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

The gap (to the extent there is any) can be closed significantly by doing the right experiments. I think

Moriarty's post clearly shows this.

As far as I am concerned, there is _absolutely_ no conflict

between accumulated experience among athletes and coaches on one hand, and science on the other.

Jens Andersen

Lance

Excuse me. Another long thread for you (LOL) because I take you in consideration.

Someone said that scientists they tend to complicate all subjects and that the fact they create names for diseases or designations or medicine names with big words and long letters they say that shows how they tend to get out of basic standards. When I have a doubt – no matter what doubt – I simply stop and I don´t go ahead. The problem of science use is that the take for granted most of what they need to doubt and investigate and judge for themselves and not trust in the other. Of course that are serious scientists.

But in my analysis and judgements – call that basic – i´m proud of that – often I can´t judge fore what the science tells me. It makes me wonder why people judges quite instantaneously with the same data than I have, when seriously I can´t judge.

But more than arguments lets analyse 2 concrete situations and how can I judge something in the eyes of science.

Let me send to you 2 examples. Recently I ask you a question about East Africans and what´s your opinion about the influence of genetics in running talent. You did a good post. But other people disagrees with you. How can I judge with a scientific mind ? or By the scientific method ? can I trust in you and dispraise all the rest. I don´t doubt that you are serious, but I also don´t doubt of all the rest. How can I judge ? Can I have a my own definitive conclusion. No I don´t. I simply use a mind “archive” or “mind data” of what you said and later on when this same discussion comes around I will face all arguments.

Now, don´t forget that my previous ask is about lactic acid meters. I start by doubt about Frank as he is so category about the meters use. As you know now, I have different data than Frank and than the Norway studies about that. By the data that I read – that Frank posts a little part – I don´t doubt of that the Norway investigations that´s serious, as I don´t doubt about the Portuguese. Simply they get different conclusions. Also the Portuguese one compare several maters from several companies, but the conclusion is that the level of accuracy that´s very weak to be considered accurate.

Now, tell me I as a coach, I stop there. I don´t go ahead. As i´m not a man that dedicate his life to science study – or even if if I work as an investigation I will be investigate something different and I got no time to stop my work and spend my time doing my own research about that meter – how can I judge I honesty and with a scientific approach? I can´t, or I will be unscientific. But that is a fact that in most of the cases even among scientific community there are several different opinions about the same subject, yes they do, and that they fight with complex arguments that only the experts they understand the ultimate perplexities – they do.

But what very curious, is that those who claim from science, they go ahead, passing superficial judges in all hard scientific subjects all the time.

Other relevant issue for my training analysis is that I don´t want to judge in all maters – i´m not able, no one is. I simply need to judge and decide what concerns to my life with some concrete utility, with frequent use or with a problem/question that I face as a coach. So, before to start to try to judge anything, I ask myself – this is useful for me? If that´s useful I try to read, collect some data. Some information and decide in my consciousness. If don´t - leave it away.

Relate that with training and coaching. I myself have an accurate system to measure all efforts, very accurate indeed. A chrono and measured distances. The time he runs and in what pace. This characterize every kind of running effort. Paces, or percents of paces tht´s enough for me, and i´m happy with that system. I did my best running improvements and the best improvements in the runners I coach in this method – Time and Space. My runners they run intense paces but slower than race pace – what you can threshold paces or by determined percents of estimate race pace or by their own feeling – as most Portuguese we do – by face feeling. Of course that when the Heart rate monitors that comes to the market – that´s accurate in the heart beats by minute – that´s find – but despite the proliferate use of the Portuguese best coaches and including those who have physiologist experts working and helping them they didn’t consider no sensible improvement in the training efficacy of top class runners by the use of that HRM. To say sincerely no improvement at all. Of course that some of my runners they use HRM – but that data that´s not determinant for that I build their training schedules and I don´t see no major improvement in those who use that and those who don´t.

The same with the meters use. I did coach a 13:22 1988 olympic runner named Fernando Couto. Of course that he never knew his VO2, at that time ther´s no individual meters thus he never trained advised by lactic acid concentration but he did what he did. Some of my runners they use the meters. They have no different results or a major improvement that they would with no meter data at all.

We train in paces considered threshold, but with no major concern with anaerobic threshold as a determined acid lactic concentration – but free style. But those who do that in Portugal and that they use that often they aren´t best than al the rest.

So, add to that facts my doubts about scientific accuracy of the meters and I doubt a lot of the interest of use of the meter systematically, and that acid lactic concentration can be determinant for any training plan.

Alberto Chaiça did 4th in marathon 2003 World Champs and 8th in the 2004 Olymoips and that’s a runner I follow very close despite the head coach that´s not me but Americo Brito. He simply uses a HRM more for curiosity than to influence his training programme.

Past Portuguese major runners, they were best than actual runners. They never used no meter data concerning his training analysis. The only occasions is when it comes someone science man or investigator and ask to take that. If you think about Lopes, Mamede, Pinto, Guerra, Domingos, Fernanda Ribeiro, Rosa Mota, Regalo, Antonio Leitão, Carla Sacramento - all the best – they rarely use or never used the meter but they were the best, not those that uses that frequently.

Now what you expect from my conclusion according my experience and knowledge? That meter that´s interesting or quite relevant for a training analysis ? This is not a matter of science that I no able to judge, or that the science may judge for me - this is in the field of training technique I shall judge because I consider myself an expert in that area.

Now, you understand better my perplexity when someone says that based most of his training system in anaerobic threshold paces or like Frank that comes to this thread and says that …”Lactate measurements may increase the athletes sensitivity of their exercise intensity, and may assist some of them to hit their target intensity during training. But of course, the coach need to have good knowledge about the use of the meters. Not many coaches or athletes have enough knowledge about it, at least in Norway.”

A very good and interesting article. It confirms most of my beliefs of Dave's training, but also gave some new insight.

I did not know the details about Dave’s intensive track work. Often Dave apparently ran relatively short sessions with very intensive running and fairly long rest between runs.

Another important aspect is that the article shows a nice progress in Dave's training during the year.

To follow Frank's line of reasoning from an earlier post it would be interesting to know if Dave’s injury problems over the years were related to the intensity of the work he was doing.

Interesting to see the comment that if a major quality track session were run very fast a week with no track work was introduced. 13.00 this must be called impressive coaching. As a comment to part of the earlier discussions on this tread I also note that the coach’s judgement is based on what the runner does on the track measured by a stop watch!

Just to remind you why I brought Dave’s name up: He ran 13.00. by himself.

This thread should be published as a book...

Frank

Right. Crazy workouts in an all out pace - mostly of them are short sets type – up to the exhaustion and in the next day(s) they can train nothing more than easy runs or rest – i´ve also have seen to much of that wrong training in my country and abroad. I agree with you 100% in that issue. But you see, we need to understand people like Knut that in the 70s that “crazy intervals followed by easy jogs” were the top/high running science of that period says that were the best, the main formula. If you look at the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s and it last still the 80s to actuality - in some minds – most of the sport physiologists at that time were in agreement with the coaches that hard workouts and easy jogs that´s the best.

No doubts at that time. As you don´t have now. That´s why doubt from your opinion that all physiologist concepts are in agreement with training concepts.

Knut did a very good results indeed. I know what you taught. That if knut did some training modulation according to more correct training he would have done better, I agree. But ther´s no magic that puts Knut in the 21 century ! In Knut´s time the concept of threshold runs that disn´t exist.

But recently – actually – we see the opposite – it seems to me that historically each training method is out of date by a new one that mainly emphasizes the faults of the past ones. And now, some people wrongly thinks that to train in anaerobic threshold paces all the time – in an unidirectional training – all day in – that’s the best formula to improve their performances. That´s not enough. According to the basic training principles as the overcompensation is an important one that´s even wrong if you follow a regime of the same threshold pace zone all the time as the 3 workouts weekly +easy runs !

This doesn´t mean that threshold runs aren´t no good – they are good, or that I advise the hard workouts+easy jogs formula. I don´t. This means that an unidirectional training that desn´t uses the overcompensation rule thus that´s wrong indeed.

The fact is that if you incorporate threshold runs to the your workouts (not that hard/fast intervals, but still workouts) that´s find. Look that I don´t mention the weekly workout frequency because our physical capacity that´s limited and the recover is needed and if you do intense runs (LT) frequently you aren´t able no more to do that workouts so many times and so intense as you would have done in the 3workouts+easy jogs formula.

But the principle of overcompensation in the hard workouts+easy jogs training remains correct – only the training modulation in the whole schedule that´s what is not correct – to hard/too fast and too easy/to slow. To run in the same pace daily - as some they pretend and they use with LT runs daily exclusively - that´s no overcompensation at all and that makes no sense according the training principles, despite someone can do good with that formula as Ron Clake is quoted in that training style. I don´t say that you are the one that uses, but you may agree that to say that what really matters is to train hard without lactic acid concentration as long and as faster as you get can give a wrong picture.

About my doubts in science in my opinion I just try to conciliate several aspects – I guess i´m not a fundamentalist or radical. In some points I agree or I follow that mainly when in my knowledge or my understanding or my experience tells me that what they say is in the correct training direction. But also despite something goes contrary of my concepts I use it if I see some benefits for the running improvement – once again – by running improvement I means PBs and race results and nothing more. But I bet with you that in 30 years now it will comes a “new” coach doing the same role that you are doing now and his speech he will say “I have seen to many runners in Norway, running threshold runs to believe that this is the main key formula.”

About that we meet one day – I will be in St. Etienne WCC champs in France Mars 19-20 and I will be in Manchester UK in May 22. If you will be there I hope we can meet each other. But if you don´t we will meet in other occasion.

Antonio,

I will might be in St. Etienne at the World Champs.

Do you know how long time it takes by train to get there from Paris?

Anyone else who knows this?

Antonio,

I hope there will be further development in both sport and science. I dont think we disagree much either.

Of course there will always be differences. Thats good!

It is important to separate basic physiology, and how some physiologists transfer their physiological knowledge to practical training/coaching.

The basic physiology, how the different prosesses are responding during training still fits my practical coaching/training system.

Others may both read and understand the basic physiology different than me.

Jens Andersen wrote:

As far as I am concerned, there is _absolutely_ no conflict

between accumulated experience among athletes and coaches on one hand, and science on the other.

Jens Andersen

Jens Andersen

In my opinion and with all respect what you said that´s impossible. No possible at all - no way. How can you agree with all sports running science if the top physiologists they don´t agree all with the same statements ? If what you say that´s true and you are sincere is that because you read just half of the physiologists, or the with read all ideas in one single training school. Why can you have complete agreement with physiologists that agree with threshold runs and to those that don´t, How can you be in complete agreement with Madame Billat and Kim Noakes and Thomas Rowland and then you read Enrico Archelli or Astrand&Rodhal and then Ken Rushall and Obretch and then Matveiev or Mader Hollmann and you will underatsnd that from what they say they have different training approaches and they disagree one each other in many items how can you be in _absolutely_no conflit if they think differently? Or you read only the half (or less) of the books and articles/abstracts or you just follow a school that you agree. An unique physiology concept that doesn´t exists. There are only a large consensus about basic issues, but when you go on really hard specific issues ther´s plenty of disagreement among physiologists, thus that´s impossible that you read mostly of sports physiology world producing and that you have no conflits in any according your training experience.

I cannot understand your point.

Bruce Hyde previously did not run high mileage and never ran 3:42 and 8:03.

He began high mileage and ran 3:42, 8:03, and finished 26th in the nation in cross-country.

Does the correlation honestly escape you?

No, different people respond differently to the SAME types of training. You must find the individual's capacity and train this.

This is entirely untrue.

Ask Tinman about those who bang out hard intervals and how they do in trying to reach their PERSONAL MAXIMUM.

The Kenyans can do this ONLY because they spent a DECADE doing slow, easy aerobic running barefoot at altitude.

True.

It is about how good you want to be.

Time constraints? If running is important to you, you make time.

Mental constraints? If you love to run, you can deal with setbacks?

Physical constraints? The famous quote goes, "Injuries heal. Slow times never do."

If you have exhausted every avenue possible to fix your biomechanical problems and you still get injured, what can you say?

But few EXHAUST their options. I saw another post with a guy who had SIXTEEN STRESS FRACTURES.

16. And he still runs. He seeks to overcome his constraints. So should we all.

Here is the aforementioned article by Tinman about using hard intervals and traditional methods of peaking (a very good read if you have time):

"Let us use an example, which is not hypothetical, just average:

Joe runs 75 miles per week, including tempos, intervals, races, etc. all season. By two-thirds of the way through the season, he has peaked in his max V02 improvements at 74 mls per kg per minute. His velocity at max VO2 is 4:36 pace. His velocity at LT is 5:18. He runs the 8k in 24:50 and is competitive in his conference.

Now, in the last 4 weeks, he drops his mileage to 65, 55, 50, then 45 as he attempts to "peak." What happens the first week, the week of the conference meet? He runs a great race, about a 15 seconds p.r. which makes him think that tapering is a smart thing to do. It is because he hasn't dropped below about 60 miles per week.

The following week he drops his mileage to 55 and adds some fast repetitions such as 8 x 400 as hard as he can go. He builds up lactic acid, which he thinks going to prepare him for the race. We (sports sciencists) put him on the treadmill and we discover that his max VO2 is the same (74) and all looks fine so far. We test his lactic acid concentration and volume of oxygen used at the prevously determined LT pace. Low and behold, at the end of this week, we find he is producing 10% more lactic acid and consuming 2% more oxygen to run at the same submaximal pace. Since Joe has no race this week, he doesn't know that he is actually losing ground, though mentally he is pumped because his energy level seems higher (presumably because his glycogen stores in his muscles and liver are higher which feels oh-so good!).

The following week, regionals rolls around. Joe drops to 50 miles for the week, continues doing lactic acid trainin such as the 600s, 400s, and 200s. His legs feel snappy when he sprints and he thinks his speed is better than ever. Wow, he feels good. He is ready for a p.r. On Thursday, before the race, we put him on the treadmill and, after a 5 minute jog, he runs one mile at normal LT pace, then cooldown. We don't measure his max VO2, because that would tire him out for the Regionals, but research shows that max VO2 is quite stable if one has just a single faster workout per week or race, whichever. Joe's lactic acid concentration at 5:18 pace is now at 5 mmols, whereas 3 weeks earlier it was 4 mmols at that velocity. His 02 cost is higher a little bit too, but we don't tell Joe because we don't want to ruin his confidence. After all, are we in it to help or to hurt him? We suggest to Joe's coach, who was watching the treadmill test, before they leave that going out fast in the race might not be a good idea if optimal performance is desired. Coach smiles and so does Joe, they think "Nice guy, but what the heck does he know about racing in championship races. Everyone goes out fast."

The regionals rolls around and Joe gets lucky enough to have a flat course to run on. IF he had run a hilly course, due to his loss of aerobic efficiency, he would have lost about a minute on his time from what he did three weeks earlier, but since it is flat, he runs only about 10 seconds slower than normal, not too bad. During the race, in which he went out with the leaders, he noticed that he really was hurting by the three mile mark, but he sucked it up and hung as tough as possible, qualifying for nationals (not by much though).

Joe drops his mileage the next week to 45 for the big peak; nationals. Man, he can't wait to run. He is so excited. He has worked so hard for this race!! On Wednesday, Joe and Coach go to the lab, because they had made a comittment to go their weekly, so they feel compelled to keep their word. Good for them! The same sub-maximal test goes on. Joe jogs 5 minutes then runs a mile on the treadmill at 5:18 pace, his previous LT pace of 4 mmols (he is perfect example of LT being right at 4 mmol, though some are more and some are less). Now, Joe produces 5.2 mmols at 5:18 pace and notices that his breathing seems a little difficult and his legs don't seem to do as well at the end of the mile. He jogs his cooldown, packs his bags, and mentally prepares for nationals 2 and half days later. The lab geek, me, sees that he has no chance of running close to his personal best in the 8km. I know he may have more bounce in his stride, early in the race, more anerobic power because he tapered and that gave him spring, but the simple fact is the race isn't the 800m or 1500m.

The race day arrives and Joe starts out near the front of the pack about 15 places back from a stupid guy who hammers the first 400 in about 63 seconds. Joe is fine, he thinks. At the 1k he goes by in 2:53, about 4:38 pace and he thinks that he is going to be a top-10 runner at nationals; way cool!

By about the 3km mark, Joe isn' feeling so good and his breathing is very labored. He presses on, keeping contact with all the guys who he thinks are contenders, as best he can. By the 5km mark, Joe is in deep oxygen debt and his legs are very heavy. He slows a little to catch his breath and wonders what is going on. Doesn't he want "it" enough?

By the 6km mark, Joe is really slowing now, he is at 5:15 pace and hurting really badly. A couple of guys come up on Joe and Joe does a double take, thinking "who the heck are those guys? I don't remember them being near me." These are two guys that held back early, had still run 60 and 64 miles the week of nationals and had never dropped below 60 in their last 3 weeks, had avoided hard anaeobic intervals and just stuck with their normal 1k repeats at 5k to 8k pace instead of doing 400s at mile pace like Joe.

Soon, Joe is dying and can't wait for the finish line to be in his sight. He hits the 400 to go mark and pushes his last bit of energy to get their and makes a good visual show of his mental toughness for the spectators. He crosses the line in 25:22, slower than what he has done in 6 weeks. He is spent, absolutely exhausted and needs help through the finish shoot. People say his name but he can not respond. He lays on the ground after going all the way through the shoot and breaths hard for a couple of minutes.

The two guys who passes Joe at the 3.5 mile mark come over and say hi. One is a guy from a rival college and he has never run better than 4:10 in the 1500m (some 12 seconds slower than Joe's best) and the other guy is a freshman teammate of his who started the season out as a 28:00 8k runner. They came through the schute in 24:50 and 25:01. NOt bad for a slow 1500m guy and a freshman, ay?

The coach comes over and gives Joe a pat on the back and says "I thought you in fine form this year. You looked so good a the mile and two-mile marks. You were right there with the studs, man. What happened, were you sick today?"

Joe shakes his head and says "Coach, I don't know what happened out there. I had nothing after the 2 mile mark. I was toast. I felt like quiting and this was the most important race of my life. I am so mad."

Now, does this sound familiar? Do you know people who have suffered like JOE? Do you know people like the two guys who passed him and finished ahead of him, despite their obvious lack of natural ability compared to JOE? Tinman

"

Hypothetical....or propaganda?This seems typical of what mileage-oriented people go to in order to make political points, possibly at the expense of accuracy. I don't normally have such problems with what Tinman presents (and this is an example, not science), but what is presented as a peaking plan is simply NOT how to peak by tapering.This is how to structure a tapering plan, and coming from someone (USATF Level III coaching instructor) with academic credentials slightly greater than Tinman:http://coacheseducation.com/theory/jack_ransone_oct_01.htmWhere I think Tinman goes wrong in this case starts here:

OK, stop right there. You do not ADD anaerobic volume during a tapering plan. You reduce--at least if you're going to use the present knowledge in science journals and coaching manuals. The volume of both steady running and intervals goes DOWN each week. The intensity goes up because, with the lower volume, the speed of those intervals can be increased. As Jack Ransone PhD points out in the link above, those anaerobic 400 meter repeats would have been done over a period of weeks during the season PRIOR to the taper and, once in the taper, the interval volume goes down.

Note the following from Ransone's article above:

This takes away the high lactate effect, but it wouldn't make the convenient political point, would it?

The premise is false, so the conclusion in meaningless.

Now i can tell you THE effective way to improve the anaerobic threshold:have FUN when you are running!!!

dont care about treshold, vo2max, pace, perfect running form or whatever:thats for dead people!

go out just run like crazy where you want, how fast you want, how long you want and please dont give a shit about how you look during running, if you want to throw your arms into the air:do it, if you want to jump some meters on one leg inbetween:do it, if you want to imitate a scene from Rocky:do it.

Ransone's numbers, regardless of his academic credentials, are at best arbitrary, particularly his percentages of reducing volume.

Why reduce 20% 3 weeks out, it can be asked, rather than 15% or 30%? I do not see his answer.

As for the proposed workouts, the inclusion of multiple time trials seems ill-advised.

A few tuneup races would serve the purpose, and shorter repetition work alone allows a 5,000m runner to train the proper systems, become familiar with race pace, and increase the velocity at the pace which elicits VO2 max.

That's the point.

The above quote by Tinman seems to point to a MISTAKE made by many athletes, not a suggestion of what SHOULD be done. I am fairly confident he and others would agree with you in saying anaerobic work is certainly reduced in volume in the few weeks leading up to the primary competition.

This is where he (Tinman) and others disagree with you.

Reducing volume reduces aerobic efficiency built up over many months, as well as the speed at which the runner can maintain a steady state of blood lactate accumulation and removal (i.e., the lactate threshold running speed).

The speed of the repetitions does not need to be increased.

If you are training for 5,000m, and you do 6 weeks out from your race 6 x 1,000m at 5,000m.

2 weeks out from your race, you might do only 3-4 x 1,000m, but it need not be much faster than 5,000m pace. You want to become familiar with and efficient at 5,000m race speed, ergo, doing your 1,000m repeats at 2 mile race pace is not going to help you achieve this goal and will have you dipping into the anaerobic system while training for a race whose demands are predominantly aerobic. All along, if you are training well, the 5,000m pace should be improving anyway as the body adapts to the demands of the pace. That is the point of training stimulus.

I see no problem.

MAybe you can explain how this involves politics?

As I explained above, your misinterpretation of the premise is false, not the conclusion drawn from it.

Frank Evertsen wrote:

basically I believe that easy training and 2-3 high intensive and anaerobic intervals per week, may be the only key to improve your results.

I have seen to many runners in Norway, running easy and doing very high intensive intervals to believe that this is the main key formula.

Did I miss something, or did you just say this "may be the only key to improve your results", then the next sentence that you "have seen too many runners... to believe that this is the main key formula".

So this may be the only key, but you don't believe it's the main key?

How could you ever go wrong, with such a philosophy!

Dustin Hoffman wrote:

There is a VERY detailed article about David Moorcroft's training in this magazine. I personally don't know anything about David Moorcroft's training except for this article.

It is online in PDF format (just scroll down until you get to the article "David Moorcroft, analysis of a champion") :

http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/spring1999.pdf

Thank you for posting this link.

I have printed the 7 page article, and also the 2 pages of Steve Ovett's training by Matt Patterson.

Antonio,

My statement was too black and white...I think it is fair

to say that people agree on the basics. And sport science

is still developing as we learn more about the human body.

Jens

My mistake: may not be the key!

Sorry for being a little late with this reply.

Like stated earlier if you look at how good distance runners (1500m and up) trained in the 70's and into the 80's I think you will find that the general setup is similar for most runners. Details vary though. We all tried to build running strength during winter. Some did it by 160 km of relatively fats aerobic running, some by 250 km slow running. My approach was somewhere in between.

Most training weeks during buildup I would run somewhere between 160 and 200km. Some weeks I would be above 200 km but then I always had weeks with 0 running or very close to 0 due to illness. The mileage I ran depended on how I felt, what my general timeschedule looked like and the weather. The general idea was to run as much as possible without getting exausted.

Most of my runs were probably run somewhere between 3.45 and 4.00 pr km. I never timed these and I never ran on measured courses. Part of the build up I also ran on snow witch means that the actual times are slower if you use the same energy. These times are an estimate made later. The point is that these runs were not hard runs. I would often run them by myself and think of other things than running just covering distance and not worry about pace. They almost always had a recreational aspect.

These runs were coupled with quality distancework of hard runs and intervals with very sort rest say 1600m with 1 min rest.

In general I kept the high mileage during the spring period with gradually increasing quality. I did some of my highest mileage while doing track sessions in spring. Some of the mileage in these periods were slower than the steady running in the winter and I also included period with less running in this period.

During summer the mileage would vary more according to competitions and whatever adjustments I needed. In general the mileage would be lower now but every now and then I still run high mileage weeks.

Most people would probably say that keeping the high mileage during spring held me back and this might be true, but I have often wondered if this is indeed the reason for my positive development during spring training.

Jens,

Let me give you one example concerning the fact that science is far behind: For several years ago scientists stated that it is important to drink glucose liquids during training. Recently, Scientists suggest the oposite, and advised athletes to use it only after training. They also suggest that athletes should only drink water during training.

This is breaking news in sport science. This latest news from the world of science have been known among very many runners/coaches for at least 30 yrs.

However, some topics may even be useful for runners and coaches, and others...