SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
So many runners and coaches believes they must do something very different, but they don`t.
Sounds like a good description of you, Jan.
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
So many runners and coaches believes they must do something very different, but they don`t.
Sounds like a good description of you, Jan.
MichaeI. wrote:
Impala31 wrote:
what is the logic behind the double LT days?
Why is better than doing it 4 times a week on different days?
You maximize recovery on the easy days.
So if I adapt this logic to a average guy like me
it would be better that I do my two workouts of the week on following days like wednesday/Thursday with the long run on Sunday and two days of recovery in between?
up
Impala31 wrote:
MichaeI. wrote:
You maximize recovery on the easy days.
So if I adapt this logic to a average guy like me
it would be better that I do my two workouts of the week on following days like wednesday/Thursday with the long run on Sunday and two days of recovery in between?
No, you need to recover between workouts. And one easy day is more than enough after most workouts. If you do workouts 2 days in a row second one will be on tired lags and you might not be able to keep the pace.
Jakob can run two workouts in the same day because both of them are fairly easy if done alone (at least for him).
Whats your threshold pace?
Check it out
https://distance-running.com/blog/f/what-is-your-threshold-pace
milermb wrote:
"Now what about a 3:31 1500m guy? You don’t “require” a super fast 800m to be able to do that. You just go to crank 56s for 3.75 laps. They just approach their training from one side more than others."
But in order to win championship races you do need to be able to accelerate and sprint. This is Jacob's weakness at the moment, witness the recent European Indoor 1500. Unless he improves his 800 pb he will be vulnerable in World or Olympic finals unless he can get someone to set a reasonably fast pace (one of his brothers??) as El G did in his prime.
I haven't read all the posts, but you hit the nail on the head. After watching him get beat from the turn, he needs another gear- meaning they need to work on his turnover and driving from 100 meters in, IMO. Love to see both Jacobs run, but but Big Jacob needs to stick to the 1 mile % 1500, he is just too heavy and 3k is his limit.
OldFish. wrote:
The way I see it comes down to the fact that any elite athlete will have his/her VO2max maximized already and any improvement in results will come in way of improving running economy, i.e. running faster at the same given VO2max. Study done on moderately trained individuals shows that threshold training improves economy more than VO2max type intervals or LSD. My speculation would be that threshold intensity is high enough to stimulate improvement and at the same time you can accumulate much higher volume of such intensity compared to 5k or faster type work. As discussed in previous posts, Ingebrigtsen's do a total of around 17k worth of reps at threshold during their threshold days. Can you imagine doing the same amount of reps at 5K or 3K pace? Anyone would be a toast after few days or weeks.
Yeah, and doing that much threshold is going to crossover and train your Vo2max-it just takes more volume than the traditional faster intervals, and he already has great top end speed. I think his only weakness is developing another sprint gear to win in the last 100meters. This could be rooted in too much threshold work without the change in paces when you do Vo2 max stuff. It seems he has a hard time switching gears just from my observation.
First of all very interesting topic here. I have two questions based on their training:
1. The Mader 4mmol LT is used to give an estimation of the LT but is in many cases not 100% correct for MaxLaSS. For top athletes and especially with the background that Gjert wants to avoid overtraining by training to much at or above LT I am wondering why he uses the Mader model! I mean the chances are very low that their LT is exactly at 4mmol, right?
2. On their TV show in Season 3 Episode 5 (check YT) you can see Henrik doing some 1000m repeats ending with a lactate level of 9.4 mmol. How does this relate to doing their repeats below LT?
BTW there is a free case study called: “ A Longitudinal Case Study of the Training of the 2012 European 1500m Track Champion” - where they show a lot about Jakobs training.
Can you please post a link to the study?
As you can see they are defining Zone 1 (0.7-2mmol) and Zone 2 (2.0-4.0mmol)!
I am still wondering why they are using 4.0mmol (model by Mader) as the LT which is also a little bit guessing the exact LT and research shows how inaccurate it is for most people especially highly trained athletes.
gold_panter wrote
"BTW there is a free case study called: “ A Longitudinal Case Study of the Training of the 2012 European 1500m Track Champion” - where they show a lot about Jakobs training."
-------------------
The case study is not about Jakob but about older brother Henrik´s training in the years up to 2012 where he became European Champion in the 1500m and no. 5 in the 1500 in the olympics.
The training description is, however, still relevant since the brothers are training according to the same principles today.
You should just be aware that Jakob is running much faster on all training distances than Henrik did in the same age. And he is also running more kilometers,
His PBs are also far better than Henrik´s in the same age.
But Jakob (and the brothers) are still running with a similar intensity on the different distances. This being measured by heart rates and lactate numbers.
I thought I would piggy back instead of new thread. I am surprised by the focus on threshold? Bob Larsen was a big threshold guy and no doubt gets good results. However, my understanding is... the recent (last 20 years ish) scientific literature strongly suggests that polarizing your training around threshold is superior? In other words, very little actual threshold, more Zones lower than threshold and workouts on the other side of threshold (VO2max, 90/95%). No ? Or in other words workouts less than 75-80% and workouts above 90. Both of which are not threshold runs. Isnt that the new understanding. Not saying no threshold runs but way less than we thought?
bigmig19 wrote:
I thought I would piggy back instead of new thread. I am surprised by the focus on threshold? Bob Larsen was a big threshold guy and no doubt gets good results. However, my understanding is... the recent (last 20 years ish) scientific literature strongly suggests that polarizing your training around threshold is superior? In other words, very little actual threshold, more Zones lower than threshold and workouts on the other side of threshold (VO2max, 90/95%). No ? Or in other words workouts less than 75-80% and workouts above 90. Both of which are not threshold runs. Isnt that the new understanding. Not saying no threshold runs but way less than we thought?
To be honest I think once you reach a very high level of VO2max its more about maintaining that level instead of expecting huge gains. Thats why I think they are doing one session per week focusing on VO2maxx (2x10x200m Hill reps). This session is also focusing on improving running economy. By doing more work under or above threshold is the area where you can improve your TTE and where bigger gains can be expected.
bigmig19 wrote:
I thought I would piggy back instead of new thread. I am surprised by the focus on threshold? Bob Larsen was a big threshold guy and no doubt gets good results. However, my understanding is... the recent (last 20 years ish) scientific literature strongly suggests that polarizing your training around threshold is superior? In other words, very little actual threshold, more Zones lower than threshold and workouts on the other side of threshold (VO2max, 90/95%). No ? Or in other words workouts less than 75-80% and workouts above 90. Both of which are not threshold runs. Isnt that the new understanding. Not saying no threshold runs but way less than we thought?
I am familiar with Seiler's work. I know that is what the science says but all of the top middle distance and distance runners are doing a decent amount of threshold and tempo running. Even a guy like Bryce Hoppel does a tempo run each week.
The Ingebrigtsens train a decent amount below threshold. They try to stay in the 2.5-3.5 mmol level (as has already been stated a few times on this thread). Perhaps what Seiler is referring to, and is misinterpreted, is that work at threshold and up to VO2 max is the garbage zone Seiler is referring to. Marisu Baaken has also talked about this. He would train similarly to the Ingebrigtsens (or the Ingebrigtsens train similarly to Baaken) in that he would use the lactate meter and tried to keep is training below 3.5 mmol. He warned that training too much at 4.0 or above (unless doing VO2 work) would lead to injury, burnout, etc.
Where would 2.5-3.5 zone fall in terms of percentage of HR Max?
The Con wrote:
bigmig19 wrote:
I thought I would piggy back instead of new thread. I am surprised by the focus on threshold? Bob Larsen was a big threshold guy and no doubt gets good results. However, my understanding is... the recent (last 20 years ish) scientific literature strongly suggests that polarizing your training around threshold is superior? In other words, very little actual threshold, more Zones lower than threshold and workouts on the other side of threshold (VO2max, 90/95%). No ? Or in other words workouts less than 75-80% and workouts above 90. Both of which are not threshold runs. Isnt that the new understanding. Not saying no threshold runs but way less than we thought?
I am familiar with Seiler's work. I know that is what the science says but all of the top middle distance and distance runners are doing a decent amount of threshold and tempo running. Even a guy like Bryce Hoppel does a tempo run each week.
The Ingebrigtsens train a decent amount below threshold. They try to stay in the 2.5-3.5 mmol level (as has already been stated a few times on this thread). Perhaps what Seiler is referring to, and is misinterpreted, is that work at threshold and up to VO2 max is the garbage zone Seiler is referring to. Marisu Baaken has also talked about this. He would train similarly to the Ingebrigtsens (or the Ingebrigtsens train similarly to Baaken) in that he would use the lactate meter and tried to keep is training below 3.5 mmol. He warned that training too much at 4.0 or above (unless doing VO2 work) would lead to injury, burnout, etc.
Where would 2.5-3.5 zone fall in terms of percentage of HR Max?
Here are the Zones out of a study done on HI:
Zone 1: 0.7 -2.0 mmol = 62 - 82% HRmax (Easy Distance)
Zone 2: 2.0 - 4.0 mmol = 82-92% HRmax (Threshold)
Zone 3: 4.0 - 8.0mmol = 92-97% HRmax (Intervals/Hilwork)
Zone 4: >8.0 mmol = >97% HRmax (Anaerob)
Zone5: Speed work/Max speed
The Con wrote:
I am familiar with Seiler's work. I know that is what the science says but all of the top middle distance and distance runners are doing a decent amount of threshold and tempo running. Even a guy like Bryce Hoppel does a tempo run each week.
The Ingebrigtsens train a decent amount below threshold. They try to stay in the 2.5-3.5 mmol level (as has already been stated a few times on this thread). Perhaps what Seiler is referring to, and is misinterpreted, is that work at threshold and up to VO2 max is the garbage zone Seiler is referring to. Marisu Baaken has also talked about this. He would train similarly to the Ingebrigtsens (or the Ingebrigtsens train similarly to Baaken) in that he would use the lactate meter and tried to keep is training below 3.5 mmol. He warned that training too much at 4.0 or above (unless doing VO2 work) would lead to injury, burnout, etc.
Where would 2.5-3.5 zone fall in terms of percentage of HR Max?
For most distance guys we are talking about very small differences. Compare these two workouts
Threshold training session : 5-6x1600 at HM pace with 45-90s rest
Polarized training session: 4-5x1600 at 10k pace with 60-120s rest
Do you think you are getting radically different training results from either of them.
It would be nice to get actual Ingebristens /Baaken (and yeah he deserves a lot more credit) sessions with complete data like speed, lactate, and heart rate to make them easier to compare with other studies. And you run into individual issues here. Some elite guys LT is at 3.5. Others at 4.5. What is threshold for one is intensity for the other.
For a long time people have thought of paces between easy running and MP as junk quality. Your 15 min 5k guy can go out and run an hour at 6 min pace and some people have had great success with that. But guys like Daniels suggested that either you slow it down to like 6:30 (easy run pace) or speed it up to like 5:30 (MP) and a lot of evidence backs them up. Going the next step and eliminate MP and HM though is tough. Those paces serve as a level of tolerably hard work that is hard to replace. Most people just can't tolerate (seriously try running 2-3 sessions/week at 3-10k pace for 16 weeks) the faster stuff enough to replace tempo runs.
As a practical matter, write out what you think a polarized training week during your base phase would be and then write out what a "Threshold" base week would be and decide if the difference matters to you.
Does anyone know if the Ingebrigtsen do their programm of 4xTH workouts & 1Hillrep between Oct-Feb with or without any recovery week?
Do you think they do this for 3 weeks and than do a recovery week and then repeat or just the same week over and over again?
gold_panther wrote:
Here are the Zones out of a study done on HI:
Zone 1: 0.7 -2.0 mmol = 62 - 82% HRmax (Easy Distance)
Zone 2: 2.0 - 4.0 mmol = 82-92% HRmax (Threshold)
Zone 3: 4.0 - 8.0mmol = 92-97% HRmax (Intervals/Hilwork)
Zone 4: >8.0 mmol = >97% HRmax (Anaerob)
Zone5: Speed work/Max speed
This is excellent info! What do you mean by "HI", and can you please provide a link to the study, or citation? Thank you.
Henrik Ingebrigtsen
Thank you, I see it now, Table 1 from “A Longitudinal Case Study of the Training of the 2012 European 1500m Track Champion”, the same study cited earlier in this thread.