depict the interaction and relative contribution of the energy systems during maximal exercise first appeared in the 1960s and 1970s. While insightful at the time, these representations were based on calculations of anaerobic energy release that now appear questionable. Given repeated reproduction over the years, these early attempts have lead to 2 common misconceptions in the exercise science and coaching professions. First, that the energy systems respond to the demands of intense exercise in an almost sequential manner, and secondly, that the aerobic system responds slowly to these energy demands, thereby playing little role in determining performance over short durations. More recent research suggests that energy is derived from each of the energy-producing pathways during almost all exercise activities. The duration of maximal exercise at which equal contributions are derived from the anaerobic and aerobic energy systems appears to occur between 1 to 2 minutes and most probably around 75 seconds, a time that is considerably earlier than has traditionally been suggested.