Lactic Acid Update

luv2run,

"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."

Agreed. External validity should be considered though I understand it is often difficult to determine accurately.

Richard_ wrote:

"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."

Agreed. External validity should be considered though I understand it is often difficult to determine accurately.

Will you still neglect the issue, Richard? Will you answer a question directed towards you or are you ever-deflecting all questions that debunk your science?

If the research is done properly then only one thing separates the trained from untrained group, namely the specific training and direct performance consequences of that training. ( Age, sex, environment, natural talent, and any other factor that affects performance is neglible or indistinct between the groups.) Ergo, the untrained and trained groups only have one difference: their ability to perform the desired task. Are you still then making the assertion that a study researching the ability of untrained individuals to recover from a workout is applicable to the training programs of trained individuals?

Richard, you should quit coaching/researching and join in the Austin politics. With your ability to avoid the obvious and continue with your own agenda, you'd make a great spin doctor.

slomo,

Did you not see my response earlier? Phoenix suggested I needed to support my contention that the data in question was applicable to trained subjects and I replied.

I have suggested that individuals recover at varying rates - some faster, some slower. In support of this argument I referenced a study on untrained subjects that showed that the subjects individually recovered at different rates. In that article I wrote, "The bottom line is that this study clearly shows that rate of recovery varies amongst individuals and with changes in the training stimulus."

I did NOT suggest that everyone recovered at exactly the same rate as these untrained subjects. In fact I wrote, "So what does this mean? Basically it means that some will recover very, very fast – in a few hours – and others will recover much slower - taking up to 7 days to recover." My point concerned only the varying rate of recovery.

When challenged on the applicability of this to trained subjects I responed with this:

Effects of training frequency on the dynamics of performance response to a single training bout

Busso T, et al

Journal of Applied Physiology, 2001, 92: 572-580

"Differences in the time needed to recover performance after training completion were reported with values ranging from 1-3 days for subjects training four times a week (5) to 23 days for an elite athlete training once or twice a day (4)...

Your point of contention is that the finding that these untrained subjects recovered at varying rates is not applicable to trained runners. In effect you are arguing that trained runners all recover at exactly or nearly exactly the same rate. I've asked you to support that claim but you have not done so.

Sir Lance-alot,

I do not like to run on the track that often. Plus the pace I was utilizing was more like mile race pace. Pirie hoped to be able to do 20 x 400m in 60 seconds with a 45 second recovery interval. He believes he was fit and ready to begin race specific workouts when he was in this kind of shape. Personally I'd love to be able to do 20 x 400m at this pace during my race pace training, let alone before it. Perie, was definitely a talented runner. It is a bit strange that he could not race a mile faster than this pace though. This was basically his mile race pace. He was about a 4:00 miler. He had much better endurance for the 5k event.

I agree that you are always giving something up to work on another aspect of your training, depending on what you want to focus on. I guess you need to know your athletes weaknesses and strengths, so that you know what they need to work on at any given time, as well as what works best for that athlete.

Great, another brain-damaged rambler. Keep writing ALL CAPS phrases to make sure I can "hear" you. Also, the "???????" trick makes your questions that much more emphatic. You rule!

That's very sweet. Also, you're full of doo-doo. If you're going to wade in with fists swinging, don't pretend to be above the fray.

Now that is outstanding. You take issue with my use of "may typically" in terms of its scietific merit with respect to a longitudinal training scenario, and then, in a putrid attempt at a rebuttal, offer scenarios "supported" by the statement "Oh, believe me, it has happened countless times." Should I explain to you what "equivocation" actually means? To simplify, it means hypocrisy, something you seem to enjoy practicing.

Maybe this will help: "A tremendous number of athletes have progressed from being able to manage, say, 40 miles a week with one or two directed workouts (including races) at age 18 to, say, 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."

Notice that I'm not pretending to be able to attach specific numbers of runners to this claim; I don't have to. There's no "bad science" about it because it's an anecdotal observation that anyone with opoen eyes recognizes as true. You know as well as I do that the overwhelming majority of people who stick with running increase their recoverability over time in just the manner I describe, with the specific numbers obviously varying from athlete to athlete. You also know that in comparison, very few people run 90 miles a week in high school, period, whether or not they go on to "burn out" and run 40 miles a week as 30-year-olds or go on to Olympic glory. You also know (or should) that the number of people who cannot gradually increase their workload to a considerable extent (and hence their recoverability) is very small compared to those who experience difficulty in trying.

So in your efforts to dress me down you have rendered yourself a fool. You should have stuck with calling me an asshole rather than flounder around by trying to attack my topical statements - that might have gotten you somewhere.

Why do I care? Because Richard is an affront to those of us who actually do applied biomedical and biophysical research, that's why. If that's not good enough for you, tough titty, as ma cat reportedly told the kittens who complained too much about the quality of the milk.

Where do I begin?

1. Everyone agrees with your novel suggestion that individuals recover at varying rates. This is not the framework of your assertion on recovery, however, so we'll move on.

2. I did NOT suggest that everyone recovered at exactly the same rate as these untrained subjects. That's right, and good for you. The problem is still that you used information from untrained subjects and applied it to trained subjects. This is literally comparing apples to oranges (I say this for the sake of those who aren't trained to think as scientists, a group which possibly includes yourself).

3. When challenged on the applicability of this to trained subjects I responed with this: Busso T, et al, Journal of Applied Physiology, 2001, 92: 572-580. Great, an article citing only untrained subjects. In fact, the same article I questioned you about earlier. At least you aren't deflecting the question--now you're just ignoring it. (If anyone I know ever needs data on fatigue in untrained subjects following a single bout of exercise I'll send them to you.)

4. Your point of contention is that the finding that these untrained subjects recovered at varying rates is not applicable to trained runners.Exactly! There is a nominal/semantic distinction between these two groups because there exists a physiological distinction between the two. If there were no such distinction then all individuals would be grouped together.

5. In effect you are arguing that trained runners all recover at exactly or nearly exactly the same rate. Not at all.

6. I've asked you to support that claim but you have not done so. A ridiculous question, but I'll respond anyway:

Claim 1: concerning running, trained and untrained subjects are ontologically distinct. This is verified by the observation that the trained group performs better at the specific task (running) than the untrained group. This is further exemplified by the individual case (which is not a proper group) which performs better trained than untrained and the observation that individuals who wish to increase their specific performance always prefer to train rather than not train (the untrained group). If this were not true then we could easily perform better (as runners) by drinking coffee easily for 1 hour in the mornings with some evening intervals at the bar, aggressively throwing back longnecks as we stare at the hilly street. Instead, we train because training is different and better (in relation to performance of the task) than being untrained.

Claim 2: trained and untrained (at running) subjects are physiologically distinct groups. This is due to the first claim, but is a tangible finding backed up in literature. If do not have any specific references off hand, but I suggest you peruse Jack Daniels, PhD, Timothy Noakes, MD, or any of the articles you reference on your site. In fact, your suggestion that you can retrain or modify the central governor infers that there are distinct and identifiable physiological responses to training.

Yet you still assert your unfounded ideas on recovery. I never can tell whether you actually believe the things you write or if you simply troll the different running communities. The latter seems entirely possible (and potentially funny considering the stir you always create) but so long as misguided people are prone to believe your ramblings then I must assume the first. Still, I enjoy reading your posts. You've got a few interesting ideas.

Are you done? C'mon, let out that air from your puffed up chest. Good. Feel better? Excellent. I am not going having a non-stop pissing match with you (which I know you would enjoy immensely based on your several waste-of-space ad nauseum attacks on Richard that appear on this thread). But I will finish with you with by making one last post (and then let you get in the last words, an opportunity which I know you will not be able to resist):1) Yes, using CAPS and multiple "????'s", as I did, is surely a sign of "brain-damage", right? What about italicized or bold-faced type, are those signs of brilliance????? Just checking, because you seem to have a propensity for using them. I just want to make sure that in future I mimic your style so everyone can think I am a genius like you. But since you are against CAPS so much, lets not forget your earlier oh-so-witty display of:"DING-DING-DING-DING-DING! we have a winner…." But I guess bold-faced type would not have worked for you in that moment of emphasis, was that it?? I’m just checking, since you seem to be authority on such matters. Actually, you seem to be a self-professed authority on lots of stuff, which leads me to believe you actually no very little about anything worthwhile. 2) Lets examine this statement of yours, which goes a long way in proving you like to spout off about things you know little about:

Equivocation meter wrote: Should I explain to you what "equivocation" actually means? To simplify, it means hypocrisy, something you seem to enjoy practicing.

WRONG.

Equivocation means:

"a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth (syn: evasion) 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous (syn: prevarication, evasiveness) 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language (syn: tergiversation)

SYNONYMS:

deception, deceptiveness, delusion, dissimulation, distortion, double entendre, double meaning, double talk, doubtfulness, duplicity, equivocality, evasion, fallacy, fib, fibbing, hedging, lie, line, lying, misrepresentation, prevarication, quibbling, routine, run-around, shuffling, song, sophistry, speciousness, spuriousness, stall, stonewall, tergiversation, waffle"

That is NOT "hypocrisy." Hypocrisy means:

"1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess;

Understand the DIFFERENCE?????? It may be somewhat subtle, but it EXISTS. Here you go:

To be an equivocator, is to be one who PURPOSELY and INTENTIONALLY is deceptive by making statements that are vague, or leave out key details, or distort realities. It’s basically clever lying, or evasive talk, or a sort of "beating around the bush" for the purpose of avoiding the reality or key issues that the equivocator knows will throw his arguments into disarray.

To be a hypocrite, is to be one who claims to be one type of person, while not actually being such a person. Often it is not intentional, since the hypocrite, like many people, can see others’ faults better than his own. Maybe on an unconscious level, the hypocrite knows he is such a person, but it is often not conscious. And hypocrisy ALWAYS deals with a falseness about one’s self. One can equivocate about ANY subject. When someone claims that Bush’s "Clear Skies Initiative" (or whatever BS name it has) is doing a lot for the environment, while it really is not, and defends this point of view by KNOWINGLY leaving out all sorts of important studies and data, and spinning the results of Bush’s policies this way and that to try and make the Clean Skies act look good, is this person being an "equivocator", a "hypocrite," or both?? He is being a EQUIVOCATOR. But if GEORGE BUSH says that his actions as president (Clean Skies and others) prove that he "greatly cares about the environment", and he tries to INTENTIONALLY be deceptive in his defense of his actions, he is being an Equivocator AND a HYPOCRITE, because his actions do not show him to have those qualities, and he knows it.

So basically, you don’t even know the meaning of the "big words" you like to use, even the ones you use in your posting name.

3) Continuing with this topic . You call me a hypocrite for attacking your use of "may typically," while immediately then using the line of "Oh, believe me, it has happened countless times" concerning my own "anecdotal observations" of runner who can’t handle lots of mileage.

And then you have the balls to write:

"Notice that I'm not pretending to be able to attach specific numbers of runners to this claim; I don't have to. There's no "bad science" about it because it's an anecdotal observation that anyone with opoen eyes recognizes as true. You know as well as I do that the overwhelming majority…….blah, blah, blah….."

You "don’t have to" attach #’s or %’s to your claims??? Wow, what a scientist you are!! And this is because "Anyone with open eyes", what, agrees with you……is that it?? Newsflash, LOTS of people with open eyes WAAAY smarter than you probably disagree with you concerning lots of your training beliefs. "Anecdotal observations" ??? Are you kidding me? So your "anecdotal observations" are valid, but mine or others are not, but are simply BS?

I can’t believe I have wasted this much dissecting the idiocy of your post. Yes, I brought myself down your pathetic level of debate. I kind of loathe myself right now for doing so, but its too late, what’s done is done.

Enjoy wasting YOUR time attempting to make me look silly now. Some people never learn.

slomo,

I don't disagree with or dispute either claim 1 or claim 2.

"Everyone agrees with your novel suggestion that individuals recover at varying rates"

"Yet you still assert your unfounded ideas on recovery"

You lost me champ.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

I will finish with you with by making one last post

With you with you with you? Excellent. And yes, I'm sure this was your one and only post from this point forward. Sounds familiar.

Equivocation meter wrote:"Should I explain to you what "equivocation" actually means? To simplify, it means hypocrisy, something you seem to enjoy practicing."

WRONG.

Equivocation means:

"a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth (syn: evasion) 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous (syn: prevarication, evasiveness) 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language (syn: tergiversation)

Equivocation (using the same word or term to mean two different things) invariably breeds hypocrisy. That's why I threw the "to simplify" disclaimer in there. You equivocated when you complained that I was making unscientific claims, then turned around and made the same sort of claims while somehow implicitly deeming them scientific. This branded you a hypocrite, adding to a long list of obvious personal shortcomings. But subtleties and morons make poor bedfellows, so the best you could do was to go scrambling for your Mirriam-Webster's and start flailing away again. Lordy Lord, I hate stupidity.

You're really just not very smart, a state of affairs which has destroyed your efforts to keep up with my and others' posts here. I'm sorry things haven't worked out for you in the head, but take heart: You'll always have a home - and kindred spirits - at this website.

Now, I have some work to do. Wrestle with pigs, they say, and it only gets you muddy. They're right.

OK, you did catch me in a lie, I can't resist ONE FINAL post at your expense. But for once, it will be a fairly short one:

WHAT ?!?! Those sentences are even more nonsensical than your normal slop. But what is BE A U TI FUL about the above quote of yours is that you are EQUIVOCATING about the meaning of the word EQUIVOCATION! You KNOW that you were wrong when you wrote that "equivocation means hypocrisy" ( I have proved this to you in an ironclad manner), but yet now you persist in using equivocations to defend your error!!

HA HA.....that's just too good to be true. What a wonderful, revealing end to an otherwise sordid fight!

Then by all means, please hurry off an do your homework, I wouldn't want you to have to stay after school and write on the chalk-board 1000 times:

'I am petulant little child with an ego that far exceeds my abilities, and I still do not know what the word "equivocate" means'

If LetsRun was a classroom, that WOULD be your punishment for transgressions commited on this thread.

( I now apologize to all on this thread that had to witness such a silly feud, and who saw me dragged into the muck with this mud-slinging pompous ass. But I will waste no more space on this thread. THAT I swear to)

balance,

balance wrote:

You stated that you are "arguing that the classic definition of VO2max is inaccurate." What do you mean by classic? I am quite aware of what the most recent theory on VO2max is. When you say classic, do you refer to some other theory?

I just realized that I had neglected to answer your question. I apologize for the oversight.

The classic theory of VO2max is that a limited supply of oxygen is ultimately responsible for fatigue. The argument is that the body cannot deliver enough oxygen to the working muscles to meet their energy needs via aerobic metabolism. The term "going into oxygen debt" was generally used to indicate this phenomenon (I believe you even used the term oxygen debt in this thread to indicate a lack of oxygen). As a result of insufficient oxygen, the muscles rely increasingly on anaerobic metabolism. Lactic acid is produced as a by-product of anaerobic metabolism so as more and more energy is produced anaerobically the level of lactic acid in the muscles increases too. Lactic acid causes the working muscles to become acidic, which interferes with their ability to contract, resulting in fatigue and a necessary slowing of the pace. I believe this classic theory is still the most widely known version.

There has been quite a bit of research on lactic acid/lactate and it is now accepted that lactic acid is not responsible for all the bad things it has been accused of and does not cause fatigue.

In line with the new info on lactic acid, a more recent version of the VO2max theory makes some minor changes in the above series of events. In this version it isn't lactic acid that changes muscle acidity but H+ that causes the acidity. Everything else remains the same in relation to the classic version - oxygen is still limited, resulting in increased anaerobic metabolism, causing increased acidity (due to H+ though, not lactic acid), interfering with muscle contractility & causing muscle fatigue.

As I noted, research research now shows that the supply of oxygen to the working muscles is sufficient, even at max intensity.

Perhaps in response to the research on oxygen availability another theory now suggests that the limitation is not found in oxygen but in mitochondria. This theory holds that the mitochondria cannot produce enough energy via aerobic metabolism, resulting in an increase in energy via the other energy systems (oxygen independent systems), which produces by-products (H+) that interfere with muscle contractility. This particular theory has some evidence supporting it and some disputing it, but it has not been researched adequately or extensively so for now the jury is still out.

Richard_ , since you now seem to be in question-answering mode, perhaps you could answer this one (within the framework of your various theories: central governor, oxygen not limited, etc); Why does EPO work?

Duty Free,

First, has it been proven that EPO works? Candidly, I haven't look at the research on EPO but my impression is that there is conflicting research.

For discussion sake let's say it is effective. What distances is it effective for? All? Some? Is it more effective for 400m runners than marathon runners? Equally effective? Better for longer distances? The reason I ask is because at distances of 5k and longer the athlete is not running at VO2max (for discussion sake let's also assume the VO2max theory is valid). IF EPO is effective because it improves oxygen delivery, but the long distant athlete is not using all the oxygen that is already available pre-epo, why would enhancing oxygen delivery result in improved performance? So, in terms of the cardiovascular/anaerobic model, there are questions as to why EPO might be effective for long distant athletes.

If EPO is effective the Central Governor model suggests why. One of the things the central governor does is monitor the oxygen saturation of the blood and when the level drops too low the central governor decreases the mass of muscle fibers that are active. Conversely, when the saturation level increases the central governor allows more muscle fiber to be activated, which increases power output, resulting in a faster pace and better performance.

balance wrote:

Some people refer to the fast running segment as a repetition. I have even seen coaches classify workouts by the durations of the fast runs, where long repeats of about 800m or more are called receptions, and anything under this is called an interval. Anyone else get confused or annoyed by the all the possible misuse of these words? I prefer to refer to interval training in the classical term, where the recovery period is always the interval, and the fast run segment is always the repetition. If everyone adhered to the same terminology I believe it would reduce some confusion. Just thought I’d put these thoughts out there. Discus if you like.

Well there are many wrong terminology out there. I see an indiscriminate use of word intervals to define anything else but not the Interval training.

Americans (nad not just the Americans) they name intervals, to anything else that´s intermittent training, but that´s not correct either. And to prove that in most of the Americans the the interval traing method is based mainly in the pace intensity quite all-out; and quite complete recover - they say that “you may not do short "intervals" because that´s too fast, to do them in 60sec for a 14:10 runner”. Of course that´s too fast – that´s more than fast, that´s a wrong pace to use in te inetravl training.

This is first basic discrimination, that apart from "continuous" training, you have "intermittent training".

Second basic discrimination is that "intermittent" training did it utilisation because in the past they learn that instead of doing a run in a single/continous period (as a non-stop) we may be able to do more - Quantity (total mileage, distance, number of reps, time duration) and also more Quality (faster, intensity pace) IF we use pauses in between the runs.

Each one of this set parts of were seen as a “fraction” of a the total distance run, so this training was named as “fractional training”, to cut/to divide the total run in parts.

When they essayed to run that fractional runs several times, they call that repetitions. Now a repetition that´s the designation of short speed runs (let´s say 100m) as that´s the designation of the longest runs quite close to the race pace (let´s say 800m or mile runs).

The universe of this classification - deals only the intermittence (fast-stop-fast-stop…) and the pace intensity and IF ther´s no special concern about the duration of the interval pause – that means that you may have a quite complete recover, in the proportion of the effort demand, that means that if you do speed or very intense pace or a long duration, consequently you need more interval time duration to back to the recover.

Then people that calls intervals to anything else, the may call repetitions – instead the intervals if the interval pause that´s not the main workout target, as it´s in the interval training.

Third basic discrimination is that in this scenario, now we have all that variables in the intermittent training or rep. training:

1. Time - the duration of your run, and also the duration of each segment

2. Distance - the mileage that you cover in each segment and in te total of the segments

3.Pace - the consequence from the time over the distance

4. Interval - the time that you are passive (interval)

At this moment of the running distance training the interval training that was inexistent yet.

Of course that all this 4 variables they are in a close interdependence, that´s to say that if you run an intense pace, that´s for sure that you will need a longer recover, or to run a short distance, etc, etc.

Historically we didn´t arrive to Gresheler and the interval training yet. But the repetition workouts that existed before Gresheler, only Gresheler did build a very particular reps training – the Interval training

That´s only now that Gresheler and Reindel they enter in the running scenario.

I will tell you later the master lines of Gresheler/Freiburg interval training – original format, genuine format, that is distinct from the repetition training or fractional training, mainly due to the reason that thst Interval training deals with the incomplete interval variant more to create artificially a strong heart and also to able to runner to manage lactic acid concentration. How they use that – in reps in sub-maximal pace but very accurate pace average range.

But wait…now, the recover that may be incomplete. Tony Net, a critic of Gresheler (thus we can trust him) says that with Gresheler the runner may use an individual (differentfor each one) but incomplete interval pause, that the beginners may walk in between each 2 fast reps, but when they have more experience and maturity they shall jog in between, 100m or 200m.

In my next e-mail I will continue, if you wish.

Richard_ wrote:

has it been proven that EPO works? Candidly, I haven't look at the research on EPO but my impression is that there is conflicting research.

Candidly, is there anyone out there still wondering why this guy is widely treated like an ignoramus? My impression is that Richard_ would claim that water isn't wet if saying as much somehow suited his agenda.

Antonio,

Please continue with the interval training information. I am paying attention.

By the way if you have a very difficult time translating something to English, you could try typing it in your native language. I could then use a translator program to translate what you say. This usually provides pretty good translations.

I'm not saying you are not expressing yourself well in English, but I feel a little bad about the fact that you have to converse with me in English but I do not ever afford you the opportunity to read my post in Portuguese. I doubt you would want to try though. My Portuguese is much worse than your English, I am sure. Perhaps I will ask one of my Portuguese friends to translate what I want to want to say into Portuguese and I will post it to you some time. There are a lot of Portuguese speaking people from around my parts. In fact I once had a Portuguese coach.

Be well.

rivas wrote:

Mr. Cabral

What method do you use for estabishing anaerobic threshold?

I´m a bit lost here in this thread because, we are follow an interesting physiology debate, but my perspective is more a coach perspective than sport physiology one

I quote by memory and right now some of the world top class runners that i´ve seen to train in Lisbon and that I did have a conversation with each one of theam and/or their coaches. Kenenisa Bekele (don´t need presentation) He did used compete here in cross runs in several attempts and he comes here some weeks before the runs and did stay here some more days after the runs; Abere Adere (marathon WC and OC and London marathon winner) the occasions he comes here to compete he trains in my local park and in my local train I used since 30 years ago. Dieter Baumman (5000m OW, sub 13:00) he did run and stayed here in Algarve – portuguese south during long periods due to Portuguese winter good climate and also did lots of workouts in the local track I used to coach. Mouhamed Mourith; Paul Tergat; Challenga, Renato´s Nicholas Kemboi (the Renato´s runner did run for a Portuguese team and run several runs here in my country before go to Renato´s training, Steve Ovett, Kepketer (800m WR) he did used to do winter stays here and he did Malaria disease here, Steve Jones – he used to love and compete in Portugal quite a lot, Spain’s Fabian Roncero or José Rios, Japanese Toshinari Takaoka, (2:06:16); Ismael Shigir (sub 13:00) ; Argentine Antonio Silios; Brasilen Ronaldo Costa (marathon WR 2:06:05).

Of course I also know all past Portuguese running history, since Lopes and Mamede, Antonio Pinto or Rui Silva, Domingos Castro.

I also did coach Fernando Couto (13:22), and he did participate in 1988 Seul Olympics, and I also advise Alberto Chaiça, 4th in the WC and 8th in last Olympics.

If I quote the best women – Fernanda Ribeiro, Rosa Mota, Manuela Machado, Takahoshi, Maria Mutola, Paula Radcliff (once a my master friend of mine try to follow her in Algarve but she trains too fast…); etc etc, all world top female runner´s.

My question for you is this one: Do you think that all this top class runners, when they run intense continuous runs, they are concern with what´s his lactate concentration, or that they take blood samples, or that they are concern in what pace they are going in that considered LT runs, or that they have any odea what´s his anaerobic threshold. Of course that they don´t ! Probably one a few knows what´s the AnT. But all of them are/were the worlds best.

The only ones that I know that they pay some attention to the pulse HR when they do/did fast continuous runs that´s Dieter Baumman and Paula Radcliff.

Despite that they are the world best and they did top performances and top chronos that you will love to do.

They run mainly by the “feeling” with no concern of they are in the anaerobic threshold pace and without concern if that pace I the intense sub-maximal runs that’s his own half marathon pace or ten miles pace.

Besides, what´s an half marathon pace for a 800m/1500m specialist?

In my opinion that intense/fast continuous runs - in a submaximal pace – that we say that´s LT runs – done with the use of intervals, or in one single continuous run – that may be or by feeling or by to reach a certain “plateau” or pace/intensity zone – by pulse rate percents of your maximum – a agree with Hadd ideas about HRB, or by lactic acid concentration – but with no great concern what´s your anaerobic threshold pace.

My most used method that´s to relate your estimate race pace in your target goal event distance (RPTD)in percents to determine the pace – ex: 90% pace of RPTD or 87%pace of RPTD and of course a 800m runner or a 1500m may do LT runs/intense runs no slower than 5000m pace, but of course that Lt runs for an 800m runner that have less distance/duration than a 10000m runner.

In looking back over the articles and such, there is an important section in the abstract that should be highlighted.

QUOTE: Thus increased lactate production coincides with cellular acidosis and remains a good indirect marker for cell metabolic conditions that induce metabolic acidosis. If muscle did not produce lactate, acidosis and muscle fatigue would occur more quickly and exercise performance would be severely impaired. END QUOTE

Note that Robergs is offering that lactate production is a good marker (albeit indirect which is beyond argument from anyone who knows about this stuff).

From a pragmatic standpoint, measuring blood lactate levels could be useful in assessing training regardless of where the acidosis comes from.

Coyle, for one, has show the strong correlation between various methods to assess lactate threshold and endurance performance. I see no reason that Robergs' ideas change the usefulness of assessing lactate threshold.

I apologise for the change in direction of this question but your first post in this thread contained something of interest to many I am sure:

"You correctly pointed out a distinction between general conditioning and specialized event preparation. In mentioning hills and sprints as increasing force production, it is also worth noting that economy (requirement for less energy expenditure) can also be influenced through the use of hills and a few drills, although I would discourage the use of full-speed sprints during a period of base training until other neuromuscular qualities were acquired. I'll explain the rationale behind that in more detail (and with an analogy or two) if asked, but it goes back to the previous concept that forceful muscular contractions simultaneously require balance and precision of movement in order to minimize energy expenditure."

Could you amplify on this if you have time ?

In the "double whammy" thread the main message was that base training to be sure to include 5 to 6 sprints of just 5 or 6 seconds each two times per week. I am assuming that what was described was all out sprints.

Thanks.