Is "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated?

wondering wrote:

I have read the book and refer to it often. I do not recall any of the contradictions you proclaim to be there. If you cannot provide a specific page number, then I must assume that these examples you envision do not exist.

I also asked you to give us a little of your own background; education, degreees, competetive and coaching resume, etc. Since Martin and Coe included their histories in the book, it would help us to be more objective when comparing your assertions to theirs. Thanks!

Page 61 the graph and the explanation of energy systems contributions, going from anaerobic to aerobic. Although the percentages quoted are wildly innacurate. This is contradicted by the explanation of energy systems contributions on page 328 for an 800m race where Martin says the exacto opposite.

I suggest you actually study the book and read my posts if you want to see more contradictions. But I doubt that you are really that interested.

As for my own history. It's not relevant but, I hate bad science, and I see an awful lot of it from PhD's in exercize physiology. When you consider that I have no qualifications, yet I can see the dreadful incompetence of these guys in providing reliable explanations of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism well, what more can I say? I wrote a large thread on the subject 2 years ago, but so few people really care, it's no wonder that these confusions and contradictions are so widespread.

Unecessary Distinction wrote:

Glycogenolysis is a precursor to glycolysis. One leads to the other, and hence, anaerobically generated ATP. I don't see how the books are wrong.

They are two distinct pathways. Glycogenolysis provides 6 times as much ATP as glycolysis.

Yes glycogen is converted to glucose, but ATP from muscle glycogen and ATP from liver glycogen -> blood glucose are provide diffent ATP counts and proportions.

idiot alert. wrote:

Neo Fite wrote:

The books are not wrong. Wellnow's inability to cite specific examples is proof that he is full of it.

We´ve known that for a long time.

***********************************

Actually, you guys haven't got a clue, but since none of you doubters really care much about the subject matter, then keep reading the pseudoscience, that's what you prefer isn't it?

rekrunner wrote:

Any and every physical response to training is "normal and natural health and fitness developments". Do you suggest that intelligent debate should be limited to that which is "abnormal" or "unnatural"?

I still remain unconvinced that dogma is the right word. No one questions these things because all of them actually happen. More aerobic development happens with training, than without.

wellnow wrote:

All the usual talk about mitochondraia, hematcrit, stroke volume etc etc, is dogma. These developments are normal and natural health and fitness developments that happen very quickly. They don't continue for long at all. However, because the aerobic development dogma is repeated so often over and over, no-one questions it.

How can we have an intelligent debate when the so called exercize physiology 'experts' make so many fundamental errors.

The important point is that these development happen normally naturally and quickly, they don't continue year after year as the fizzyologists would have you believe.

Only people who have studied the subject with recent relevant information, will understand what you are saying.

Anyway, I disagree, because your explanation ignores the inevitability of lactate metabolism. The truth of the matter is that no-one else here will tell you that lactate is an inevitable product of carbohydrate metabolism.

The dogma is:

1, that lactate is ONLY produced due to lack of oxygen

2, that with an adequate oxygen supply, pyruvate can enter the mitochondria for subsequent aerobic respiration without lactate production.

There is no proof that either statement is true, rather the contrary.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

wellnow:

Have you read "The Science of Winning" by Jan Olbrecht? If so, any opinions?

In that book, training adaptions are described in aerobic/anaerobic terms, completely ignoring the fundamental issue of neuromuscular coordination.

*************************************

Aerobic and anaerobic development are limited, and from the information available over the last 50 years, it seems these developments happen are complete in moderately trained young athletes. As we age, cell regeneration slows, so we gradually lose these developments. As an example, Andy Jones, studied Paula Radcliffe and found her VO2 max fell from 72 to 70 between her teenage years and 2003 when she ran 2.15.25 for the Marathon. I haven't seen the absolute values, (not including mass in Kilograms) but I assume they would be similar.

What this shows is that as Paula got older, (girls reach adulthood sooner than boys) her aerobic capacity reduced but she ran faster in all distances from 1500m upwards due to greater endurance adaptions.

wellnow wrote:

I have no qualifications

'Nuff said.

I can study as much as anyone.

"can study" =/= "have studied"

You run away from my question. I did ask if you think your main reason for the performance enhance - the biomechanics and pace coordination or the C Governor - arent limited also indeed as the aerobic dogma ?

Anyhow in the same Paula article its said that despite she fell down her VO2 max but in the meantime she improves her VO2 velocity what she did by training more volume training at her LT pace what suposed to be aerobic training dont you think ? Besides you cant neglet that some weeks after she did 2:15 she also enhance her 3000m pb. Relate to your argument if her 3000m isnt result from aerobic enhance then its by Paulas anaerobic enhance. Best lactate tolerance obtained by more lactate training. I said lactate training not pseudo-scientifc lactate threshold.

Out of Paulas case my question remains the same and you dont ask. Its not about the age cells lost that we do with the aging process. Its about the pace coordination and the biomechanics that the enhance its limited after a short training period.

wellnow wrote:

In that book, training adaptions are described in aerobic/anaerobic terms, completely ignoring the fundamental issue of neuromuscular coordination.

Why is it fundamental? How will it inform the actual training to call it neuromuscular adaptation as opposed to aerobic/anaerobic?

Skuj wrote:

Hi there, mod-wellnow.

Why would a mod take another poster's name? I don't get it.

and I suspect you never will

wellnow

would you mind checking out this letsrun forum from several years ago and give your opinion?

if you do read it, do you think Hadd got it right?

thanks

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=42240&page=0

here are all of Hadd's responses from letsrun condensed, he was the man(before wellnow)

good read if you want to take the time

http://www.cypressop.com/misc/Hadd%20Threads.htm

this is what "Hadd" wrote originally which was not in the posted link that I provided:

Okay, let me try and be brief (yeah, right). Here is how I approach a thing.

You have to understand the demands of your event, and train to meet them.

In a 5k, you are going to be working at a very high percentage of VO2max, with very high heart rates. Also, since the event is going to take you at least 15.00, you cannot afford to be creating vast quantities of lactate, in fact, you want to be producing as little as possible while running as fast as possible. (hey, who doesn't?)

So for now, two things: high vo2max and high LT (lactate threshold). For one you must train your heart, for the other, your legs. And unfortunately, the same type of training does not optimally cause both effects. Remember that fact: the best training for your heart?s development, is NOT also the best training for your legs?. (Bummer)

1) Vo2max is primarily limited by your cardiac output. It's a given that the more oxygen you can deliver to your muscles, the more they will use and the faster you will run (hence EPO, altitude, tents...).

Since you cannot improve your HRmax, the only way to improve cardiac output is by improving stroke volume (making your heart pump more with each beat).

The generally accepted best method of achieving this is to run intervals at VO2max pace (which runners usually take as running at 3-5km pace).

Although there was another thread recently about short runs at this pace with short recoveries, for best effect YOU would need to be running around 3-4 mins at this intensity (JD was right, 5 continuous mins at his pace is too hard for training... or else your 5k time sucks).

800s are a bit short, so this will mean 1000s and 1200s with equal time recovery. Aim to run around 4-6k in a session. Begin at 5k pace and aim to run repeat 1000s. When this is do-able (without "knee-grabbing"), move them up to 1200s. (all the time revising the speed of them as your 5k PR improves).

When the 1200s are do-able then try and move the 1000s down slightly nearer to 3k pace and begin again. Never do these faster than 3k pace. Just go longer.

For a high LT you must train your legs. You must recruit and train as many fibres as possible so that they can be utilised in a race at high pace without creating lactate. This means causing them to become wrapped in capillaries (like spaghetti round a fork) so that all the oxygen that is coming in the blood from the heart can be got INTO the muscle cell. Then inside the cell you must stimulate creation of mitochondria and aerobic enzymes...

This is what is going to make you race as well as YOU possibly can. It can (and does) take years and many miles, which is why every year runners go back to base and try and raise their steady state/LT that little bit higher before going into the next season.

Aerobic training must be begun slowly. You are trying to recruit fibres while under fully aerobic conditions and use them until they become fuel exhausted and then recruit the NEXT fibre, and the NEXT, and so on. Your body will thus be stimulated to adapt itself to better supply energy aerobically NEXT time, and if you do this repeatedly, in time you will have a vast store of well trained aerobic fibres.

Done properly, in time you will be able to recruit sufficiently large amounts of these aerobically tireless fibres at the same time to be able to run at close to 5k pace without floods of lactate (even though you trained them all at much slower paces).

Now, to train the legs can take years, but to train the heart can take weeks or only brief months. Your VO2max plateaus quite early in your career (genetically, thanks Dad!), but can fluctuate throughout the season, dropping as you concentrate on endurance and rising as you add in the faster running later.

So at the beginning of the season, you work on the legs as soon as poss and for as long as poss.

To move your LT don?t just jump into so-called ?tempo? runs. These would be too fast/hard and not cause the effect you want. Begin from the ground up and work until eg: a 90 min is no longer ?long?. Then work until a once-or-twice-per-week 10-mile run at 5k-pace + 1 min is no longer hard (you could go round again, although you don?t). Then until a session of 3 x 20 mins @ 5k pace + 40 secs is not THAT uncomfortable (and you could do more)... and maybe only THEN begin to work at paces such as 5k-pace + 30 secs (2-3 x 15 mins) right on up... (eventually to 2000m repeats at 10k-pace). All the time being careful. You cannot rush this.

Now this LT work is where your greatest improvement is going to come long-term. Do not be like those interval-trained dudes who are hanging on from 3k onwards in a 5k race and fighting like hell not to let 1-2 secs slip per lap (this due to high lactate incurred in the opening first mile). The whole idea is not to learn to "tolerate" high lactate at race pace, but to train not to produce any (or as little as poss) at race pace. See the diff?

Finally, in 5k racing there is much to be said for efficiency. This involves neuromuscular characteristics associated with running well at race pace. See it as the diff between your feet smacking the ground like a plate of semolina or bouncing off the track in short snappy strides like rubber balls.

Runners who come into the sport from the slow end, discovering they have talent and wanting to move up in speed normally have more problems with this than young guys who had to develop some kind of efficient footstrike for their earlier 800-1500 training. This is a learned thing and drills, hills and speedwork (eg: repeat 400s at best 1500m pace) all have a part to play, even plyos for those who like them.

Within all this, I hope you understand that while training is (as malmo often reminds us) ?not rocket science?, neither is it Irish stew. You cannot just get all the ingredients and dump it into one training week and stir the mother... and repeat it forever.

King of Karma said the same. You want to race your best, then "periodize".

Start by working on your endurance (as I explained above) and start moving that LT, because that takes the longest. You want to get it up high before you add in the 5k-pace work (or you will struggle to run longer than 800m at this pace and repeat 1200s will not be fun at all).

Allow as long as possible. If you have done some of your endurance running in the hills before heading to the track it will help to ease you into the 5k down to 3k work. (All the time being careful to maintain the endurance and LT), finally add in some drills and faster/sprint work to develop your footstrike and it?s time to race.

How long will all this take? Well, how long do you have?"

For me, going into indoor track in my senior year of high school, I have decided to train correctly for once in my life and actually have a plan for the season. I'm taking this month of November and am applying the LSD approach to buildup my legs before I add in more quality stuff starting in December. For ME however, the main focus is on the 1600 and 3200. Are these same principals still applicable? And if they are, are they optimal? Should I instead try a more Coe-approach? (I am pretty much coaching myself this season.) thanks alot for any help.

wellnow wrote:

The dogma is:

1, that lactate is ONLY produced due to lack of oxygen

I know of no one who believes this.

Continued improved performance in elite runners comes from improvements in biomechanical efficiency. You get a faster pace for your lactate production because you have a more efficient stride or better endurance or both.

We don't 'tolerate' lactate, we use it as a fuel.

The point about cell regeneration slowing, is a natural part of the ageing process. That's what getting old is. When you stop growing, you start getting old. But many runners continue to improve, because they improve running skill at a greater rate than the ageing process slows them down.

okobe wrote:

wellnow wrote:

In that book, training adaptions are described in aerobic/anaerobic terms, completely ignoring the fundamental issue of neuromuscular coordination.

Why is it fundamental? How will it inform the actual training to call it neuromuscular adaptation as opposed to aerobic/anaerobic?

Neuromuscular adaption in running is an improvement in running skill. A well trained runner will not improve aerobic and anaerobic development, but improvements in the ability to hold a long fast stride can be developed more and more.

Most of us here can do a long slow stride, and a short fast stride, if you can put the two together for any race distance, you will be a phenomenally fast runner. With this in mind, you can have a greater purpose to your training.