Basic Training Principles--New booklet on Lydiard training for high school runners

metrododger wrote:

Systems, I'm not yet quite up to speed on the physiological manifestations of what you're stating here in regards to glycogen storage, but from my own experience what you're saying is dead on.

My runs when done with an apparent decline in glycogen storage seem far and away better than other runs where I'm topped up. Also, I typically get to a point in longer runs where I seem like I can essentially hold my breath and maintain the same pace as my breathing has become so relaxed and controlled as compared to earlier.

Very interesting insight, here.

Thanks metrododger. Do you feel, in these runs, that your stride is becoming more efficient? I do. I think most runners do. Why doesn't it get discussed more I wonder?

rekrunner, we always produce energy both aerobically and anaerobically. If you read Noakes' chapter on energy systems in Lore of Running volume 4, he explain how there is no such thing as 'going anaerobic' this term relates to how we cross the ventilatory threshold where carbon dioxide production becomes excessive. This causes us to become out of breath either gradually or quickly.

How am I relating this to gycogen storage? I am saying that When we have more glycogen we us it less efficiently and when we have less glycogen storage we use it more efficiently. When we rely too much on glycolysis from blood glucose it has an acidifying effect on the muscle compared to glycogenolysis from muscle glycogen, which doesn't acidify. Glycogenolysis on average provides six times as much energy as glycolysis, but when this ratio falls below 6:1 acidosis increases. Yes being 1-2 kilos lighter will help, but obviously there is a point where we become depleted and tired/confused/angry/sad/deranged/whatever.

In answer to your question about Marathon surges, yes more glycogen/lactate is used for a few k's, but the average lactate level in a Marathon will always be low compared to shorter races, because of the limits of glycogen storage.

What is the difference between running economy and efficiency as I describe it on this thread? Economy is the amount of fuel used for a given pace, or more specifically oxygen economy as measure in a lab gives values for aerobic contribution alone. Efficiency as I describe it here relates to both fuel economy and excess carbon dioxide production. All of the different changes in muscle and blood chemistry and gas exchange is a very complicated subject. For example, how much does air temperature and humidity effect our breathing?

Thanks HRE. I really enjoyed reading that. The only part which I disagree with methodologically is the oxygen debt part. I think that even better sessions are possible by avoiding this excessive breathing/acidosis. I believe that is the real difference between what the top guys (Africans) are doing and what is traditional interval training instituted by the men in white coats.

systems wrote:

Your own observations are the same as mine. My conclusion is that the more glycogen we have stored, the less efficiently we use it, and as we continue our effort, our muscles become stiffer and springier up to the point when they become too stiff and force us to slow down. This gives us huge potential for pace and endurance development with an intelligent approach based on how we feel with respect to the consideration that training is an art, not a science.

Systems, maybe I'm misunderstanding your comments on glycogen storage (I may also be confusing your comments with rekrunner's comments); please clarify. Are you suggesting that recently ingested foods contribute to glycogen storage, or are you talking about long-term stored glycogen? It has always been my understanding (and certainly I may be wrong) that a major component of distance training--indeed the major benefit of long runs--is teaching the body to metabolize fats sooner and use less glycogen. In addition to changing your running economy to consume less energy at the same intensity, this boost energy metabolized (or reduction in glycogen consumed) at the same intensity is one one the major physiological adaptations of training.

Maybe the fat-metabolizing issue isn't as important for the 800m runner, but even then I'm not understanding how less glycogen storage improves metabolic efficiency. (Or is that not your point at all?)

systems wrote:I don't think we need to learn how to tolerate excessive acidosis, because it's a basic survival mechanism.

So is breathing, yet we train to develop that.

We just need to practice running fast and long, progressing to racing.

And if you substitute the word 'just' for 'mostly', then i agree, but this is our fundamental disagreement.

That will give us all the pace judgement we need. And really, when we battle down the home straight, it's a combination of natural staying power, determination and pace judgement. We are all slowing down at the end of a long sprint, it's a question of who slows down the least.

All of these things are trainable, even if i don't know exactly what you mean by staying power.

I agree with Noakes. His perceptions into what is going on is more developed than anything that has come before. Noakes is like the quantum wind that has reordered the standard understanding of the physiological model. I can feel how your thinking has been influenced by this, or perhaps you already thought this way and he just confirmed it. Where i myself am unclear is within this precise idea you are trying to unearth here. Which is ... :) let me try and paint it from my perspective.

In fact, stuff it. "Train, don't strain" already covers it. The fine edge between one and the other is the holy grail for me. Although training encompasses a large range of activities, it is only on the edges of things that we get true impressions of what is really going on. The edge between training and straining is the key and what it unlocks is like the tardis, space opens up. The edge between training and straining is the zone, and from the inside it isn't just large, i believe it to be infinite.

The edge between two energy systems is a good example of the edge idea, where there is a transition phase and the internal feelings are changing from one state to another. These are not a few isolated feelings, this is a global perceptual state change. It affects your entire being. It is hard to miss is it not. When we are in the middle of one state, we don't have anything else to compare it to, so we can become lost. When we are changing from one state to another we have the ability to discriminate between them, allowing for a fine tuning of understanding and through development of this understanding, we become better at defining this particular edge (or boundary or crossover point). Like when night becomes day there is no specific point, rather a transitional zone, where the gradual increase of light reaches a point where it is now more than the dark.

But to personally become aware of you own 'strain' when applying effort is really what the bottom line of Lydiardism is i reckon. If someone wants to change their 'perceived' state of talent, simply learn to remove strain from your training, everywhere you can find it. For me effort is using what you have in your being, strain is using what you have in your imagination.

Someone like van Aaken would likely have agreed with you. Arthur, of course, learned about running on his own in an era when almost all training involved going into oxygen debt and really, most of the criticism he drew was about not doing enough of that sort of thing.

I have read that when he coached Paul Ballinger to his 2:10 in the early 80s the training looked a bit different. I'd love to see samples of that. I may ask Barry Magee if he knows anything about it.

The comparative rate at which we produce energy both aerobically and anaerobically varies as a function of intensity of effort. I'm never concerned with the mere presence of one form or another -- even less so when both forms are always present. What becomes interesting is the effects of the new rates of energy production when the intensity is sufficient to create an imbalance or a different state.Whenever I use the term "anaerobic", I use it to mean what Noakes calls "oxygen independent glycolysis". I prefer not to use Noakes' term, as only Noakes and maybe a handful of his students and you would understand it. When Noakes uses the term "anaerobic" he uses it to describe some rare state inside the muscle where the lack of adequate oxygen supply threatens to cause permanent damage to muscle tissue. Maybe it is more scientifically accurate to use the term that way, but he (and you) are the only ones I've ever seen use the term in that sense, in a training discussion. Then he argues that this rare anaerobic state actually never occurs during intense exercise. I never talk about "going anaerobic" the way you think he has debunked. In training discussions, I am never concerned with an instantaneous or continuous adequate supply of oxygen, always taking it for granted, but rather the net effect (e.g lactate accumulation, or blood pH) of training or racing, caused by intense efforts that involve a large amount of "oxygen independent glycolysis".For my purposes, "ventilatory threshold", "lactate threshold", "anaerobic threshold", and "one hour race pace" are interchangeable terms. Maybe even MAXLASS too, unless I manage to build an unusually high one. Similarly "aerobic threshold" and marathon pace are interchangeable terms for me.The terms "going anaerobic", and "anaerobic" the way Noakes describes, only seems to serve a purpose to describe something that doesn't exist, debunking something people aren't talking about. It seems like an unpragmatic way to restrict the usage of the term that everyone uses anyway and understands what is meant by the usage.I'm still confused as to what you mean when you say things like "when we have more glycogen, we use it less efficiently..." Once again, efficiency in a performance context, is a percentage of (net energy)/(gross energy). In physics, energy is work, resulting in a force moving a mass through a certain directed distance (e.g. forward). "Gross energy" is the sum of energy the body is producing for all purposes, while "net energy" is the most interesting part for racing purposes: how much of that energy results in a force moving your body in a forward direction. For longer efforts, "gross energy" is measured by oxygen, because it's practical, and nothing else matters all that much, proportionally. So here's what I understand you to mean: "When glycogen stores are higher, less of the total energy produced by oxidation ends up moving us forward." Or "When glycogen stores are higher, we need to produce more energy from oxidation, to achieve the same force to propel us forward." These statements don't make any sense to me. Where are we losing the energy, through higher inefficiency, when glycogen stores are higher? I think you are not comparing efficiency (of glycogen usage) in terms of oxygen cost, and total gross energy, and it's fractional net energy. What do you mean by efficient use of glycogen?I'm also confused by your new reference to blood glucose as the undesired source of acidity. Does blood glucose also count as glycogen storage? I thought glycogen storage occurred either in the liver, or in the muscles. Blood glucose comes from liver glycogen. Is this what is producing acid? Isn't "oxygen independent glycolysis" also occurring with muscle glycogen, producing acid (without involving blood glucose)?I've seen the math before, but can you explain again your math behind "glycogenolysis providing six times as much energy as glycolysis"?

Thanks HRE

Perhap's he did do the marathon too quickly to begin with. I knew the time - 2.41. A half decent vet runs that fast. We can't deny Snell's 3 mile and 2 mile performances were poor.

And as we know he wasn't that quick over 100 or 200. His endurance wasn't amazing. Perhaps his strength lay basically in his ability to develop his speed endurance or anaerobic power.

Perhaps some are more predisposed to do this.

Of course , he had a great coach and program too.

Thanks for the reply.

I don't understand your discussion on breathing. How to train without getting winded - or race without getting winded.?

interesting notion wrote: How to train without getting winded - or race without getting winded.?

What do you mean by winded exactly?

Adam Smith wrote:

Systems, maybe I'm misunderstanding your comments on glycogen storage (I may also be confusing your comments with rekrunner's comments); please clarify. Are you suggesting that recently ingested foods contribute to glycogen storage, or are you talking about long-term stored glycogen? It has always been my understanding (and certainly I may be wrong) that a major component of distance training--indeed the major benefit of long runs--is teaching the body to metabolize fats sooner and use less glycogen. In addition to changing your running economy to consume less energy at the same intensity, this boost energy metabolized (or reduction in glycogen consumed) at the same intensity is one one the major physiological adaptations of training.

Maybe the fat-metabolizing issue isn't as important for the 800m runner, but even then I'm not understanding how less glycogen storage improves metabolic efficiency. (Or is that not your point at all?)

Adam, the main point I was trying to make was that we should avoid acidosis as much as possible in a race. You have surely had such races and training sessions? How did they happen? And why did it not happen the same way the next time?

What cause that super efficient running? Why do we sometimes have a more powerful stride, without getting tired?

It comes from the combination of stiffer, more springy muscles which consume less fuel and less oxygen for a given pace, combined with a relaxed feeling. So it's both more tension and more relaxation. This feeling is connected to the way adrenalin and noradrenalin are realeased along with lactate release over a period of several hours leading up to the run. It's the ideal physiological state for running fast, instead of the usual hit and miss training and racing which is very hard work for little reward.

Uhm, yeah. That's a bit too mystical for me man.

HRE wrote:

Someone like van Aaken would likely have agreed with you. Arthur, of course, learned about running on his own in an era when almost all training involved going into oxygen debt and really, most of the criticism he drew was about not doing enough of that sort of thing.

I have read that when he coached Paul Ballinger to his 2:10 in the early 80s the training looked a bit different. I'd love to see samples of that. I may ask Barry Magee if he knows anything about it.

Wasn't Van Aaken a bit of an extremist though?

systems wrote:

Uhm, yeah. That's a bit too mystical for me man.

How so? Maybe it's a bit hypothetical but it's based on experience not theory, which may be the stumbling point.

OK another way, strain or tension blocks feeling. It blocks the feeling of where this threshold is in oneself. It blocks the feeling of what is happening in your breathing.

Without strain there is no tension blocks your perceptions of your feelings. This is paramount to start the journey, a journey you seem already on in some way, but you, like me, want to define it in our own terms, so i applaud that.

If i do rep 150s off walkback to exhaustion i become empty of a certain responsiveness. The inner core is fine and i can keep doing less intense things for a long time afterwards. There really isn't any pain accompanying this somewhat external feeling of emptiness. I guess this is depletion of PC stores.

Doing 300s to exhaustion it's both the same and different i find. It's the same in that there is a feeling of depletion, but this feeling is overtaken by the burning. So i'm assuming for now the first is depletion of immediate stores of glycogen and the second is the acidocis that occurs once my system responds to the overload on demand. Noakes and his theory states we never actually run out of glycogen so some other factor he calls the Central Governor limits our ability to continue to put our systems at further risk. The poison shuts us down and stops us from destroying ourselves. Fail safe mechanism. This doesn't explain the feeling of 'nothing there anymore' though.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

The terms "going anaerobic", and "anaerobic" the way Noakes describes, only seems to serve a purpose to describe something that doesn't exist, debunking something people aren't talking about. It seems like an unpragmatic way to restrict the usage of the term that everyone uses anyway and understands what is meant by the usage.

I'm still confused as to what you mean when you say things like "when we have more glycogen, we use it less efficiently..." I'm also confused by your new reference to blood glucose as the undesired source of acidity. Does blood glucose also count as glycogen storage? I thought glycogen storage occurred either in the liver, or in the muscles. Blood glucose comes from liver glycogen. Is this what is producing acid? Isn't "oxygen independent glycolysis" also occurring with muscle glycogen, producing acid (without involving blood glucose)?

I've seen the math before, but can you explain again your math behind "glycogenolysis providing six times as much energy as glycolysis"?

[quote]

Noakes is saying that we never run out of oxygen during intense exercize. And that the brain must protect the heart from anoxia which would cause heart failure.

The term "going anaerobic" refers to the crossing of the ventilatory threshold where we start to breath out an excess of carbon dioxide in response to metabolic acidosis, the acidification of the blood.

The extra efficiency in our running comes from a combination of stiffer muscles and more relaxed running. We get into that state, with the right warm-up, which doesn't have to be running, or even exercize because we get get into that state just by thinking about it a lot. This is called visualization and has been proven by studying brain activity.

Blood glucose comes from liver glycogen, yes.

Glycolysis from blood glucose: 2 molecules of Lactate, each accompanied by 2 molecules of ATP plus one hydrogen ion.

Glycogenolysis from muscle glycogen: 2 molecules of Lactate, each accompanied by 3 molecules of ATP with no extra hydrogen ion.

Muscle glycogen stores are 4 time as large as liver glycogen, and from this we get 50% more ATP per Lactate (3vs2 molecules) so, multiplying the 4 by the ratio of 3/2 we get six time as much ATP from muscle glycogen as we do from blood glucose.

Forgetting times for specific distances. Snell won a NZ Cross Country title over 12km against very tough National opposition ... Many of whom later formed the basis of our successful Cross Country teams at International level.

Not as far as I know.

What about van Aaken seems extreme to you?

Kim,I knew about that. I have "No Bugles no Drums" so will check when I find it just who the opposition were. Some national titles can be soft (not saying this was). But in the lead up to his 800 WR, Snell's 3 mile and 2 mile efforts were relatively slow. My point is that given his 100/200/400 speed and his endurance (at the level I understood it to be), Snell ran a very very quick 800. Is there a reason for this, is there speed, endurance, and "speed endurance" which can be developed to a different level for two athletes with similar over and under distance performances.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Forgetting times for specific distances. Snell won a NZ Cross Country title over 12km against very tough National opposition ... Many of whom later formed the basis of our successful Cross Country teams at International level.